BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

Yes, I do blame Disney for not having POC in their movies. I understand where you are coming when you talk about Mulan. However, Beauty and the Beast has been around for an extremely long time. The story has gone through changes and people have added to it. Not only that but there have many children books that have taken famous fairy tales characters and changed their skin colors. Just because a story comes from Europe doesn't mean it HAS to remain white. Again, look at Princess and the Frog. You also mention Aladdin. Out of about fifty animated movies (including Pixar) Disney has only four movies that have a main character that are POC. That is less than one percent. Yes Aladdin was a good movie but it took us at five years to have another animated movie with a POC (Mulan) that was actually good, despite it not properly portraying Chinese culture. Then after that, we had to wait until 2009 for the first African American princess. You have to admit that there is a problem here. The reason I'm debating this is a few reason. Yes, I want Cultural awareness and equality along with notion against discrimination. But there is also one huge thing: it's getting boring. People may say, "Oh you're being silly." but I do have friends who agree with me. Disney has NINE white princesses. That is 9 out 13. Now I do not hate those princesses, I love them and their movies (save for Sleeping Beauty but that's another discussion for another time) but you look at that and you don't really see an accurate portrayal of people. Not only that but you can only do the same thing so many times that you get bored. A lot of my artists friends were so disappointed to see that Elsa and Anna from Frozen were white. They were hoping for something different. In fact, a lot of people were. It's just disappointing. It's also like Disney is being lazy. Honestly, I don't mean to sound like I'm hating Disney. I love Disney! I just want them to do better you know?
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

Hello, hello and hello!Contention 1 - Disney is culturally awareWhen I think Disney, I think Aladdin, Mulan, Hercules, the Lion King Beauty and the Beast, the Jungle Book, Tarzan, etc. These are what I've grown up with. Now when I first saw this resolution I thought: "Basically, this person is saying that Disney doesn't employ POC in its movies at all." And I think to the Disney movies of my childhood and I knew this wasn't right. Aladdin, for example, isn't just a movie filled with brown-skinned, Middle-Eastern people. Quite contrary, Aladdin is a beautiful display of the workings of the pre-colonial Arab world.Think about it. Do you think Disney should have more POC in movies in which having such characters (i.e. placing Africans into a movie set in ancient China) would be a blatant historical error?When I see a film about people in ancient China, I expect to see the characters of Chinese culture live Chinese culture. Is it unfair for me to not want to see, say, Caucasians in a movie such as Mulan? Consider this distinction.Now, if there is a film about medieval Europeans in a traditional Western setting, would it be unfair of me to expect to see cultural/historical correctness? Is it wrong that a movie such as Beauty and the Beast, an adaptation of a western European story, does not contain Africans, Persians, Indians, Chinese, etc.? Is it unfair that a Disney movie such as Tangled, a story written and set in somewhere in the medieval Western world, does not have POC in it?I agree that in a more diverisifed setting such as the modern multi-cultural world., in order to maintain elements of indiscriminating equality, should include these 'POC'. Each setting has its own set of people. However, Disney does not cast its movies in the modern world. Movies such as Hercules, is cast specifically in their own allotted times. Do you blame Disney for not having more POC in their movies?My contention 2 deals with the discrimination I find is inherent in my opponent's side resolution depending on her response to the following question:What is the purpose of your side of this contention? Cultural awareness? Cultural equality? A notion against discrimination? All of the above?I won't be presumptuous and intend for PRO to answer this question herself.On to PRO!
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

Okay, lets get started. Disney needs more POC because honestly, it's sad. It's sad that a company that creates such great movies only wants to focus on white people. The world is filled with loads of different people with different cultures and skin colors. Not only that but there are so many stories that they could use that focus on POC. Also, just because many fairly tales originated in Europe doesn't mean that you can't take tweak them and change the characters. I was hoping to see more movies in the line of Princess and the Frog, taking a original fairy tale and giving it a twist. Also, within the Disney princess line, there are only four women of color. What message are we sending to little girls? That only white women can be royalty or that only white women find true love? People may think these things won't influence children but they will and those ideas they form will stick with them. It's time Disney starts to add more color to their line up.
Disney Needs More POC in Ther Movies

I will be arguing the CON side of this resolution. Disney does not need to cast more people of color into their movies. It is not needed for society, and, assuming my opponent's objective for this topic is ultimately social equality as pertaining to race, is unnecessary (perhaps even counterproductive). I will divulge further into my opinions in the proceeding rounds, but the clause written above is pretty much where I will be arguing from. Don't troll me! Thanks~
water is not a conductor of electricity

we are talking about pure h20, I specifically said h2o is a conductor of electricity for a reason. Salt water is salt water as opposed to water, meaning h2o.....__________________Water in and of itself has a neutral charge and thus doesn't have the neccesary positive charge to make it a conductor....Here is my evidence:"Water itself is not a conductor of electricity. In order for a substance to carry charge, two conditions must first be met: There must be charged particles within the substance (either ions or electrons) and These particles must be free to move It is true that in water (H2O) the discrete molecules are free to move, however, they carry no charge." _____________ sources (1) http://www4.hcmut.edu.vn...
NSA Spying

First, this is the United States of America, not Europe and be sure not to get the two confused. Due to the fact that the United States of America is a country that holds murder and terrorism rates higher than most countries, the National Security Agency viewing our lives from my perspective is a good thing. If you are putting things in your e-mails that you want no one to read, then simply don't send them and don't talk about it on the phone. Face to face conversations hold just as much importance as one over social media or a cellular device would. The National Security Agency has a reason to be viewing our private lives and that's for one sole purpose, to protect us. Unless you want another incident such as 9/11 or other terrorist acts such as the ones in Paris and the Boston Marathon, I don't see how you could not consider the National Security Agency "spying" as not a threat. Every other American has come to the conclusion that the government does have a birdseye view of our lifes and that's how it will continue to be.
NSA Spying

"At least in Europe, we consider the right to privacy a fundamental right, and it is a very serious matter." European Commission President Jos" Manuel Barroso stated at a news conference in 2013 ("20 Great Quotes"). One would think that this would be the same for the United States, since it is thought to be the country of freedom and rights, but one would be gravely mistaken. The United States National Security Agency (NSA) is violating the privacy of every U.S. citizen and U.S. ally. They are tracking phone calls, reading emails, and worst of all, hypocritically betraying everyone. The NSA should stop stalking U.S. citizens and allies for the fact that phone calls and emails are private, and trust between allies is vital to our survival as a nation.
We are all Living beings,; STOP CLASSIFYING!!

Dominance of others all started out with humans classifying themselves from animals, thus thinking we are dominant. Since classifying ourselves from animals, we just started to classify within our own species. We classify each other in many ways - race, social class, religion, sex, intelligence, etc. This causes many arguments and wars in society, only making more classifications in the world. Classification is brought up in many things - Socialism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feminism, Debate, etc. We are just as equal as all living objects. Yes, we do have a higher intelligence, but that does NOT mean we should abuse it. We should treat everything equally, otherwise we will continue this cycle of dominant abuse towards others, causing more classifications, more arguments over who/what is better than who/what, leading to violence, unending wars, dictators and higher dominant theories.
Vote for vermin supreme!

Vermin supreme is an anarchist that has stated very little of his policy positions. The little policy positions he has put forth are impractical and reckless. I mean come on, mandatory tooth brushing laws? This would obviously come into conflict with his pony based economy. Toothbrush bristles are made from pony hair and by forcing everyone to use Horse hair bristles would deteriorate the health of the Pony. This would cause massive pony deflation due to the devaluing of the pony.
Foreign labour brings more good than bad

The opponent has basically forfeited the last round, which shows that he actually agrees with what I said. So what have I told you so far? Firstly, foreign labour is essential in easing the burden on the working population of countries with low replacement rates by supporting the ageing population. Secondly, foreign labour brings about societal benefits such as the integration of different cultures into society. Thirdly, on the economic benefits of foreign labour, and how they contribute to the economic growth and GDP of the country. We have also explained that foreign labour is not the main cause of human trafficking and that is a separate crime on its own. Unlike the opposition, we have not cherry-picked examples, and have substantiated the arguments with various examples such as Australia and Singapore, etc. With that, please walk on the side of the proposition.
Foreign labour brings more good than bad

Although your argument is quite acceptable in a modern day society, but there are still flaws in your case. Allow me to first point those flaws. Though your idea of the government charging the working immigrants is acceptable, you must still remember that it is required for a pay of at least RM 3,000 to be charged taxes. Statistics show that an average pay for a labourer is RM 1,200 to RM 1,500, if the worker is very skilled. Thus this idea cannot be executed as a common labourer is not even legit-able to be charged tax onto. Moving onto my second point, that will be human trafficking. Human trafficking is a crime against the person because of the violation of the victim's rights of movement through coercion and commercial exploitation. Statistics show that 32 billion dollars of international trade is raked in per year. And illegal trade is estimated at 650 billion dollars per annum. All this is caused by one act. That would be Foreign labouring. If we were to abolish foreign labouring, human trafficking parties will even cease to exist. So i end my 2nd round based on opposing the motion that would be "Foreign labouring would do more good han harm" I await your argument.
Foreign labour brings more good than bad

My case is on how foreign labour helps ease the burden on the working population of countries with low replacement rates. Developed countries nowadays are marking a trend whereby their death rate is higher than its birth rate, showing that they have an unsustainable population. As a result, the country has an ageing population it has to take care of, and the burden is thrust upon the working generation to care for them. The government then asks for more taxes from the working locals, which is a heavier burden on them. By having more foreign labour, the government no longer requires to take more taxes from the working population and can instead take it from the foreign workers, lessening the burden on the working locals. The value of these foreign workers are high since they usually fill in the blue-collar jobs, allowing the locals to work in the white-collared jobs. Also, with more human resources available, more industries will be opened, and more job openings are created as a result, which is a benefit for the locals.
Foreign labour brings more good than bad

I welcome the challenger first. Firstly i would like to establish my points. Firstly foreign workers help establish job opportunities. An immigrant will take a job within a 3-dimensional sector. Thus providing jobs for native born locals such as being promoted to supervisors. Since there are more workers to do the dirty jobs. Job opportunities can be opened. More workers (locals) are already losing their job to machines so what's there to lose. please present your arguement
Gaming in Schools

Many people, both adults and kids like playing video . A school survey showed more than half of students in grades 3 through 12 believe educational gaming would help them learn;Video games are frowned upon by parents as time-wasters. Some education experts think that these games corrupt the brain. Violent video games are responsible for young people becoming violent or commit extreme anti-social behavior. But, scientists and psychologists find that video games can actually have many benefits – the main one is making kids smart. Video games may actually teach kids high-level thinking skills that they will need in the future.A school in New York City has taken the video game as its model for how to teach. Students use video games and design them as part of their classes. those behind the program say game-based learning is integral to 21st century literacy.The school believes that video games is A ‘Key’ To Learning.Most kids don’t need instructions to figure out how to play video games. I think kids go to school to learn, not play video games . If video games are allowed in school , kids get distracted from learning . we can play games when we get back home . However , we can use educational video games to enhance our learning and make learning more interesting and challenging .
Gaming in Schools

We have discussed in class about Procedural Writing, and I've chosen Benefits of Gaming in School. I have a few reasons to be for the argument, as first of all, gaming increases Hand-Eye Co-ordination, as widely known on the Internet. I can agree to this, as It actually helped me before in writing/typing faster. My second reason would be creativity (Looking at you, Notch) and I can confirm this as well, as I've been getting lots of ideas to draw, create things (cardboard and games) and it made me feel more relieved to get it all out. I've made a quiz for my classmates, and most of them felt the same. And my last reason would be entertainment. Yes, that's pretty much the opposite of what schools are like, you say, it would give the students too much to get disoriented, you say. Well, how about not exactly a lot of games whenever you want, but more of sessions of gaming, or like free time, whenever people are really bored/stressed by the events happening in that classroom. So that is my opinion on why gaming should be allowed in school. ~Way2CheesE
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

I think I'm out of arguments. Honestly, I never did disagree with you about this topic. Germany never would had been win with or without Japan(again ignoring Italy). I joined this debate because it looked like a fun topic to debate. And I am a big World War 2 buff so I wanted to debate this. So thanks for debating with me and I hope to debate with you again.
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

Thanks for honest opinions about Stalingrad and Kursk. To me, that gives you more cred. USA had 5 troops at El Alamein [1] That"s not a typo. F-I-V-E. In my opinion, 5 troops were not enough to change the battle. Historically, Britain lost the Battle of Singapore, so that adds nothing to your argument. Aside from DDay, the most pivotal role USA played was at Battle of Bulge. But this was Dec 1944 [2] The turning point of the German-Soviet front had already happened at Kursk in July 1943 [3] After Kursk, Germany could not stop the Soviet advance. Additionally, Soviet war production was outpacing that of Germany. This all happened before the major historical Allied victories at Bulge and DDay. Therefore, although Germany was not yet defeated when USA joined the war, the war had turned irreversibly in Soviets favor. Had America never joined, the war would have dragged on a few more years, but ultimately, Germany would have been defeated. [1] [2] [3] see sources in comments
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

I agree with what you say about Stalingrad and kursk. Ok now I think the main part of our argument has come from whether the battles between the Germans and Soviets would be different mainly, but what about battles like El Alamein I and other battles that just the British and Americans were involved in together. how many of those battles outcomes change without the USA. Also if Japan had chosen to do war with Britain instead, they could have been beaten because the British would do very little against the Japanese on there own which was made clear in the battles of Malaya and Singapore(which resulted in the fall of Singapore to the Japanese, and the largest surrender of British-led military personnel in history).
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

The majority of Japan"s land troops were already committed to the Soviet front. [1] Historically, Japan's navy put up a good fight against USA, but had this navy been free to assist against the Soviets then it would not have helped that much as it was primarily a land battle. Japan had an early advantage in the air, but Soviets quickly neutralized that by improving its fighters. [1] Agreed about D-Day. D-Day would not have happened. But Britain would not have collapsed. Germany would still have to man the Atlantic wall. Also, please counter my last argument by answering the following questions: Do you agree with my calculations about the new German soldiers and tanks that will go to the Soviet front? If you do not agree, can you offer you own estimate? Do you think Stalingrad would have been different? Do you think Kursk would have been different? [1] http://www.historynet.com...
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

The Soviet union invaded Japan at the end of World War 2 when they were already weakened. If Japan surprise invaded the USSR at the same time Germany did it could have a different impact on Russia.Also with the fall of France in spring 1940, ports such as Brest, France were quickly turned into large submarine bases from which British trade could be attacked. This resulted in a huge rise in sinking of British shipping. The period between the fall of France and the British containment of the threat was referred to as the first happy time by the U Boat commanders. So the British would not had been able to do d-day the same way.
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

US was supplying Allies before it joined the war therefore it can still supply without joining the war. Agreed, Italy is a non-factor. In Operation August Storm, Soviets crushed the Japanese, losing only 12,000 forces. Therefore, Soviets can at minimum hold their front with Japan without taking forces away from their German front. [1] Without US, Germany can hold off Allied forces with 80% of it"s given forces. Therefore German forces on the Soviet front get a 20% boost [2] 10% go to Stalingrad. The increase in tanks does not help because the tanks were not effective in the rubble-filled city streets. The additional soldiers die of cold and hunger. " Soviet victory 10% increase in forces as Kursk. Battle is very close, but Soviets win by a narrow margin. Because they win at Kursk, defeat is inevitable for Germany. [3] [1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] , [3] calculation in comments
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

Russia moved a large majority their tanks and solders east to deal with Germany because Japan was more concerned with the USA at the start. So Japan would have caught the USSR off guard. Also, incase your wondering why I'm not mentioning Italy, I fell Italy was more like Germany's lap dog.Another thing you need to consider is if Britain and the USSR joined economy would not have been strong enough to beat the Axis. The USA economy out produced the whole axis by a factor of 3. So without the USA the allies would be having less ships, tanks, planes etc then Germany or Japan
If America never joined WW2 Germany would have lost anyways. 2

So, without the threat of the American army advancing from the West, could Germany have directed enough manpower to the Eastern front to have halted the Russian advance? Also, without the threat of the American military, could Japan have, at minimum, caused Russia to divert enough forces away from its border with Germany so that Germany would not have collapsed? So I believe the answer to this debate can be solved by answering the following 3 questions: 1.Determine the strength of the historical armies on both the German-Russian front and the Russian-Japanese front. 2.Determine the new theoretical military strengths the armies on these fronts. 3.Predict if the increase in German and Japanese strength combined with the decrease in Russian strength would have been enough to reverse the historical outcome of the war. I say we hold other factors constant for purposes of the debate, and just focus on the numbers, total available troops, tanks, planes etc. Do you agree?
Dating techniques should be taught in schools.

Counter argument 1. If most kids in high school have an off block they can go and socialize with other people, instead of taking that persons time that they could be studying in a group or talking to teachers, The kids should learn themselves in order for them to be themselves in a relashisips. Error in a relasiship also causes success, like you stated practice makes perfect and students can practice without having a class about it. Final argument 1. Students should be able to figure this out on there own past generation did just fine with figuring out things without a teacher. We need to let kids be kids and just let them be themselves.
Dating techniques should be taught in schools.

Counter: Con Point 1: First I never suggested it as a formal class. The reason why we would not have to spend more money in schools is because there would be no extra work for this subject, or books that you would need. It would be almost just like a counselor. A proposition would be to actually have the counselor just talk in the classroom. This would not require anymore money then already being spent in the public schools. Point 2: First as known already almost every high school has a off block. If we even just took 15min of the 1 hour-2 hour off block we would be able to provide the teaching needed. Point 3: Not all kids do curriculum after school thus limiting there time to meet opposite(or same) sex people. Therefore we would not have a increase in tax, and it would hurt the students curriculum.