BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated

Rebuttal: Enchanted WAS a comedy, and you cannot say that it wasn't. It's main focus was making you laugh, and just because you didn't doesn't mean that others didn't. And yes, It is good to have attention. Because no one likes being bored, and bored people are usually bored because they won't pay attention because there is nothing to keep attention, and a lack of interest is created. With Enchanted, I never felt disinterested, because I like the humor (except the troll. He stinks, and I can't deny that). And I personally, I loved the humor. I suppose I should cite some: Belle Note the Italian restaurant Grumpy the dwarf, little mermaid music at the aquarium, poison apple trope, Tremaine, magic mirror TV, the working song, and the soap opera segment. Notice something? All of them are references. I like referential humor, and it is not all slapstick or stupid. This is one big love letter to classic Disney., The characters are not entirely unlikeable just because they're stupid. I like season 1-4 Patrick in Spongebob because he is a well done, endearing stupid. But this is not the case. We like these characters because they're funny, like in Friends. If the cast of friends wasn't funny, we would hate them all because they're horrible people. If the cast of Enchanted wasn't funny, we would hate them because they're stupid without a point. Yes, the moral is obvious. MORALS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HIDDEN. That is what a theme is for. And the theme is going against all of Disney's overlooked things because it wants to be snarky towards Disney. Because this is a love letter to Disney. Not everything was slapstick. See list of humor that I liked. And yes, we have seen adult films from Disney. My point was that Disney has made amazing children's movies as well. For example, your profile picture, Aladdin. Conclusion: If you love Disney and pay attention to everything, then the referential humor will make you laugh. The characters can make you laugh, and everything is built to make you laugh. The only parts meant to create suspense were the bits near the end, and I believe that it is unfair to say that the suspense was horrible considering it was a team based around comedy making it.
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated

1. FunninessMy opponent focuses on the movie being a "Good" comedy. Well first of all, he fails to offer more examples than what I have offered (and I am supposed to be pro for enchanted being bad!). The funniness does gain our attention, but is attention always good? Funniness, most times, is gained through sacrifice of plot. However, the plot entirely stands upon comedy and the message of true love. Is the comedy really good? No, it's scattered-minded and doesn't work out. We don't really like the heroine who's dumb and doesn't understand anything in the real world, and we don't like the prince because he's so stupid, even if he is handsome. These unlikable characters added together for my argument that Enchanted was overrated. The only likable character was our main real life "love interest", but again, he pretty much hates every other character in the movie with the exception of the princess, but even then it was only at the end that he realized he loved her.True Love: Once again, I say this, this came in from a mile around. The message was so predictable I don't even know why you'd watch the last 10 minutes of the movie after the troll goes flying into outer space. And the fact that the witch's plan was the only thing boosting forth the princess to her true love in the "other world", I don't know how she could have lived with dumb prince Charming if the villain didn't try to send her into our real world.Even if some people laugh at slapstick, we must agree it is a lame trick used. Let's give the most infamous example: Home Alone. How much people liked that film, the film where our two villains fall twice every minute? http://www.rottentomatoes.com.... The answer is, only half of the critics liked the two villains falling twice every minute. Not to mention that film actually had some heart at the end with that creepy shovel guy turning out to actually be a very deep family guy, unlike this film, which hardly really justifies the love of the princess and the Prince versus the love of her and the real life Guy. Good for children: My opponent uses the argument "Disney", but we've seen plenty of more adult films including the incredibly dark and complex Hunchback of Notre Dame, and the PG-13 Saving Mr. Banks along with the Pirates of the Caribbean series. My argument still stands here.CONCLUSION: Enchanted is not really a comedy. If it was, it's still not very good. The scattered moments don't pull off well together with the poor attempts at creating suspence, as well as the message of "true love", which was totally predictable and didn't need two stupid people from the animated universe to tell us that. If you want humor, go watch the Emperor's New Groove. And if you want an actual GOOD display of the message of true love that is NOT predictable, I suggest you go watch Frozen, an actual decent movie. Enchanted still stands at a bottom-feeder ranking on my movie chart.
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated

OK, fine. Rebuttal time. 1. Funny is good. Laughter is a nice thing for every person, and not every movie has to be smart. And yes, it is lame- because it is meant to be. It is a satire of a fairy tale. It does do good for the movie. Through the power of comedy and knowledge of character. We A. See something funny, thus gaining our attention, and B. Learn that this is a traditional fairy tale world with traditional fairy tale characters. 2. Yes it is funny. Any human would take clothing from their surroundings. It is natural to do so. Why are song powers ridiculous? It is a trait of her's, so why would it just go away? She is in the real world, not from the real world! And the villain is meant to be cheesy. It is a comedy, not meant to be too critically and logically analyzed because then nothing makes sense. It is called suspension of disbelief. And yes, the ending is predictable. Does it really matter? But I am with you on the troll. That's just cause I don't like slapstick. True love: Well if we couldn't tell the moral, what would be the point of it? Funny-at Moments: Many of them could be seen as funny. And just because you and I do not like slapstick does not mean that random dude over there doesn't. Good for children: *coughDISNEYcough* Oh sorry, what was that? Conclusion: Enchanted was a great movie for all audiences that, well it does not suit my style of humor, is easily understood and can be funny, even to a snob like me.
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated

My opponent tries to state that my arguments ate merely opinions, but he fails to show anything. He did not show that the first ten minutes were not lame, talking of true love, the very topic the movie suggests that is not as it seems, or the slapstick being lame and cheap. My opponent needs to show how these moments were mediocre or better. I have clearly shown these techniques subpar for Disney, while my opponent did not even try to prove that the general critis were correct in their rating of the movie. My arguments still stand.
The Disney Movie "Enchanted" was Overrated

Enchanted: the disney film. Found here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com...Overrated: Was worse quality than what it was rated online on review websites.Statistics of this movie:IMDB gave 7.2/10 [adjusted score 78.26% based on the highest scoring movie ever on imdb which was 9.2] Metacritic: 75/100Rotten tomatoes: 93% fresh, average rating 7.3/100. Audience score 85%, 3.8/5 (76%).I argue that 75, which in school a "C"--a mediocre grade--overrates this movie. This movie is worse than "Average", or "mediocre". It is up to me to prove this resolution. Round one acceptance only.
National Security is more important than digital privacy

Welcome to the website. Alright. Let's begin with definitions and framework. National security-The protection of citizens from national threats, terrorist attacks, nuclear threats, etc. Digital privacy-The privacy of a citizen with anything electronic. Including phones, internet records, and emails. I should clarify, though this might already be obvious, that logically be being "pro" you are saying national security should be valued above digital privacy, in other words, national security can violate digital privacy. Just thought I would clarify that. I have one contention. 1. Digital privacy is a right, and rights should never be violated. Permitting violation of citizens" rights destroys the right. Our government is founded on the idea of social contracts. We give part of our rights away in exchange for safety. In our social contract, the constitution, one of the rights we are guaranteed is digital privacy. Now, if the government says that they can violate our right to digital privacy, that right does not exist anymore. Rights were not made to be violated on certain acceptable occasions, they were made to never be violated. So, digital privacy is more important than national security because rights should never be violated. If we say that the violation of a right is OK, then we are saying that that right can be violated anytime.
SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

Once again, Purushadasa seems to not understand how a debate is formatted, and instead of learning it at the ripe old age of 49, decides to simply accuse me of vote pandering. Despite that fact, he even admits to the fact that he won't receive any votes! I would like to point out, that there are Christians that have viewed this debate, and probably wouldn't even mind voting for him, but as one of the Christians in the comment section pointed out, the quality of his arguments have rapidly deteriorated, and he continues to use Ad Hominem attacks rather than actually addressing arguments. It seems that he only knows how to accuse me of using Straw Man Fallacies, and typing out a non-sensical statement without any sort of explaination afterwards. At this point, I can only assume he completely and 100% agrees with me. He has not in anyway addressed contention 1 sub point A, and despite his acknowledgement of the rest of my contentions, he has not made a valid argument against them. At this point I can only assume he has been reading the Holy Bible of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (Sauce be upon him), and that I have properly converted him to FSM. Once again, I'd like to strongly urge a Con Vote, and since Pro has not said otherwise, he must also think the same!
SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

Once again Pro tries to declare himself winner before the debate is already over. Apparently he doesn't understand the point of voting Post-Debate. Instead of following up with more replies like Pro has done this round, I'll try to take the brunt of organization for the two of us. You see, Judges, throughout this entire debate Pro's quality of argument has quickly deteriorated. Clearly he is used to simply blocking people rather than actually debating them. Pro continues to harass me outside of the rounds with personal attacks, and insults. I think that his quality of character is beginning to show itself, especially in this debate. This clearly shows that Pro does not deserve to win this debate, especially since his arguments have no merit, his character is low (if there even is any left), and his bad attitude makes this debate unpleasant. Throughout the previous rounds, Pro has not substantiated his statements. Instead he has preffered using throw away sentences such as "Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong." or "just another straw man logical fallacy". Clearly he does not understand what a Straw Man Fallacy is, and neither does he understand what the Philosophical Study of Morality is. Pro has not addressed the first contention, subpoint A of my arguments in this debate, instead choosing instead to attack words or phrases in the other contentions. I can only assume he agrees with me. Overall, Pro's Arguments lack merit, he has a poor attitude, his contentions are fallacious, his entire Argument is baseless and fallacious, and this entire debate is a fallacious trap so that he can have an ego trip. I would like to strongly urge a Con Vote.
SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

My opponent wrote: "your god is " There is only one God, and he is not mine. Actually, you, I, and all other human being belong to him. "personal attacks" Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong. "which does not constitute an actual reply or answer to the statement. Actually, they do -- that is my way of pointing out the fact that none of your claims have any evidence to back them up. "another personal attack." Without God, personal attacks could not be objectively wrong. "In the next reply he claims that he did not say that Science yet he claimed in his first contention" What??? "Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly." That is true, actually. Also, thank you for finally quoting me correctly ONE TIME during this entire debate: All the other times were straw man logical fallacies on your part. "Which can be dumbed down to, without god, objective truth would be impossible, which it needs." Not my statement -- just another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "personal attack" Without God, making personal attacks could not be objectively wrong. "Next on our tour of Pro's Argument, If you look on your computer screen, you can see an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy!" I did not commit that fallacy anywhere, actually. "In the next series of reply, you can see that Pro clearly does not understand what an axiom is!" Yes I do. " Pro tries to redefine objective truth." No I didn't. "it is impossible for the existence of god to be objectively true," No it isn't. " in the same way that of his lack of existence." If you are claiming that God's supposed "lack of existence" cannot be objectively true, then you are correct about that, because his existence is objectively true. "Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity." "Clearly I do, " No, you really don't. "I find it hilarious how you go out of your way to block people who have previously destroyed you, and how you like to harass people you are currently debating." Can you say "personal attack?" I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

Since this round only consisted of replies, I will follow suit. In this round Pro has claimed that he has never once brought up a supernatural deity, and since he has not defined his own terms, I will do it myself. Webster Dictionary defines God as: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Supernatural is defined as: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Ergo, your god is a Supernatural Deity. If you don't want me to call it that, then define your own terms. I would like the Judges to acknowledge the fact that the rest of his counter arguments consist of personal attacks, of which you cannot find in my own argument. All of my contentions are based on attacking his argument, not the person making them. The next 5 replies are simply saying Yes it is, which does not constitute an actual reply or answer to the statement. The next reply after that is, guess what, another personal attack. In the next reply he claims that he did not say that Science yet he claimed in his first contention "Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly." Which can be dumbed down to, without god, objective truth would be impossible, which it needs. Oh look! Another personal attack! Next on our tour of Pro's Argument, If you look on your computer screen, you can see an Affirming the Consequent Fallacy! In the next series of reply, you can see that Pro clearly does not understand what an axiom is! You can see the definition here: http://www.dictionary.com... But since that's not enough, let me explain what I meant. Let's say Susie has 2 apples, and Joey gives her 2 apples. Susie notices one of them is a crab apple. So the total amount of APPLES is 4, but the amount of edible ones is 3. In the next statement, Pro tries to redefine objective truth. It's actual definition is: A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. ... This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality. This means it is impossible for the existence of god to be objectively true, in the same way that of his lack of existence. "Again, you fail to understand what the word "objective" means, so you are unqualified to engage in any debate that includes the concept of objectivity." Clearly I do, and Clearly you are trying to avoid writing an actual reply. I find it hilarious how you go out of your way to block people who have previously destroyed you, and how you like to harass people you are currently debating. Once again, I would like to strongly urge a CON vote.
SCIENCE = GOD'S PERSONAL PROPERTY (PROOF of GOD)

P1: Without God, nobody could make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly. (Without God, any cognitive distinctions that we may make would necessarily amount to mere subjective opinions, not objective facts. The scientific method deals with objective facts as opposed to dealing with subjective opinions, and actually, subjective opinions have no place in the scientific method. The field of Logic is also the purview of objective facts as opposed to subjective opinions, and actually, subjective opinions also have no place in the field of Logic. Therefore without God, nobody could perform the scientific method correctly, nor without God could anyone even know with objective certainty whether or not he was performing the scientific method correctly). P2: We can indeed make an objective cognitive distinction between performing the scientific method correctly and performing it incorrectly. Conclusion: Therefore God exists in reality.
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

My opponent has made a fatal flaw. His resolution relies on the voters simply accepting the Economic model he has proposed (I called it Keynesian economics and he didn’t disagree, so I assume he accepts it). However, I know that won’t be the case. His arguments against abortion: Abortion decreases crime, war and sickness Crime, war and sickness increase Government spending. Spending is good for the economy. Therefore, Abortion is bad for the Economy. My counter-arguments: Increasing crime, war and sickness WILL cause the Economy further and in this case, unnecessary debt. Spending may be good for the Economy(unproven, only assumed), but deficit spending for the sake of GDP growth is foolish. Furthermore, my opponent made one statement of forfeit and one plain ridiculous statement in his last round: “However, it is true that spending which creates debt can cause less spending to occur in the future due to having to pay it back with interest. ” Here he concedes my second point. His only rebuttal to it was that America won’t pay the debt back anyway, so who cares. LOL. Here is his rebuttal to me accusing him of making the common logical fallacy "argumentum ad populum": “It's not a fallacy because I'm not making an argument, it is simply a rule I stated in the first round. ” Fortunately for me Mr Freedo, you don’t get to define the rules of Economics otherwise this debate would have been impossible for me to win. As I said in the first line of this conclusion, this is your fatal flaw. You haven’t proven that this school of Economics is the correct one; therefore nothing else you have said is relevant. This was the point of the possibly incoherent paragraph you quoted. This resolution has been refuted.
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

My computer is completely messed up right now. The screen is so dim I can barely see anything. I thought I might just throw in the towel and apologize for not being able to post this round but I changed my mind and decided I would destroy my eye-balls and try to post it. Sorry if it's really short. REPLIES //My opponent’s entire argument rests entirely on the premise that ANY AND ALL spending is good for the economy. Given the multi-trillion dollar debt the United States is currently in, I can safely assume he is basing his argument on the presumption that deficit spending works (ie, Keynesian economics). // Actually, it's not a premise, that's just how I defined it. I defined the growth of an economy as the growth of GDP, then I showed that GDP can be measured by--YES--any and all spending. However, it is true that spending which creates debt can cause less spending to occur in the future due to having to pay it back with interest. However still! Does anyone really think the United States is planning to pay back the debt? The idea is laughable. It is simply impossible to do so. It's most likely going to be repudiated. OH GOODY! --Just imagine if we told China we won't pay them back and it gets us into a war! Yes sir, there are bright days for business ahead. And you want to hurt these businesses just so you can kill babies? What a morbid person you must be. Remember, if you don't support war you must also not support our troops! That means you hate our freedom! Burn in hell terrorist scum! //I believe this is called "argumentum ad populum". // You would be incorrect. It's not a fallacy because I'm not making an argument, it is simply a rule I stated in the first round. I am not arguing that GDP should be the measure of a good economy because most people say so, I simply set out a definition of a good economy and gave a reason for why I chose it. //It is my opponent burdon of proof to not to show that spending is good for the Economy (after all, that isn't the resolution) but that any the worst, most socially-detrimental (and you know it's socially detrimental FREEDO you vegetarian, non-violence advocator you) deficit spending you can think of is good for the Economy. // I'm sorry but I just can't see how this statement is coherent. Is that just me? Hope you all liked the debate as much as I did!
Abortion is Bad for the Economy

My opponent’s entire argument rests entirely on the premise that ANY AND ALL spending is good for the economy. Given the multi-trillion dollar debt the United States is currently in, I can safely assume he is basing his argument on the presumption that deficit spending works (ie, Keynesian economics). "As I stated in the first round, the measure of what is "good for the economy" is whatever increases the GDP, since that is the most popular model." I believe this is called "argumentum ad populum". It is my opponent burdon of proof to not to show that spending is good for the Economy (after all, that isn't the resolution) but that any the worst, most socially-detrimental (and you know it's socially detrimental FREEDO you vegetarian, non-violence advocator you) deficit spending you can think of is good for the Economy. There are several schools of Economics (the Austrian school of Economics, for example) and Political groups (Fiscal conservatives, for example) which reject any deficit spending, let alone a premise which ridiculously promotes war, sickness and crime. Has he forfilled that burdon? I think not. Perhaps I'll make the resolution "Child porn is good for the Economy" and argue that because money is both spent on it and by the Goverment trying to prevent it, it is clearly a double home-run win for the US. Whoops, that's a straw man. Disregard.