BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
plays are better than movies

1. Don't flounder. In one movie, not multiple movies, the same thing happens over and over. In a play, as I said before, you can add little distinct changes. 2. Yes but mess ups rarely happen and the actors are trained for the situations like that and end up making the play more humorous. In movies, the actors rely on the technology and are stiff in the standards of "perfect" so there is no additional, unexpected, humor. 3. Not everyone can afford good speakers and nice TV's. 4. The animation makes the movie unreal and gory as I stated before, and unfortunately, that is where most directors are going. The acting is the fun part, to see how the actors of a play can escape their earthly bonds and slip to a surreal performance. It is also fun to see them toe the bonds with the costumes, singing and the stage tricks and trapdoors they have.
plays are better than movies

Rebuttals 1. What do you mean, "unlike a movie where the same thing happens over and over without difference"? In different movies, different things happen, just like in different plays, different things happen. 2. Movie actors and stage actors both train for years. However, because a movie has multiple takes, they can film the same scene many times and choose the final, so the final movie is perfect, while in a play, you mess up, too bad.3. In a movie, there are also real people singing. If you have good speakers, it would be just as good as a play. 4. In a play, the actors are bound to acting it out, with no special effects or animation to make it more vivid or exciting. In a movie, there is animation to make the movie the way the director wants. Conclusion: Movies are better because of multiple takes to remove mistakes, animation, and technology.
plays are better than movies

Sorry, I have been very busy but here are rebuttals and clarifications. 1. special we will say is unique and distinct. I will add that plays change every night when actors try something new onstage. It adds to the fun and you never know what you will get. unlike a movie where the same thing happens over and over without and difference. 2. Please! the same thing is so for stage actors. They train and train for years as well. Not only that but they don't rely on multiple takes but have to do the whole show without stopping. Special effects are easy to pick out and make movies a lot more gory than they should be. But that is a debate for another day. 3. I told you. The opening scene with real people singing in perfect harmony beats all canned music. It is just like watching a concert rather than listening to your iPod. No Contest. 4. In a movie they can either go in animation or people. play they can only go people. The actors are bound to that but still make the play fun.
plays are better than movies

This looks interesting. What is stupid is the is the outrageous character limit. Rebuttals 1. My opponent does not define "special". I do not know what he means by "special". 2. Actually movie actors also require lots of talent. People train years to become actors, and the actor has to act exactly how the character would act. The fact that play actors have less technology does not make plays more "realistic". In a movie, you can use the special effects to make it more realistic. 3. Please explain more. You gave no description of how the play was better than the movie. 4. Costumes are unrealistic and clumsy, while in a movie, the animations are much more realistic and awing. Also, some movies do require actors to wear costumes.
plays are better than movies

post first argument on round one. No Rebuttal. Round 2 is rebuttal. Round three is close up with final points Argument: Plays are better than movies because: 1. You see it live. It is an exclusive performance you can only see at that time. That makes it more special than an everyday movie. 2. requires more talent. In a movie you can have voice overs and auto-tune and special effects. In a play, the actors have to rely on skill and what they have. This makes it more realistic. 3. The play is a lot more inspirational. If you have ever gone to Lion King you will see what I mean. The opening scene gave me shivers while in the movie I am just board. 4.The costumes are more fun. It is fun to see what the play comes up with for costumes. In the Lion King The costumes are amazing and add a sense of awe to the play. I would thank you to abide by the rules and accept my argument.
Does God exist

Rebuttal 1"Nothing in the English language means no existence. If I said I had nothing for lunch, it doesn't mean I had something for lunch. Krauss is changing the meaning of nothing to mean something. In Krauss' book, he states nothing is empty space with low levels of energy"That type of nothing is a type of nothing, it is why we call it nothing. Other wise it would be something. You keep failing to respond to the fact that it is more logical to assume nothing can come from nothing, which even Steven Hawking believed and which you did not respond to.My adversary also fails to respond to the fact how he knows there was a time before the big bang.Rebuttal 2"My opponent states that there is life elsewhere in the cosmos. I wounder how he knows this. Did astro biologists finally find life on other planets?"I can arrive that that assumption the same way you can arrive at the fact that is a Christ, except this is a more logical assumption. Life itself could mean plant life or just where something is living. Remove the fact that we are 1 in billions of galaxies, we are one in a billion species. We still are not special no matter how you look at it. We are just the one that evolved far enough to question it. Rebuttal 3"My opponent asks if God were to condone rape would it make it good. Well, sorry, but the answer is yes. God doesn't say rape is good, but if he did it would be good."This speaks for itself. If God could command anything, then he could easily not be morally ethical. Since this is the case we can easily justify subjective morality. Since you are basing the fact morality comes from something and can be altered. In that case there would be no need for a God. Rebuttal 4"My opponent says that there were many people who had motives to steal the body of Jesus. This isn't true. Jews don't believe in a savior. So, why would they steal the body to prove something the don't believe in?"Think about the disciples or thousands of people in the bible whom believed in him. If we are assuming he was put in a tomb and the bible is true, he had followers. So it is quite logical to assume someone would be willing to falsify it. In ClosingMy adversary has almost derailed, straw-maned, or just flat not mentioned most of the points I made. I said this the first time I debated him, it seems as if he listened to a William Lane Craig lecture and did not fully grasp the context of the material that was being taught. He hit the key points in the arguments, but provided no solid foundation for belief.I provided multiple and logical reasons as why we don't need a God, and my adversary has failed to meet his BOPIn the end he did not support the resolution that he claimed.
Does God exist

Nothing in the English language means no existence. If I said I had nothing for lunch, it doesn't mean I had something for lunch. Krauss is changing the meaning of nothing to mean something. In Krauss' book, he states nothing is empty space with low levels of energy. Empty space with low levels of energy isn't nothing because, it has properties, it exists. It would not make sense for me to say that the nothing I ate for lunch today tasted good. Con states that it is possible for a universe to come from nothing. It is also possible for a cat to pop into thin air un-caused. Is it probable? Use your logic. My opponent states that there is life elsewhere in the cosmos. I wounder how he knows this. Did astro biologists finally find life on other planets? He also states that 99% of all species to exist went extinct. This is true, but it is easily explained with the bible. According to genesis, death came about as a result of sin. Although I believe Adam and Eve was a symbolic story, I believe the purpose behind it was to show that man rebelled against God. He again sates that there are many universes. There is no evidence for this. My opponent asks if God were to condone rape would it make it good. Well, sorry, but the answer is yes. God doesn't say rape is good, but if he did it would be good. My opponent says that there were many people who had motives to steal the body of Jesus. This isn't true. Jews don't believe in a savior. So, why would they steal the body to prove something the don't believe in?
Does God exist

The Cosmological Argument: My opponent has the cosmological argument wrong, it goes like this. Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exists, therefore the universe had a cause. My opponent says that the nothing we see now is not different than we would see before the origin of the universe. This is false, according to the current model of the big bang, there was no time, or space before the big bang. According to this model, the universe came into being from a point which came from nothing. My opponent states that quantum fluctuations can create energy, and because quantum events are uncaused, energy can come into existence without a cause. It is true that quantum fluctuations create energy, and are uncaused. However, the energy is not coming from nothing, because we don"t have nothing to work with. Before the origin of the universe there was literally no time or space. The laws of physics did not exist. Quantum fluctuations are not creating energy out of nothing, because there is something. They are coming out of empty space. But, before the origin of the universe, there was no space. My opponent says that in because we live in a flat universe, we are living in the same type of universe which allows quantum fluctuations to happen, therefore, the universe could have come from nothing. But as I said before, the laws of physics didn't exist before the origin of the universe. Quantum fluctuations happen in empty space, however, before the origins of the universe, there was no space. A fine tuned universe: My opponent says that the fine tuning argument is based on the assumption that humans are special. This is not the case, when I said we wouldn't exist if something was changed by a value, I meant life wouldn"t exist. If the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 life wouldn"t exist. The probability of the universe being fine tuned to allow life to evolve is very small, therefore, it is more likely that there is a creator. My opponent says that life occurs in other universes as well. But, he gave no evidence that such a multi universe exists, there is no evidence that a multi universe exists. The moral Argument: My opponent says that the moral argument is flawed because God could condone anything. Whatever God says is good, is good. He is the creator, the moral giver. We are merely his creation, we follow his rules. My opponent gave no response to my other arguments.
Does God exist

I will give five arguments for God's existence. The Cosmological Argument: Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe had a cause. Let's examine the first premise. It defies logic to think that something can come into existence without a cause. Have you ever seen a horse come into existence out of nowhere? Have you ever seen a cheese burger come from nothing? No. Why is that? Because things don't come into existence un-caused. Let's examine the second premise: "the universe began to exist" Scientific evidence shows that the universe had an absolute beginning. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe has always existed, the universe would have run out of usable energy a long time ago. The universe is expanding, this shows that something had started the expansion. It is impossible for an expanding universe to be infinite. So, we have concluded that both premises are true, therefore, the last premise is true. Now, let's see what the cause of the universe must have been. Since the universe can't bring itself into existence, the cause must be beyond space and time. The cause must be: timeless, space-less, immaterial, and powerful. This sounds something like God. A fine tuned universe: When you look at the order in the universe, it is clear that it is finely tuned. For example, if the rate of expansion after the big bang was altered by as little as 1 and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 we wouldn't exist. If the atomic weak force was altered by 2% we wouldn't exist. The probability of this happening from chance is almost 0. The moral argument: If God doesn't exist, objective morals do not exist. Objective morals do exist. By objective morals I mean morals that are true whether you like them or no. Weather we like it or not, lying is wrong. Since objective morals do exist, God exists. The resurrection of Jesus: Jesus's tomb was discovered empty. Two theories have been put forth by unbelievers. One, that someone stole the body. The Jews had no motives to steal the body. Another theory is that the people went to the wrong tomb. The people who went to the tomb watched Jesus being lane down, so they knew where the tomb was. Another fact is that Jesus's tomb was discovered empty by a group of women. Women had no rights back then, and were not being treated equal. If the author wanted to fake the resurrection of Jesus, he would have put that a man found Jesus empty. Experience with God: God can be experienced personally. You can know God, aside from argument alone. Even if all of the arguments I present are proved wrong, you can know God just by experiencing him. Atheists obviously have never experienced God.
Science is false

Opening Arguments According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, science is: “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” [1] And by the same source, a contradiction is: “a difference of disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true.” [2] Axiom: A fact is true. Premise: Science is knowledge based upon fact. Conclusion: Science is therefore true. Science itself cannot be disproven, but instead the scientific theories presented by scientists. For example, if evolution is falsified, that doesn’t mean that science is false, but instead that science has shown that evolution is false. Assuming this argument is true, allow us to look at my opponent’s arguments. I’ll go into detail and classify my opponent’s arguments into their conditions of rebuttal. A. My opponent assumes that if one scientific theory, (or many for that matter) is proven false, science is proven false. He implies so with his original position, ‘Science has contradictions and therefore cannot be true’, yet only backing it up with things similar to ‘Attempts by the modern theory to explain other features of elementary particles and atoms result in contradictions’. This is fallacious, and what I call a ‘non sequitur’ argument (a.k.a. missing the point, or not backing up the thesis). For the theory to be false, science must be the one to disprove it. Scientific theories cannot disprove science because science is required for those scientific theories to be true. B. Because my opponent cannot logically attack my position by disproving scientific theories, he tries a different approach, by stating, “The universe is not real!”. There is one massive problem with saying this, however. And that is that his argument is, again, non sequitur. The evidence that he has lined up for this have been simple comparisons between our universe and a computer simulation, and because science is the knowledge of our natural world based upon fact, even if it was true that the world is a computer simulation, it would remain to be science. Science is not false, because science, by nature, is always true. It is man’s great quest to discover the truth. Truth cannot be false while still remaining true. Scientific theories cannot be proven false while still remaining science. My opponent has not yet provided a logically intact case for the falsity of science. No further evidence is necessary to prove my point. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...Thank you very much,—TheYummyCod
statatory rape sentencing

So basically I wanted everyone opinion. A 21 year old man was arrested after sleeping with a 14 year old girl and trying to take her to another country (she was compliant). He was charged for statutory rape of a minor and four other underage girls and child abduction. He was given 5 years in prison followed by 4 years of probation. The girl was set to testify against him in court however he pleaded guilty so she was not required to go to court. He was then released from prison after 2.5 years with probation. Should, he have got longer? Should he have got less time? Pro would be that he should have got a longer sentence
Freedom of speech on TV should be restricted

I would like to extend my thanks to Skeptik for taking the time to respond to this debate and I should like to start by making it clear that I fully accept my opponent's point that censorship on television should be avoided wherever possible and that people have the choice to watch, or not to watch, a programme that contains language that some would consider offensive. Indeed, I have long held that view myself - at least when it comes to comedy or drama programmes. However, when it comes to factual programming, especially current affairs, people tend to respect the presenters as figures of authority, and often seek to emulate their superior grammar and vocabulary. It would be wholly innappropriate, therefore, to allow a presenter to employ foul language or make offensive remarks as these would be then be regarded as respectable and, after a time, become part of the mainstream lexicon. In due course we could see offensive comments become common, for example in the classroom: "Girls and boys. I would like to introduce you to a new boy who is part of a travelling family. His name is Seamus and he will be with us for four weeks, which should be just about enough time for his thieving gypsy father to rob us all blind". Or the courtroom: "Bernard Madoff, you stand before this court today accused of jewing your clients out of fifty billion dollars. How do you plead, you swindling Yiddo b/st/rd?" Or the recruitment industry: "I don't care if you do have all the qualifications darling, you're too overweight to get a job as an air hostess - now get out of my office you fat slag." No, allowing TV presenters to mouth off like Carol Thatcher would be the thin edge of the wedge that could lead to the demise of the genteel and civilised socirty we live as part of today. Thank you.
Freedom of speech on TV should be restricted

). However, I argue that there should be total and complete freedom of speech. Racial slurs and expletives should all be allowed. The law should only be concerned with protecting people from aggressors. However, when concerning freedom of speech, it should be totally hands off by the government. This means that any word can be uttered on TV as many times as someone wants. If someone has a problem with this, they can switch the damn channel instead of whining - it's not being stuffed down their throat. This is all I will leave for now, and I await my opponent's response. I apologize is this is a tad short - I didn't realize it was 2 Rounds and personal events have me going here and there.
Freedom of speech on TV should be restricted

Last week, Carol Thatcher was sacked from her job as a presenter of a BBC lightweight current affairs television programme after making a racially insensitive remark which included the word "golliwog"* http://www.dailymail.co.uk... The news of this caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst conservatives who claimed the move to fire the daughter of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was "political correctness gone mad." But can we really allow these highly-paid presenters to spout off with impunity? What if Carol Thatcher was given her own talk show? "Thank you and welcome to the Carol Thatcher Show. My first guest tonight is Britain's most famous spazz, please give big round of applause for Professor Sterphen Hawking...Professor, you were first diagnosed as a being a flid while you were studying at Cambridge, so when the doctors told you that you were turning into a cabbage and, therefore, about to become a burden on the taxpayer for the rest of your life, why didn't you do the decent thing and top yourself?" "My next guest will be familiar to you all. He's queer, he's bent, ladies and gentlemen, his arse is up for rent...please welcome to the show, Manchester United pretty-boy - Cristiano Ronaldo...Cristiano, how old were you when you first realised that you were an uphill gardener?" "It is a real honour to greet my final guest this evening. He is, after all, the first nignog* to be elected as President of America, please give a big hand for Barak Obama...Mr. President, can I first ask if your dicision to relax the trade restrictions on the import of bananas into the United States was a way of saying thank you to all the golliwogs who voted for you?" No, clearly, there must be limits on free speech on television and I propose that the current restrictions should remain in place. Thank you. * "Golliwog" and "nignog" are British slang words for a black person.