BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney Princesses as Role Models

I see what you are saying but I disagree completely. The princesses are superficial beings, who are dependent on their princes for them to be a person. They teach children that women are meant for one thing: to accompany a man. They must grab the prince's attention first however, be it by glorious singing by Snow White, Aurora, or Ariel, or by being beautiful like Cinderella, Jasmine, and Belle (AKA Beauty). This is essentially teaching the young girls of society that you MUST be either drop dead gorgeous or an amazing singer for you to end up happy with your "prince". And to continue with that, the princess movies Disney has presented all end with the prince and princess getting married, basically saying that life ends when you get married. Only two of the princesses, Cinderella and Ariel, have follow-up movies of what their life was like after marriage, and neither of those movies where as popular as their original films. Moving onto a different subject, the movie Aladdin shows that, even if your fiance lies to you about who he is the whole time you are engaged, it is okay and that you should marry him anyways. In fact, the movie even makes Aladdin seem cool so then children think it is a-okay to lie about things because hey, if Aladdin can lie and steal and still get to marry a princess and have a pet monkey, nothing bad can happen.
Disney Princesses as Role Models

First of all, overweight characters in Disney movies are not always evil, and evil characters are not always overweight. For example, the fairy godmother in Cinderella, the sultan in Aladdin, and Belle's father in Beauty and the Beast are all what our society would consider to be "overweight," and yet they are far from evil. On the other hand, the stepmother in Cinderella, Jafar in Aladdin, and Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty are all thin, but they are still inherently evil. Moving onto your other arguments, Ariel does not change herself to get prince Eric to fall in love with her. He already is in love with her when she saves him from drowning in her mermaid form. She becomes a human in order to chase after her love, and becoming a human is the only way to do so. Belle's story does not in any form teach girls to "marry the man with the most money." It teaches girls to see the good in others, despite looks and past wrongdoings. The library the beast gives to Belle is a symbol of his generosity, not a bribe to get her to fall in love with him. Belle is not superficial at all. If anything, she is to be commended for her ability to find the positives in any situation.
Disney Princesses as Role Models

Disney has most certainly not broken away from the Barbie-doll figures. Just because they gave a princess big frizzy hair does not imply that princesses come in all shapes and sizes; Merida's waist is still smaller than that of a normal woman's and so are all the other princess'. Not once has there been a princess with the characteristics of a normal person, never mind an overweight one. In fact, almost all of the overweight characters in Disney movies often end up being the evil character. For example, Ursula from The Little Mermaid and Governor Ratcliffe from Pocahontas are the essential villains from their respective movies and are both overweight. Also, you say that the princesses worked against the stereotypes women face but in reality they add fuel to these stereotypes. Princess Ariel left her whole family and everything she ever knew to change herself so that a man she did not even know would notice her. So many of the girls that admire Ariel believe that it is okay to change yourself and lie to a man to get him to fall in love with you. And Belle, she seemingly falls in love with the beast for what? His charming looks and great personality? Seeing as he had neither of those, it was probably for that giant castle he had. Her story teaches young girls to marry the man with the most money, regardless of his looks or cruelties, because they are the ones with the best libraries. Cinderella teaches your daughters that if you do your chores and are obedient, Prince Charming will come and take you away, essentially saying that the only thing to strive for in life is to get married. It is obvious how materialistic and anti-feminist these princesses are, so why would anyone want their children looking up to them?
Disney Princesses as Role Models

Disney princesses have, in fact, often been portrayed as stereotypical "perfect" young women as far as their appearances go. However, in recent years, Disney has broken away from these Barbie-doll type figures and given children the new idea that princesses come in all shapes and sizes. Merida, for example, is presented with untamed, frizzy hair and a hatred for overly feminine clothing, but we are constantly reminded of the beauty of her uniqueness throughout the film "Brave." Although many of the other princesses are portrayed with an idealistic image, it is important to remember that in most cases, the heroine or main female character in any movie, cartoon or live-action, Disney or not, is similarly represented in a nearly perfect way. Most importantly, the intended focus of Disney princess movies is not the beauty or perfection of the princess, but rather her bravery, kindness, strength, etc. If overcoming obstacles that endanger a princess or the people she cares about requires her to be defiant, so be it. But in many instances, this defiance is directed toward the stereotypes women frequently face. Mulan fights in place of her father to save his life, something considered unacceptable for a woman to do. Jasmine insists on choosing her own suitor, regardless of the fact that a woman in her location and time period was expected to agree to marry whomever was chosen for her. Belle refuses to marry Gaston, an arrogant, disrespectful man who admired her only for her looks. In my opinion, the Disney company has not created stereotypes, but broken them.
Disney Princesses as Role Models

Disney Princesses have been around for nearly 80 years and have had major effects on young girls, who are the main targeted audience of the movies. The fairy tales that the Disney Company has based their princess movies off of are originally gruesome tales which are rooted in evil and revenge. The way Disney has made them "appropriate" for young girls is by changing the main characters into stereotypical Barbie-doll type women. These "princesses" are usually defiant towards authority and willing to do anything just to get a man to notice them. One even went far enough to change her physical nature and leave her family and home to pursue a man she did not even know. These rebellious women are the ones that young girls have looked up to for generations and I think it needs to change.
80's hair metal is better than modern metalcore.

I will argue that modern metalcore music is better than 80's hair metal by rebutting Pro's arguments as well as providing my own.Lyricism Pro argues that in 80's hair metal, the lyrics are powerful and important. This is the same in Metalcore. Take this example from "Farwell To Shady Glade" by metalcore band Of Mice & Men:"All these memories see right through you to me. I keep losing sleep cause the words you failed to say. Looking back at mistakes you were wrong. Should have seen this coming all along. No days I could take, no months I could spend at your waste. Oh, you'll never know"Pro says that Metalcore only involves screaming. How could something as well constructed as this verse be nothing more than "screaming"? Pro also says metalcore is about hate and violence. I think Pro is confusing metalcore with screamo. Screamo is emo lyrics delivered with screamed vocals, usually with a violent or negative topic. Metalcore is a mix of extreme metal and hardcore punk. Metalcore vocals can go anywhere from softly sang to deathly growls. It depends on the instrumentation that accompanies it that gives metalcore its name. Its also ludicrous for Pro to claim that all metalcore is hateful and violent. That's like saying all Pop is about sex, all Rap is about drugs, all Punk is about rebellion, etc. It just simply isn't true. Rebutting Pro thinks metalcore is only screaming/growling. Not all metalcore vocalists scream or growl, many of them sing. And many others have a talent for both. It might seem like it requires little to no talent to scream, but without practice and proper care, screamers can damage their vocal cords permanently. Pro claims that he can deliever an effective scream without practice, but I doubt he has ever tried with an entire band behind him, in front of 1,000+ people. I bet his scream wouldn't be so effective then. Visual Metalcore performers also carry a strong stage presence and fashion ability. Most of them do this by getting tattoos or wearing leather, dying their hair, growing it out, etc.____________________________Link to that Of Mice & Men song:
80's hair metal is better than modern metalcore.

80's hair metal (or glam rock) is better than modern metalcore for three simple reasons. These reasons are:1. The lyrics are powerful and are about something important in 80's hair metal.2. They sing their lyrics with a technique known as power singing. Whereas modern metalcore simply involves screaming(not saying that I don't like this, I simply prefer the former)3. They look better and have a greater stage presence in hair metal.So, reason 1. The lyrics and subsequently the songs have a much more powerful sense of importance in hair metal. A good example of this is 'Home Sweet Home' by Motley Crue. It has been voted as one of the best power ballads in the world (17th). The term power ballad means a song about love and romance while conveying it in a powerful, rock'n'roll style. The song represents Motley Crue's desire to go back to what they love, even if that is away from music (shown by the use of it as an encore for their final tour at download 2015). This shows the honesty in the song and it's lyrics saying (or singing) 'I'm on my way, home sweet home' a feeling we have all felt and can relate to, unlike metalcore about hate and violence which is not always relatable. Another example of a heavier hair metal song with the same vocal power and lyrical meaning is 'youth gone wild' by Skid Row. This song shows how society has rejected youth and called them 'problems child' because they want to have fun and be themselves.2. Power singing is greater than modern metalcore screaming or growling. Vocalists who have the ability to power sing show greater range and vercitility on how they can sing as well as making it more appealing to listen to. It conveys an ability and shows how it has taken hours of practice, whereas I, without any training manages to create an effective scream. Power singing means people can understand the lyrics and appriciate a great song (such as Poison's 'every rose had its thorn') without having to be a metal head.3. The visual aesthetics of a hair metal band is greater than that of the modern metalcore group. The long hair shows how they are free and can have hair in a way that society may not feel is appropriate. The costumes may also convey a freeness in themselves and their sexuality, such as Vince Neil's look from Motley Crue's 'Shout at the Devil album'. The dramatic visuals of Kiss and Twisted sister demand a greater stage presence than the average modern metalcore band due to the eye catching makeup and costume. And although these twisted visuals are odd, they are accepted as how people look, and each band has a different look, compared to the practically identical visual looks of a modern metalcore band.To conclude my debate, although metalcore created good music and has many notable and impressive bands, the genre of 80's hair metal outweighs the scale of greatness due to the three main points that I have presented to you.
Living things on other earth like planets.

Sorry for late reply. I was busy with my school work ^^ Now here we go, my last argument. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Answers for your question "Oh? And what might this sunlight be converted into? And how would the planet go about transforming the energy, exactly?" "How does the sunlight become edible material" I"ll be answering two questions of Con here. In Earth, plants use photosynthesis to convert sun light into sugar and oxygen. The planet, which is like a solar panel, could do something like photosynthesis. "What are these cells feeding of" Well, if the planet could do something similar to photosynthesis, the cells would"t have problem for food. But now, how do these cells eat these products? I have two theories. Firstly, the cells can eat the food like us. (find the food and simply eat it) Secondly, lets think the planet itself is a living thing. Then, the planets can "bring" the food to the cells. For an example, in the planet can control its air, (some kind of gas) it can use its air like hands. Now these theories/answers can explain that it is possible for aliens thrive in other planets. """""""""""""""""""""""" Now the hard one, to prove aliens that aliens exist. But I will try my best to prove that aliens exist. http://www.express.co.uk... This site here shows writings, statue and UFO crash. The site says that the writing, statue and UFO crash is in Mars. So, studies have said that Mars had water is the past. This is proved by pebble like stones and erosion caused by rivers. By human common sense, living things need water. So people think life could or did exist in Mars. These pictures prove that list exists outside earth. Now Con is likely to say that these pictures are fake. Well we don't know. But one thing I want to ask is. When did these alien/UFO sightings start? What I think is that somebody did have seen an alien or UFO. Then other people started to see alien or UFO. But someone, started to tell lies. This made it very hard for people to tell the difference between a lie and truth. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I thank Con for accepting my challenge. He is a very good at debating. At first, I have though lightly of my topic. This was a very hard fight. I'm looking forward to Con's reply.
Living things on other earth like planets.

Thank you for your questions. I will try to answer them! Before answering your questions, these are some the sites. https://www.quora.com... http://www.goliath.com... http://www.mirror.co.uk... "As this is Pro's assertion, it is his burden to explain how this energy gets into the planet." For an example, the planet could get energy from sunlight. The planet could maybe be like a solar panel. "I would also like Pro to say how the life itself would come to the planet how would the first life form begin? We can't have life without, well, life!" Well Living things on our planet, Earth, began as single living cells> We do not know where these cells come from but they could have came form earth or were produced by the conditions on Earth at the time. (http://www.bbc.co.uk...) Like the same, the planet's life could have formed there or came from somewhere else.
Living things on other earth like planets.

I was kind of worried that might happen. With this, let's get into my Rebuttal! Rebuttal:"Maybe the creatures could get energy from other things than eat and drink? For an example, they could "suck" energy out from their planet. " So basically, the aliens are doing photosynthesis, with energy from their planet. The problem is, though, where would this energy come from? I could imagine this, but then there's the question of "When and how did this energy come from? " As this is Pro's assertion, it is his burden to explain how this energy gets into the planet. I would also like Pro to say how the life itself would come to the planet how would the first life form begin? We can't have life without, well, life! UFO Sightings:"There are few people who say they have seen an alien or UFO. But is true? " I doubt it. "I'd like to believe it is true. So I'm going to use alien and UFO sightings as my evidence. " Yeah, no. Those people could either be mistaken, or just flat out lying. If Pro does show some UFO sightings (which he hasn't linked us any yet), I'll be glad to refute that. Argument:Pro's Burden:Pro has the burden of proof, meaning he has to prove that aliens do in fatc exist. So far, he's kind of failed. I told him what he needs to do, so he should answer my questions in the next round. Let's see what those answers are.
Living things on other earth like planets.

Thanks for posting your argument! This debate is hard, but I will try my best to not give up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "What Pro is suggesting is that some kind of life can survive without nutrients. Not needing anything to breathe, I could imagine that. Not having anything to live off of at all... can it really survive?" I'm not suggesting that they don't have to live off anything. Maybe the creatures could get energy from other things than eat and drink? For an example, they could "suck" energy out from their planet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are few people who say they have seen an alien or UFO. But is true? I'd like to believe it is true. So I'm going to use alien and UFO sightings as my evidence. If there are aliens or other kind of living creature out there, there may be races who are advanced in technology than us, humans. Some people may ask, "Then why don't they attack us, like in the movies?" I think they don't attack us because they may see us as merely stupid creatures who fight among themselves. If they have an advanced technology, I bet they have a united world, so they can concentrate on technology or other things. But we are having war between countries and in the country.
Living things on other earth like planets.

Let's get into my rebuttals first. Rebuttals:Analyzing Pro's site;I'm much too lazy to read the entire article. I suggest Pro tell me certain quotes from this article that could help his position that life exists outside of Earth. Voters shouldn't have to read the entire article to cast a decision. I read some of it, and it basically says they're looking for life. Whether they have or not is beyond me, and, again, I won't search. Pro's Opening paragraph;"We do not have evidence to prove that there are living creatures in other earth-like planets. " Yet, the burden is on Pro to show that kind of life exists. "But one thing I'd like you to keep in mind is on earth, most living things need food, air, light, and water. BUT, that doesn't mean creatures on other earth-like planets need air. Maybe they doen't even need food or water! ! "What Pro is suggesting is that some kind of life can survive without nutrients. Not needing anything to breathe, I could imagine that. Not having anything to live off of at all. .. can it really survive? Pro's 2nd paragraph;"If [The Universe] is so big, we can't be the only living thing in the universe. " Who knows? We could very well be the only planet containing the essentials for life! While a lot of alien believers use this exact reasoning, it can be dismissed easily as an Appeal to Probability; a logical fallacy. Argument:Point 1; Lack of EvidenceDisproving an alien race is a lot like trying to disprove God; it's pretty much impossible. I'll admit that. Then again, how easy is it to prove it? I'm sorry if you were expecting an easy first debate, Pro. But, alas, the entire Burden of Proof (What he must prove) is all on Pro to prove that it is likely (How about 60%? ) that aliens do in fact exist. As far as I know, aliens haven't been shown to exist, and doing so is tough. People often dismiss photos as being photoshopped. Pro must show something like fossils, possible plants or liquid that a being from that planet could feed off of. Closing thoughts:Again, Pro, if you were expecting an easy debate, sorry. But I do wish you come back, and post more topics. Keep getting better at debating, and maybe challenge me to another topic? Anyways, if you do wish to proceed with this debate, I'll be waiting.
Living things on other earth like planets.

http://edition.cnn.com... Earth-like planet-- Have an atmosphere, water and land We do not have evidence to prove that there are living creatures in other earth-like planets. But I believe that there are many living things in other earth-like planets. But one thing I'd like you to keep in mind is on earth, most living things need food, air, light, and water. BUT, that doesn't mean creatures on other earth-like planets need air. Maybe they doen't even need food or water!! One reason for my belief is that the universe is huge. We don't even know how big it is. If it's so big, we can't be the only living thing in the universe. Discoveries of earth-like planets are increasing through out the year. Chances of finding living things out side our planet is increasing.
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. (STRICTLY VALUE LD)

This is a value/criterion based Lincoln-Douglas Debate. In order to keep the standard speech format for LD, the affirmative will post their opening arguments in the first round. Rounds: 1. a) [this] b) affirmative opening case 2. a) negative opening case and refutations b) first affirmative rebuttal 3. a) negative rebuttal and closing arguments b) second affirmative rebuttal and closing arguments.
music and art education made compulsory for all school students

I am not saying that music or art is not important. As some people may like music and art, some students may not like music or art. My argument is that students needs to get the chance to choose not forced to learn them. If music and art is so important, only people who like it or are good at them could take the class. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, as you have been rebutted to my argument, talking about math and science, however, it is not appropriate in this debate because it is talking about music and art education, not math or science, english. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As I have been mentioning, mandatory subjects can give lots of stress. When students are forced to do what they do not want to do, they obviously get stress. An research showed that stress causes the genes to change to cause diseases. Obviously, music and art is not that important to risk the student's health or even their lives. To conclude, music and art should not be made compulsory because it can give damage to the health.
music and art education made compulsory for all school students

You mention developing stress from doing activities we don't like, yet there are many students who aren't such big fans of courses like math, science, or english. If you'd enter a random classroom, chances are, they'd probably claim hate it. So, does that mean that they should not be compulsory? Second of all, music is shown to lower stress. Many turn to music for comfort, and for relaxation. And, sometimes, it just sort of inspires you. Music & arts are very important. If they weren't, would they play such an important role in our lives today ? If art & music are not important, are you claiming that people like painters, dancers, writers, actors, and musicians are not important as well? There are many people, who were involved in the arts, that contributed greatly to our society. Art isn't just painting. It's also writing, cooking,dancing ,acting and designing. It's everything from a novel, to the shows on tv, The world without art, would certainly be rather dull. I ask you, is that what you'd like our future to be ?