azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

Unstableness? What are you talking about? Maybe you're thinking of Windows blue screen of death ;)
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: ios

No I'm pretty sure I'm talking about "Crash Droids" every android Ive owned freezed or crashed more then 3 times a day. And i barely had any apps on them.
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: ios

That has never happened to my Android devices. Maybe you were trying to use it as an iOS Device ;)
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

I prefer Android, simply because I like the open-source nature of it. I also like it more because you can get a much greater variety of devices that use it. Your only option for ios 5 is an expensive iPhone. The Samsung Galaxy SIII and HTC One X are both superior in terms of hardware and have, in my opinion, better software- they are also competitive price wise. Alternatively, you can go for the Galaxy Ace, HTC Desire, any number of Sony devices... and many more.
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

Well, lets not forget the iphone's famous White Screen of Death. And not the kind you just press the reset button to fix, the hardware kind. I only owned my iphone for ONE year and I got the white screen of death. It couldn't be fixed either because it was a hardware failure. Apple just said I needed to buy a new one. Well, guess what, I didn't. Android, which doesn't have white screens of death, is far superior to iOS in every possible conceivable way. I mean come on, idon't support flash, idon't support Open Source Software; whatever idon't DROID DOES. :)
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: ios

Dude yr lame, you all use the same thing about ios not being open source cause that's all you can think if. And you don't know yr facts, the iPhone 4 and 4s actually do support flash.
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

Better that what you used. This is basically all your arguments: "Your an Android fanboy" "Your an Android fanboy" "Your an Android fanboy". At least I had a valid points. And I like how you didn't even mention the famous Apple White Screen of Death. I got you now ;) .
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: ios

Nah bro you didn't get me. me or any of my friends have even heard of this white screen of death thing you speak of so it must not be a big deal. also nobody i know with an iphone has had this wsd crap
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

Oh, come on man. Stop making this so hard for me ;) . All right, here; I'll give you some proof.The White Screen of Death is when the device fails to boot and hangs on just a blank, white screen indefinitely without booting. It could be either one of two possible things. 1. It could be a software failure. This could be fixed easily by simply holding the Home and Power button for like a minute thirty (hard reset).2. It could be a hardware failure. This is permanent and cannot be fixed by holding the Home and Power button. This is what happened to me. I didn't have a warranty, so I just threw it away and got an Android.You can read about it here or watch about it here
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

All the way for ANDROID man, seriously what is better? :)
Debate: ios 5 vs Android 4.0
Side: Android

Android is a FREE OS and is better in terms of speed and specs when compared with the price.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

It won't happen by 2017. But I think it makes sense to make your identification be yourself. I mean, we're already using out thumbs to unlock our phones, and even enter passwords sometimes. I expect that to expand over the coming years.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

But I think it makes sense to make your identification be yourself. OH the contradictions you Democrats make. Democrats call voter ID racist but microchips make sense to you for identification to be yourself. Democrat you can't have it both ways.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

You are too fucking dumb to understand either argument.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

You need microchips to identify who you are but not an ID to identify who you are when you vote. That makes sense coming from a Democrat. Not really but you tried.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

You don't need to identify yourself when you go to the polls because aren't rigging the election that way. Checking ID for voting will prevent 0 fake votes. It is completely useless to check ID when voting. Is that way enough for you to understand?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

If you don't need to identify yourself what is the purpose of a microchip ? Your fellow Democrat above said we need to identify who we are. Which way does it work ?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

We needed to show identification for things other than voting. Anywhere you currently show identification could be replaced with checking a microchip.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Checking a microchip means you will have to show identification of who you are when you vote. You are now not opposed to that when it becomes law and you signed up for it.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

Why? There is ever a reasonable why to anything you say. Are we going to scan people's cop when the go for a walk? Why would having a new id mean that we would stay checking id?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

But I think it makes sense to make your identification be yourself as stated by your fellow Democrat. Must not count for when one is voting.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

It doesn't matter what your identification is if you don't need identification. Does it matter if you use a driver's license for identification or yourself for identification when walking down the street? No because you don't need identification in that instance.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Okay so you don't need identification when police officers ask for it whether you walking , driving , riding a bicycle or on a motorcycle. Once microchips are implanted one can refuse to have that scanned at any point. You really believe that ? If you do you have to much faith in government that does not care about you.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

You do need an id for driving dipshit. There is nothing stopping the government from harassing you right now over id. If a cop wanted to, he could check your id at the polls to prevent you from voting. If he did there would be complaints and the actions would be stopped. The evil government does not abuse its power by me having identification. It can already abuse power if it wants to.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

But the real question I have to ask is should it be required by law? Most Americans have a smartphone or some kind of electronic device that connects to the internet, but it's not required. It is however required to have an ID. But chips take it a step forward and now, the government can track wherever you are without your permission and it's inescapable, Unless, of course, you dig it out of your skin. Which could be painful and/or lethal. In essence, the idea is good for a utopian society. But we're not there yet, and evil exists and something this far makes me nervous that people want this to happen. Do you think it should be a choice or do you think it should be required by law?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

A choice of course, especially in the short term. My argument is more that it will become required only by necessity, not by legislation.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

A choice of course, especially in the short term. My argument is more that it will become required only by necessity, not by legislation. Do you really believe the words you have said here. Choice of course in the short term ?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

Yes .
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Key words written by the Democrat is short term. Tell me what happens in the long term Democrat.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

This isn't even a democratic rant. This is a nerd rant. Int is my belief that in the long term, we will stop using government issued ID, and instead have our DNA and stuff registered with the government, and simply use things like our fingerprints, eye scans, and so on to serve as our identification, credit cards, etc..
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

So you Democrats will be happy with that when it comes to voting ? Democrats are opposed to any identification when it comes to voting but any other need for identification is good in your view.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

Nope! Democrats tend to be against voter ID laws because it's unnecessary and negatively targets minorities.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

Required by law? No. It should be a choice, the moment you force someone to change their body is the moment you (in this case the government) oversteps its bounds. If a person decides they want to have a chip implanted to make things easier for themselves that's one thing, but forcing someone is a different ball of wax.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

Following Aristotle's virtue ethics(most favored ethical theory) we should improve our body and mind to its utmost capability and capacity respectively.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

How does allowing the government to track us and decide if we live or die "improve our body and mind"?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

implants shouldn't happen but they will, 100% guaranteed.The fusion of man and machine will happen. It's inevitable.Soon your phone won't be something you hold.I'm telling you, my clairvoyant powers already told me this as a 6 year old.I knew where this is heading and it won't be good in the long run.They will use the fear of losing your kids to get people to vote for implants.There's nothing more powerful to convince someone that has lost their kid and when u play on that fear, you'll have them. Tiny non-intrusive little implants, as thin as paper, and as small as speck of sand, slip it under your skin, vola! Easy as pie. It shouldn't ever happen, but it will. I saw it.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Personally, I think implants provide us with much more risks than benefits to our well-being. While it can potentially solve some of the problems in our modern society, there are other alternatives yet to be explored and it is quite daunting to know that the government knows where you always are and will be, with the power to terminate you if they see fit.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Does NBC know that 2017 is next year? We can't even get everyone to use the microchips in credit cards. How the heck would we push out human implanted microchips in one year?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Whether it should or shouldn't happen is, at this stage, irrelevant as the population at large would never agree to such an intrusive measure being compulsory.  I mean, can you imagine ''Powerful Pedro'' the drug baron and his minions agreeing to such a crime busting step? Maybe when the technology is sufficiently advanced there will be a few weak minded individuals who will consent to their implantation voluntarily. After that we will have the formation of the 'thought police' when the predictions in George Orwell's book, '1984' will be complete.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

I completely agree that it would never become compulsory, but I don't think that means it couldn't become necessary. I mean, cell phones aren't required, and yet most people need them to accomplish many daily tasks. And credit cards aren't required, but they are still used almost universally.Imagine if major, private companies made it standard that you paid with a chip? I can easily see that happening. Not by 2017, but definitely in the not-too-distant future.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

You're not comparing like with like.  Whilst the technological gadgets to which you have referred can, and do record many of the personal habits of their users, the various features can be disengaged or the entire hi-tech apparatus switched off completely at it's owner's will, and if so wished, permanently.  In other words the user has complete control over the device which is powerless to engage in the involuntary information gathering process if it's owner decides to limit or cancel it's features.  The implanting of a permanent microchip which could, and probably would record every conversation, every social/anti-social and professional action is a preposterous notion and will never be accepted by the people of any society.  There are few, if any, profit minded companies that would introduce such a consumer unfriendly, ''BIG BROTHER'' form of trading.  Only in such regimes as North Korea would any government impose such nightmarish electronic shackles on their citizens.  A sort of inbuilt ''black box''.  If we wish to ''SPECULATE'' about what may happen in the future then we are entering into the surreal world of the crystal ball hocus pocus which may have some entertainment value, but has no place in a rational debate. As a footnote, can you imagine what a field day the world's hi-tech criminals would have with such a scenario?
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants should happen

I agree. I was more going off on a tangent, implying that something along the liens of what is described is likely to happen. And I honestly don't think our phones, or internet cookies, are too far away from what your describing, sad to say.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

In a perfect world, where there was no such thing as greed, corruption, the desire to murder, etc, sure. Obviously, we do not, and will never live in a world like that. No, implants would be a terrible idea for even maybe the slightest chance (and it's way bigger than a slight chance) that the government could take advantage of this and start a new kind of tyranny. It would be an inescapable kind of slavery if it made it that far, which would be inevitable at some point. I believe that it should be a choice. The moment it becomes law is where the line is crossed. If you are comfortable with the safety provided with the sacrifice of freedom, then you are free to choose that choice. But don't force others to put the chip inside of them.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

In your ideal world there'd be no need for them in the first place.Think before you talk.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

First off, the claim that NBC said we're all gonna have those chips implanted within 14 months or so from today is total bullshit. Prove me wrong by giving us a link, please. Otherwise I am going to claim you either totally mis-heard the claim or just plain made it up and pulled it out of your ass.And despite what the conspiracy theorists and Snowden-esque paranoid types say, I really don't think we will have mandatory ID chip implants anytime soon. Almost assuredly not within my lifetime. Oh...they will be offered on a voluntary basis, as they already are with pets, but mandatory? No way, Jose. The legal and beurocratice backlash against such a proposed law will be overwhleming. And will tie-up the courts for years after Uncle first even gets around to TRYING to have the law instilled.And you know what? They really don't need us to have RFID chips in our forearms. In case you're not aware, Big Brother already can find you if they want to, in a matter of minutes. Given all of your tracks and trails with your computers, social media; cell phones; government ID's and utility bills; banking info....ad nauseum.Ten bucks and my left nut say that if at 7:30 a.m. today some NSA spook picks up his red phone and says, "Bring me SlapShot ASAP" that within, oh, 15 minutes tops, a black van will be pulling up beside me on the sidewalk outside of the Starbucks I just came out of with my Vanilla Latte on the way to class. So who needs the chips? You already sort of have one in your phone, anyway. Uncle don't need 'em yet. At least not for a while.LOLSS
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

I agree even if they did start doing this it wouldn't be mandatory. That said, the argument to the lack of needing the chips quickly falls apart. As I sit here in my office, yes the government could easily track me based on the location of my cell phone. However, if I leave my office but leave my phone, I can no longer be tracked with it. A phone is easy to get rid of, an implanted chip not so much.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

What facades as government surveillance, soon will become criminal surveillance. The chip's signal isn't something that can't be tracked by any skilled hacker who knows the password for a satellite. Before you know it, the Mob are watching your every move, one step too close to a police officer and you're assumed to be snitching and your whole family is raped and murdered.
Debate: Should humans have microchips implanted in them?
Side: Implants shouldn't happen

Of course I don't think it should happen. There could've no greater threat to freedom.But what I would indeed like to see is the alleged story from NBC if you can provide it.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

i like Apple a lot more in every way! especially the iOS 7.. loving itt!
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

I think that Iphone is better, because it is easy to touch and use.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Iphone is better because it is made it is more Practical than samsungS5
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

i like Apple more than any company ,because they make the life easier to us. and it has a unique design.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

apple is better of course because samsung don't improve them self they made all the phone same each other
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Apple software is security , and hardware made of metal so it has hard body , not broken fast . this makes apple better for his customer .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

apple for sure , they have a lot of tools better than samsung and they have many devices
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Samsung as well has many aspects better than apple. Eg:cost. Speaking of a common man going to office daily on bike and he gets a call while driving. If he has a costly iPhone he will have to take special care of it and answering a call in such a case will become difficult. On the other hand if he has a samsung device which is obviously not as costly as an iPhone he need not worry that much and it can be of more rough and tough use. Talking in terms of devices offered, even samsung has many models which can be bought by the customer as per convenience and budget.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

i wish evreyone to argue now come on baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaby .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

of course apple , because they are who invented the touching phones idea first
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

apple is better , because there technology is more safier
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

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

apple , because they started the andriod technology.............................................................................
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

apple is better because its steve jobs technology and he is creative,
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Of course Apple is better Apple has the fastest chip in the world which is the A6X chip and Samsung doesn't. Apple has about 50 billion apps and Samsung doesnt. Apple has a wider variety of touch screen products which makes it better. Some of the best things Apple has is iTunes, free text messaging, and the Mac book. Samsung and Apple both have phones and that's where you can tell the difference. Apple phones have a better quality and better functionality. Most people like iPhones. And by the way Apple has IOS 6.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Apple is better Apple is better as Samsung has been copying it all the time. You can clearly see how Samsung has completely based it's products on Apple's iPhone, iPad, and even iPod. Apple products don't glitch and they work much faster than Samsung's Products. Has anyone noticed how Samsung even copied Siri after the iPhone 4S was announced?
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Of course it is! Apple is original. They had the idea of the smartphone before Samsung. The iPhone 5 is more durable than the Samsung s4 and is easier to use. The iPhone is simple and easy to use. The picture quality is far superior. The sleek design is better than Samsung because you can easily use it with one hand. APPLE IS WAY BETTER!
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Apple were the first to have the original idea of a touch screen phone, and called it the iPhone. After copyrighting it, they were soon to be copied by Samsung.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Apple is WAAYYY better! Apple has a much better screen and build and a better looking phone. Samsung is just too wide. They should just stop trying. Go back to making fridges and T.V.S! Apple has way more apps and on samsung tablets, they just make the phone apple bigger! Besides, apple has an easier-to-use interface. Samsung is just confusing.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Awesome Better and Quality Apple is much better than Samsung because well, it has better quality and as you know Quality beats quantity. Also, I believe the 4g and Lte of apple is better ad faster in terms of internet speed. If you like Samsung please drop that "like" and came and join the everlasting amazingness of Apple.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Came up with first touch screen technology Apple came up with the first touch screen technology and their latest phone iPhone 5s and the iPad air beats any other company wheatear it's for tablet or it's phone. S4 has 2gb of ram while iPhone has 1gb but still Apple beats their s4 in graphics and speed. To find some of samsungs applications you have to click apps and then you can find it while on the iPhone it all there all you have to do is swipe left to right.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

iphone has more properties than glaxy................................................................................................................................................................