BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Predators is the best sequel film in the Predator franchise so far

Seeing as my opponent has not stated why he thinks predator 2 is the best sequel in the franchise I will now just have to say why I think it wasn't the best sequel seeing as I simple have no argument to counter... The Predator did indeed have a certain fearsome beauty in the very first Predator film. However there was no such luck Predator 2. The predator is indeed imaginary but the people who made this film are not, "Predator 2" speaks sadly of their own lack of curiosity and imagination. All they can give us in the way of an alien is a street mugger with intestines for a face, pincers around his mouth, and an Afro-style braided hairdo. (The creature in this movie is a work of subtle racism. Subliminal clues are slipped in to encourage us to subconsciously connect the menace with black males. One not-so-subtle scene has the predator threatening a Bernhard Goetz type on the subway. This time, the Goetz type meets his match.) The acting in the movie is applied hysteria. Glover, so engaging as a different kind of cop in the "Lethal Weapon" movies, screams and sweats, swears and climbs down tall buildings. He is assisted by a Latino woman, played by the wonderful Maria Conchita Alonso, whose idea of creating an identity for herself at headquarters is to grab a new guy by the crotch until he pleads for mercy. The dialogue is foul and clinical, and the special effects, while expensive, are not interesting. But the film's greatest loss is one of spirit. Audiences lived on a speck in a corner of a vast universe, and what makes us human is our ability to wonder about what's out there. Since we do not know, the fables we create serve only to inspire our dreams. "Predator 2" is a movie whose dreams are angry and ugly. However when Predators came out, after a string of subpar sequels, Predators is a bloody, action-packed reboot takes the Predator franchise back to its testosterone-fuelled roots. The film is set in a Jungle which in truth is where the Predator belongs. Not in running around crime infested city. Following more or less directly from the original Predator film, this amounts to a reasonably clever mash-up of movies like Battle Royale and the Dirty Dozen among other genre exercises as well as the atmosphere of the TV series Lost. The Human characters in Predators guess at first they've been kidnapped and dropped in the Amazon, but later learn they are a few light-years off. These characters quickly piece together that the whole planet is a game preserve where an alien race of humanoid Predators has long hunted big games (including humans) for hunting sports events. [Plus more of what I said in stage 2 as well] Unlike Predator 2 the makers of Predators clearly have a better amount of curiosity and imagination to keep audiences interested and entertained.
Predators is the best sequel film in the Predator franchise so far

Personally, i think the Predator sequels could not have been worse.The first Predator strarring Arnold Schwarzenegger was the best,it had a good storyline and a raw feeling which in todays cinemas is kind of rare.These days it more of animation and graphics throughout the movie.That movie had a sense of roughness in characters and scenes that atleast that time when i was a kid made my hair stand upright The Sequels on the other hand are really badly made.I think Alien Vs Pradators could have been good but the plot was kind of umm(sorry i ve to compromise the euphemism..)"stupid".
Predators is the best sequel film in the Predator franchise so far

Predator is a 1987 American science fiction action film directed by John McTiernan and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. The film had two sequels, Predator 2 (1990) and Predators (2010), as well as two crossover films with the Alien franchise, Alien vs. Predator (2004) and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007), have been made. I have seen all the films and the latest film in the series ‘Predators' is clearly the best sequel to the original film. I reference the film here: http://www.imdb.com... Anyone disagree? And Please bare in mind that this debate is about if the film is the best for people to enjoy overall.
Gene Therapy

Yes, I know that surgeries would not replace the diseased gene, but it would have less risks that we know of and I feel it would be safer that way. Also, I know they would have to take medicine for their disease anyway but would they take 32 pills a day? If we learn to understand gene therapy, how many people could that hurt or would be hurting? Yes there were several deaths and you want to know why they happened? Because their immune systems had a severe reaction to the modified genetics. Not only because they were already very sick. And when I said "society would be less excepting" was that so many people were "healed" or cured" because of gene therapy, the few who weren't, wouldn't have much respect or much of a chance to make friends or get a job. You say gene therapy was developed in the 60's so it is new to us? It has been 54 years of failed attempts at diseases (other than your point of leukemia). You also say gene therapy is "the only hope for a genetic disorder." This is not true as depending on the disease or disorder there are other successful treatments they could do to help them. If we replace healthy cells into unhealthy cells how do you think their body will react? Badly that's how. If they are already sick they shouldn't be going through such a big process of changing genetics that will possibly make them worse. How many lives re scientists willing to handle just to research about gene therapy? You also said "to give them a chance at a normal life". Notice your word 'chance' considering what I have been saying about genetic therapy being unlikely to work. Also, if you do see results they only last about 1 week to 1 month! How many times are you wiling to try and change the traits you were born with to only have short lived results? Think of how many procedures and how much the cost would be that you would have to endure. Do you have any other examples of a genetic disease that was cured other than leukemia? Because I keep seeing leukemia pop up and wonder if there were any others that have been saved. We should widen our horizon to more genetic disorders and diseases to heal. Unequal distribution of wealth doesn't have to do with genetic therapy, you are correct, but it exists and can cause harm to those who cannot afford it. That was my point. What do drugs have to do with genetic therapy other than the points I stated? You stated "drug therapy can only relieve symptoms". I stated that too many drugs were used in gene therapy for it to be safe. Genetic therapy has been studied for 54 years and not many improvements have been made. People have died because of severe reactions to the modified cells. Even if there were improvements they only lasted a little while not completely ridding the patient of disease. Changing ones genetics should not be within our grasp considering they were born with certain traits and we don't have the authority to change them. Genetic therapy should not be used for there are too many risks involved in the treatment.
Gene Therapy

I do think genetic therapy could be able to make a come back and possibly work in the future. But obviously is a work in progress, but don't you think that in 54 years we could have had more improvement? People who have opinions should not be compared to supposed "saving lives". This is not a poll! People believe what they want. If they think that only God should tamper with genetics then let them believe that! How would that get in the way of attempts at changing people's disorders. Also, if you didn't read closely in my last argument, I said that drugs are dangerous and should be very carefully prescribed. But so far, surgery has healed people without risks of new diseases or disorders. Genetic therapy hasn't. That is why I think we should leave it to original therapies before genetic therapy begins to actually work effectively. As I meant to say in round 2 was, why do you think genetic therapy is better than traditional ways of healing? How many lives has genetic therapy actually saved? So far, surgeries have done well helping people lead a "normal life". And genetic therapy doesn't always rid the future family of disease or disorder. It can even cause birth defects and how "normal" is that? Wouldn't you rather just take original therapies like surgery and medication to treat your disease, or would you want to alter your genes with a low chance of it actually working? There are always people who are against certain research, or drugs, so how does this effect the study of gene therapy? After 54 years we should know what we are doing by now, without much risk at all!
Gene Therapy

the concept of gene therapy arose in the 1960's, so it is a new technology for us. In the beginning of any technology, there will be cases when the patient isn't helped, or is even harmed. But no technology has ever been discovered and perfected without risks. It's just part of the process of developing something new. But when it is perfected, it will be able to help millions of families. Do you think that it would be possible for gene therapy to be effective if the future with further research and improvements to the technology? When gene therapy is developed further and there are less risks, would you still think the oppinions of people who don't think we have the skill or authority to use gene therapy are more important that helping save families and change lives? Do you believe that drugs and surgery are more effective then gene therapy? Why? The only way to cure a genetic dissorder is to replace the defective gene with a healthy copy. So gene therapy is the only hope for people with genetic disorders. Gene therapy also has a number of advatages over drug therapy. Drug therapy can only relieve symptoms. It cannot fix the problem. gtherapy.co also states that, "If gene therapy targets the reproductive cells of carriers of such genetic disorders as cystic fibrosis, Parkinson"s disease, or cancer, it is possible that any children the carrier goes on to have would be free of the defective gene and on a bigger scale the disease can be wiped out completely." Gene therapy can diminish the number of people effected with fatal genetic diseases such as cancer, parkinson's disease, cystic fibrosis, etc. Gene therapy is also the only way to insure that a defective gene will not pass through generations. So why are people opposed to gene therapy? I think that giving someone a chance at a normal life and a cure for their disease is more important than ethical issues, and the risks that come with gene therapy. Brandi Rocholl states in his article about gene therapy that, "I believe the reason that these people are opposed to gene therapy is because they see it as something foreign and scary. The reason people are scared is because they do not understand the technique. I think if scientists educate our society, many people would change their minds."
Gene Therapy

Gene therapy so far has been known to help people in times of trouble, like healing damaged parts of the body and curing diseases by inserting genes into cells. The molecular scientists use a tool called Viral Vectors to do so. This is how they transport genetics into certain cells. So, I understand why it seems important and could later advance to become very helpful in the future. A couple examples of gene therapy gone wrong are Jesse Gelsinger and Lindsay Karlin. Jesse had a rare liver disease called Orthanine Transcarbamylamylase. He was brought to gene therapy because he wanted it gone for good. But, he had to take 32 pills a day and his liver was much too weak for the treatment and he died 3 days afterwards. Lindsay Karlin got gene therapy and she had some improvements but they lasted about a week or two and was unsuccessful there are many risk factors to getting gene therapy like arthritis, severe immune reactions, heart disease and diabetes. The other side of this argument may say that this can help heal people and cure them and their future family but really this can cause developmental problems through their kids and the treatment doesn't last very long at all. My opinion is that gene therapy should not be used as much as others believe it should. It is too dangerous and the outcome is hard to decipher.
Gene Therapy

Gene Therapy could help so many people create a better life. Gene therapy is a technique that allows doctors to treat a disorder by inserting genes into a patients cell instead of using drugs or surgery. This new way of treating genetic disorders and other things as well has the potential to help millions of people have a chance at a better life. Many people believe that there are a lot of ethical problems that come along with gene therapy, such as "playing God". They think that we are playing God by altering human beings in a way that we have neither the right or the skill to do. I strongly believe that giving people a chance at having a good life without their sickness getting in the way is so much more important than satisfying the beliefs of people who think gene therapy is ethically wrong because we are doing things that only God has the authority to do.
Rock vs Paper vs Scissors - Fight for Supremacy

Thank you for this debate. Good luck. I will be debating that scissors is the ultimate weapon in the famous game, rock-paper-sccissors. 1)... Rock's have been around sense the creation of the earth. We all know, they are old. They are out of date, out of mind, and out of strength. Scissors have been created by man. Therefor, the technology used is much better, and more powerful than rock. 2) Scissors have blades, almost as sharp as a knife, one could say. When you see someone with a knife, they look dangerous. Scissors show that kind of power. 3) Rocks are old, dull, and small. Basically screaming for mercy. 4) Rock get beat by paper. PAPER. This shows how inconsistent a rock can be. One day it destroys a great power like a scissor, than the next it looses to paper. INCONSISTENT.
Rock vs Paper vs Scissors - Fight for Supremacy

Throughout the history of Debate.org, it has brought you many of the most notable debates on politics, religion, sports, entertainment, and many other fascinating subjects. Today, though, we tackle a new epic debate of which the subject matter has never been fully explored. There is one debate that has been raging throughout the years, re-enacted millions upon millions of times in far-flung reaches of the globe. It is fought over time and again in homes and schools, in burgeoning cities and in the serene countryside. After countless battles, this conflict is not one step closer to its final resolution than the day it first began. No side can conquer; no side will yield. Unchecked, it may well continue until the last human being on Earth has perished. This scourge must end. And it shall. Today, we bring the antagonists together for one deciding battle, to end the conflict that has torn us all, to proclaim a final champion. And so it begins with those time-hallowed words: "On three -- one, two, three!" Yes folks, it's Rock vs Paper vs Scissors in a fight where one must finally triumph and stand over his foes. As Pro, I will make the case that if any one of the three must become the Supreme Champion, it is Rock. Con must therefore choose between either Paper or Scissors for their case. The first round will be acceptance and the naming of either Paper or Scissors for Con to represent. The second round will be opening arguments and clash. The third round will be clash, and the fourth round will be clash and concluding arguments. Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever accepts this debate.
John jay College is the best school ever.

Although John Jay may be intuned with the latest technology it should focus on facilitating resources such as academic advisement. Hiring more staff for the academic advisement office may make life easier for the students and allow them to have a better experience. It may take weeks before a student gets to meet with an academic advisor. It is a drag to go in there and everytime a student does there's a chance he/she might get turned away because there are too many students for the office's staff.
god is false

The branches of a tree are soooooo not random. On your own time you should research Fibonacci numbers and fractal patterns in nature. You look at something that is seemingly chaotic and just because you don't understand the science and math behind it you call it random--it's not! There is more order in the leaves of a tree then there could ever be on a building. when your car breaks down its because you have a crappy car and you probably don't take proper care of it. Also, Iv said in the beginning of the debate that I am not a believer in God but I don't have a problem with religious people. You seem to have a deep issue with religion and it's probably coming from a place of frustration or insecurity. Ill pray for you
god is false

I choose the weight and height of the machine, I make the machine random is like each different branch of a tree springing out in directions When I look at a tree the leaves show me chaos, when I look at a high rise building the windows show me order tell me this, when your car breaks down, did god intend it? then god intend all your actions thus free will doesn't exist and everyone goes to hell because of gods actions nature is natural, I can be mechanical, because Im part machine, knowledge=Machine on the path of being predictable, a demon is riding a bicycle belief=supernatural=future know=natural=Now knowledge=machine=past
god is false

You didn't choose your 'appearance and shape, height, all that' just as the machine has not chosen IT'S own characteristics. Form follows function. Nothing about you or the universe we live in is random, however random it may appear, Anslem Kiefer once said creation and chaos are one in the same--think rube Goldberg machines. What is a machine if not an extension of human nature anyway? Is it not in our nature as humans to create machines? You say everything has two sides (which I agree) but then you give one sided statements. You say nature is mechanical; you call yourself natural; you deny you are mechanical. You cornered yourself into a paradox...
god is false

You do have beliefs. You do have DNA, and random is not natural--its just about the most unnatural thing in the universe. theoretically if there was a single atom that popped RANDOMLY into existence that wasn't supposed to exist. the universe would implode on itself. A machine is something that has to be intelligently manipulated (key word manipulated) in order to generate a desired result. Before that, it is simply a pile of "natural" materials and potential energy--not a machine. 'To say my body is not random is to say it is a machine' . that's right, it is. having life and the fact that you can die is your state of being. that's part of what makes you natural. without life you are SIMPLY A PILE OF NATURAL MATERIALS AND POTENTIAL ENERGY. you say that anything that is created can not be natural. then, you say natural is anything that comes first. apparently the only thing that meets both your requirements for what natural is, is God. As I said before nature is simply a state of being. If I have a mechanical leg does that make me any less natural that you? No, but the state of my nature has simply changed.
god is false

I have no beliefs random is natural, and origin is nature, anything that comes first is nature supernature is in contrast with nature, like superman, and machine comes after nature as well to say my body is not random is to say it is a machine, but I have life, as I can die I don't have dna if its not by a random cause, its not natural, as anything that is created is a machine, and machines and supernature can not exist without nature natural sex on a computer(mechanical) driven by people driven by mechanical needs or joy probably
god is false

you say random is nature. I don't share the same belief. your physical body is not random. your DNA, your sleep wake cycles, every atom in your body can be boiled down to mathematical formulas and programs. If you believe in evolution or economics or politics you know that nothing is truly "random". however, that doesn't mean it cant be natural. I think the question your trying to ask is "what is nature really?" right? 'I would say there is no such thing as mechanical sex' --there is a ton of mechanical sex your on your computer right now I'm sure you can go find some. there are people who make it their goal in life to save endangered animals. they breed these animals in captivity and even in laboratories. they then release these animals into the "wild". all of this happens by way of intelligent design, number crunching and well thought out actions. they cant however control every move and thought of the animals. If there is a God it is very apparent It dose not control our every move and thought either. your argument is that nature dose not truly exist because it is dictated by intelligent programming and predetermined results. but just because something is planned that dose not make it unnatural. My point is that natural dose not mean spontaneous or random. Nature, is simply a state of being.
god is false

generally speaking sex is natural... just as an example lets say two people have sex because they "love" each other (not always the case--but lets keep it simple). if their sexuality is planned and scheduled like many relationships today is that love mechanical? whether it is or isn't dose it not still exist? I don't believe in God so I'm not going to fight you on that topic. I just see flaw in your logic...whether an invention is planned or a "happy accident" all inventions have an inventor.
Abortion violates the Constitution.

I commend your response, Con. It was very well put together. However, I believe that no matter how small, people are people. And that as they can't stand up for themselves, we must protect every life. All life is precious, and every single one should be able to make a difference in the world. In light of the recent Planned Parenthood videos, I have much mistrust in them and think that PP should cease the activities seen in the videos immediately. Unfortunately, most common abortion methods cause intense, long lasting pain, both emotional and physical, to not only the unborn child, but to the mother as well (with the emotional pain only coming to the mother, of course). If we wish to end this pain, we must move away from abortion and towards adoption for mothers that can't support a child. As for the Constitution, no, it does not mention the unborn. However, this makes sense as this was long before anyone even thought about terminating a pregnancy. Before much was known about development of the child while in the womb. As such, I personally believe that under the Constitution, the unborn should be considered people too. Once again, thank you for the great, well-written response.