BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Harry Potter books/movies are better than Twilight (Stephanie Meyer)

This is my first time debating here. Please excuse me if I do anything rude or weird. Here goes. Between Twilight and Harry Potter as both fiction stories, Twilight is better because it creates a more fulfilling dream world. Twilight gives teenage girls their idealized true love. You are Bella. Edward comes into your life. He's not human. He loves you. You agree to sacrifice everything for him. Your love is unbreakable. Twilight manages to place scenes and move the plot just right to let teenage girls have the love that they are looking for, if only in the book. Harry Potter is imaginative, but lacks in feeling. "You" are just a spectator. You can view the plot developments from third person view, but you don't live in it. The books are based mostly on plot developments and heavy description with few very emotional points. When Harry wins again the reader doesn't feel epically heroic because he or she was a spectator and the book that didn't emphasize emotion. As a novel, Harry Potter can do better at letting readers live and feel the ups, downs, and struggles of the main character more. Harry Potter's characters may have specific traits to paint the character's better, but Twilight's character's also have specific traits. Edward is a 100 year old vampire who is very smart. Bella is a very, very emotional girl who is usually weak but willing to give up anything for love. Jacob is a young teenager who's rash and instinctual and a werewolf. These characters are impactful and yes, do have the overall role of looking hot. Harry Potter's plot isn't better than Twilight's. Proof is that everyone copied Twilight's vampire theme while not many copied Harry Potter's wands and magic one. After Twilight came out, a great surge of other vampire books followed. This shows that Twilight had a greater impact on other authors than Harry Potter did.
The Harry Potter books/movies are better than Twilight (Stephanie Meyer)

Harry Potter by J.K. Rowling is better than Twilight by Stephanie Meyer. Both the books and movies are better. Firstly, the book has diverse characters. The characters have at least 5 different traits. Let's analyze the three main characters. Harry Potter: *Brave *Athletic *Protective of friends *Hostile to some *Kind to most Ron Weasley: *Loyal *Humorous *Brave *Sarcastic *Slightly Rude *Easily Envious Hermione Granger: *Great in classes *Good with emotions *Brave *Caring *Easily Envious *Little-miss-perfect So there's a balance of good and bad in the good characters. Each character has at least 5 character traits, as demonstrated, with at least 2 of them bad. Now let's stack them up against the 3 main Twilight characters. Bella: *Pretty *Average attitude and personality Edward: *Hot Jacob: *Hot The characters have much less personality in Twilight than in Harry Potter, as demonstrated. Secondly, Harry Potter has a much better plot than Twilight. Think about it: Harry Potter is about an orphaned boy, mistreated by his non-magical relatives, who finds out he's a wizard, goes to a school of magic, and faces his destiny to defeat the greatest evil wizard of all time, along with his loyal friends. Twilight is about a girl with a pretty face and a bland personality who moves to Washington State and starts dating a vampire who sparkles in the sunlight and watches her in her sleep, then dates a werewolf who has the need to take off his shirt. Then the glittering vampire gets her pregnant, and they have a baby that could have killed her because they're extremely pro-life (bad message!). Oh, and her werewolf ex dates her daughter instead. Is this supposed to be romance? Also, you must note that Harry is much stronger than Bella. While Harry saves the world from an evil murderer, Bella lays around and waits for her supernatural boyfriends to save her. Talk about a bad example! Last, but not least, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry in the movies) can act, whereas a rock has more expression than Kristen Stewart (Bella in the movies) Sources: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book by J.K. Rowling) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Book by J.K. Rowling) Twilight (Book by Stephanie Meyer) New Moon (Movie)
Coke is better than Pepsi

Thank you for excepting! Yeah is see is missed spelled coke!! What can I say I am a guber. I have bad grammar I will never get that vote. As far as the pepsi challenge I will say pepsi is better at advertising. But, lets be honest if it was the coke challenge and coke ran it who do you really think would win. The reason coke is better is it was first and has the better recipe. Pepsi rode the shirt tails of Coke. As far as different flavors who's idea was that. Let's see what came first cherry coke or cherry pepsi. Yeah pepsi now has a bigger selection but bigger selection does not mean better quality.
Britain's immigration service should introduce Kuwaiti-style gay detectors.

Homosexual acts are banned in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates: the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries; but some foreign gays still manage to sneak in by posing as normal tourists or businessmen. That's why the Kuwaitis are planning to clinically screen international visitors for homosexuality in order to identify any gays that may be lurking in the midst of the heterosexual passengers. Any gays they detect will then be deported and banned from all GCC countries. Yousuf Mindkar, the director of public health at the Kuwaiti health ministry, said: "Health centres conduct the routine medical check to assess the health of the expatriates when they come into the GCC countries. However, we will take stricter measures that will help us detect gays who will be then barred from entering Kuwait or any of the GCC member states." [1] Meanwhile, here in Britain, we have the opposite problem: heterosexual migrants from countries where homosexuals face discrimination are landing at Heathrow, queering it up and claiming to be gay in order to obtain political asylum. That's because the United Nations Refugee Convention states that people should be able to live freely and openly without fear of persecution. They might not fool a genuine gay with their chocolate cha-cha dancing charades but how do the immigration officials and judges prove these bogus asylum seekers are faking being homosexual so that they can deport them? Labour MP Keith Vaz,said "It is absurd for a judge or a caseworker to have to ask an individual to prove that they are lesbian or gay, to ask them what kind of films they watch, what kind of material they read." [2] I agree, if I wanted to convince an immigration officer I was gay, all I would need to say is "Last night I watched The Sound of Music on DVD and I am currently reading Cristiano Ronaldo's autobiography," and he'd stamp my asylum application form with "SCREAMING HOMOSEXUAL" and "POLITICAL ASYLUM APPROVED" and I'd be allowed to legally stay in the country. However, with Kuwaiti-style gay detectors immigration officers will quickly and reliably be able to determine which asylum seekers are really homosexual and which ones are just camping it up to get into the country. Thank you. [1] http://gulfnews.com... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is Sound

DDO is being very buggy, so I had to just start a new debate. Miles has agreed to debate this topic with me. Kalam 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. Therefore 3. The universe has a cause 4. The cause is an immaterial, omnipotent, timeless, personal (sentient), mind. 5. An immaterial, omnipotent, timeless, personal, mind exists (God). Structure R1: Opening information and Pro's opening arguments R2: My rebuttal and Pro's response R3: My response and Pro's closing response R4: My closing response. Since Pro is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Pro will put "For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed." Rules No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 8000 Characters Max 2 Week Voting Period Start your arguments in Round 1
Best Chuck Norris Jokes

...no signs of life there! Sorry about that, no more characters left. Your second joke makes no sense. Here are even better ones 1. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits. 2. Chuck Norris counted to infinity - twice. 3. Chuck Norris will never have a heart attack. His heart isn't nearly foolish enough to attack him. 4. Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Chuck Norris pajamas. 5. Chuck Norris is the reason why Waldo is hiding.
Best Chuck Norris Jokes

You didnt finish one of your jokes... Here are some that are a lot better than yours Some people can walk on water, Chuck norris can swim on land Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction; Chuck norris lives in America Chuck norris doesnt belive in god. God believes in Chuck Norris Chuck norris can judge a book by its cover Chuck Norris can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night.
Best Chuck Norris Jokes

Chuck Norris war! remember, only 5 jokes! 1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried!! 2. Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing!! 3. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death! 4. When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night he checks his closet for Chuck Norris! 5. Chuck Norris has already been to Mars; that's why there are n
Fortnite shouldt be illegal

Well, You are Right at some Point. But we should not Forget how you scared People while you danced Fortnite-Dances in front of them. It is understandable that they were scared. Cause your trash! You can't even Dance! You can't even Play this game, Thats why you are against it! Why you bullin me, If you bully me, I bully you, You understand? So, You did know that These Kids were scared of you, And thats why you stopped playing and rather went into the bathroom to study, Poop and masturbate. That is just how a Retard lives. Congratulations, You are officially a Retard. You stopped playing cuz ur trash and actually thats why ur against it! That is a shame dude Just get out of here dude get out of here Another solution would be that you start to Play minecraft Another solution would be that you should eat a Snickers, Cuz you are not you if you are hungry :) NF smells like poopooo
Fortnite shouldt be illegal

So your Definition is poop. Also you talked About JW. I can explain how his grades improved due to Fortnite. Fortnite was his only Thing to do, Before he just masturbated, But stopped when playing Fortnite. But because in Fortnite he was so bad, He rage quittet and had nothinh to do, So he studied. Whats the Benefit for everyone" Nothing. Also why he had a 12-13 in geography you islamic Terrorist? HE should have instead masturbating and when he came early cause hes a Young Boy he could study so much more. The time he starts the pc and fortnite is the same ammount of time 2 jizzes would take. Do you like Fortnite, No you don't, Cause your mama don't let you. So you Play fifa you poopie cock. Ist Always the same with you. Yesterday I had some great poop. I called it like you you poop, Haha. Your mainclash was, That your fat brother is in love with some fortnite Skins, Dare yourself to Prevent him from marry the Skin. It just would be dumb cause he don't gets the good stuff like Megan fox. Thats why the Motion must definitly fall. Peace bratans
Fortnite shouldt be illegal

So due to you being that Kind and Forget to define the Motion i will do it. Fortnite is defined as the Computer game and we are Talking About BR. Illegal is defined as being forbindden. Next I am going to come up with my Arguments: So first of all Fortnite is a very good game and I have a really impressing example for that. So my classmate JW, He used to be such a fortnite-addicted boy and you know what: His grades got even better! He went from grades like 9, 8+ to 2-, 1-2, Which is really really amazing! I can't honestly understand why fortnite is bad. I know People try to like say Fortnite is bad because your killing People ingame, But ladies and gentlemen that is the good Thing About fortnite! That is why it makes so much fun! You kill People in fortnite and you learn from it: You write a class test and instead of writing it as you would probably do, You rather kill it you Smash it away and get yourself ya 2 GG EZ peasy Lemon squeezy
Fortnite shouldt be illegal

So nowadays is a time which describes the days of now. But what it also does is that it Insult fatty fatass people. So Could you imagine to go to the street and se Kids do fortnitedances. You just want to throw up cause they disgusting and poopoo af. FORTNITE should be illegal cause Little Kids have fun with a virtual killinscenario. Stop Fortnite and invest its Money into something like global warming
Homeschooling vs. Public School

Not only is Homeschooling cheap compared to other education options, but the results are generally better. Most parents who homeschool spend less than $600 per year compared to the $10,000 average spent per pupil by public school systems. However, parents who homeschool are still paying a portion of that $10,000 expense. Surprisingly, spending such a low amount on a child's education produces impressive results. One study found that the average homeschooled student outperformed the average public school student by roughly 30 percentile points.
Religion does more harm than good

Religion is a collection of beliefs, cultural systems and world views that people believe they have to do in order to worship some kind of a higher power. According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions in the world. It is very difficult to count the people believing in the different religions but roughly about 2 billion of the Earth population are Christians, 1.3 billion are Muslims, 850 million are Hindus, 375 million are Buddhists, 25 million are Sikhists. These are the top 5 religions according to: http://www.infoplease.com... . My examples will be about Christianity and Islam since the people who believe in these religions taken together are nearly as half of the world's population. With my first argument I will defend the statement that religion literally separates us. So let's imagine this- there are roughly 4,200 different religions, most of this religions separate to smaller religions, and most of these 'sub religions' separates to more divisions of that particular religion. For example, the main religion Christianity has three main divisions: Roman Catholic, Orthodox Eastern, and Protestant. According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today. And the number of Islamic divisions is over a 150. All of these divisions separates the society and differentiate the people to many communities without any reasonable purpose that has proved to be true or not true. And when a society is not united, there's nothing good about it. My second argument is that religion has become the easiest way to manipulate people. We cannot be certain about the reason why religion was created. Even if the original idea was to unite people and give them answers to the questions without answer, later religion was turned into the easiest way to make people do what you want. People are afraid of the higher power they believe in. It's in their heads- they are afraid what is going to happen to them after they die, what is going to happen if they are 'bad people'. That is why they have these religious rituals to worship a particular higher power. That higher power always has its teaching which always is teaching against something. Our religion frequently forbids us to do certain things, saying that is against its teaching. But what if this is a way to make people do what somebody wants, to make them believe in what somebody wants? What if religion is an idea of a great genius who wants to rule people and make them do what he wants without giving explanations? I'll give a simple example with the crusades in the 11th century. Each of these crusade was in the name of Jerusalem and its freedom but its proven that this was a way to make people fight for territories, many people were killed in the name of Jerusalem's freedom but actually it was only for territories. If it wasn't for territories the crusaders wouldn't have negotiated so much with rulers to do some things for these rulers in exchange of payment.
My intentions deem that i must regard your argument as wrong..

I've waited the 3 day period. I will be leaving this without argument so that my opponent and I have the same amount of debate rounds. My opponent should leave his empty as well. He has his argument here, mine will be exclusively the 4th round, and 5th well be rebuttals and closing statements. The 9 day period should be enough time for my opponent to get their affairs in order(as indicated in the comments) or at least allow him to draft an argument to post later(as I have done for round 4).
My intentions deem that i must regard your argument as wrong..

In taking the Pro position you are in agreement with the following statement" "STAGIESTCOSINE's intentions deem that they must regard LevelWithMe's argument as wrong. You are going to argue that my intentions will motivate me to regard your argument as wrong. However, you have no basis to agree with this statement. 1) You"re unaware of my full intentions. I mean, shouldn"t you clarify my intentions before agreeing with a statement referring to my intentions? 2) I"m a stranger to you. How are you going to clarify my intentions? By asking? Perhaps, I"m a pathological Liar. Perhaps, I was drunk when I created the debate title. Maybe, I lack introspection and unable to be aware of my intentions. 3) If you claim to be more aware of my intentions than I, then I would like some proof that you know my mind more than I do.
My intentions deem that i must regard your argument as wrong..

The debate is as follows.Challenge:My intentions deem that I(STAGIESTCOSINE) must regard your(acceptie) argument as wrong.Pro - STAGIESTCOSINECon - Acceptie(myself)Pretext of the debate:Con will present and argument of their choice, for which they can be Pro or Con.This argument may not be about a specialist subject(I assume this is to mean academia or professional knowledge).Argument chosen and presented by Con to demonstrate that Pro's intentions do not necessarily deem that Pro must regard Con's argument as wrong:STAGIESTCOSINE's intetions deem that they must regard LevelWithMe's argument as wrong.Pro: LevelWithMeCon: STAGIESTCOSINE
My intentions deem that i must regard your argument as wrong..

Thank you LevelWithMe for accepting this challenge (I didn't quite expect this). I will allow you to be either Pro or Con. Could you please clarify whether you deem the statement "My intentions [StagiestCosine] deem that I must regard your argument as wrong" to be true or false so that I know from which angle to be begin the debate. Basically, I'm slightly confused! Are you Pro or Con? Warmest Regards Stagiest.
My intentions deem that i must regard your argument as wrong..

I've recently joined Debate.Org and would like voter rights (I believe the criteria for which is instigating 3 debates, right?). My debating style is far from refined but I will be respectful and give your topic my full attention. Round One will be your opportunity to present an argument of your choice (Pro or Con) but please no ridiculously specialist subjects, otherwise we risk the prospect of a very unfulfilling debate. Regards Stagiest
The holocaust never happened.

I'll accept. I assume the first round is for acceptance. DefinitionsHolocaust- The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War IIhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...I find it terrible that someone can deny such an event occurred based on their anti-Semitic views. I also hope my opponent does not live in one of the 17 countries where denial of the holocaust is illegal. If my opponents argument is there is no physical proof I hope for their sake that he/she is trolling. I hope in round 2 my opponent offers something better than the Jews made it up.
The holocaust never happened.

Alright let’s get this going. My opponents only argument is "were you there? No. Therefore, you can't prove it happened." I may not have been there but plenty of other people were. Many Nazi's after and during world war one admitted to the holocaust. Heinrich Himmler, one of the most powerful Nazi's, gave a speech in Pozan, Poland talking about the holocaust. Here are some quotes from that speech (1). "It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter." "We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us." As you can see it was clear that the Nazi's were exterminating the Jews. SS private Boeck said "They opened the door, threw the children in and closed the door. There was a terrible cry. A member of the SS climbed on the roof. The people went on crying for about ten minutes. Then the prisoners opened the doors. Everything was in disorder and contorted. Heat was given off. The bodies were loaded on a rough wagon and taken to a ditch. The next batch were already undressing in the huts. After that I didn't look at my wife for four weeks."(2) Not only this but some Nazi documentation survived the war. One document that survived the war was the Jagar Report. Written by SS officer Jagar it records the killing of 137,346 Jews in a five mouth span(3). During the Nuremberg Trails allied prosecutors submitted over 3000 tons of documentation (4). The argument "were you there? No. Therefore, you can't prove it happened" is a terrible one. I didn't witness 9/11, I was only 4. But just because I didn't witness it does not mean it did not happen. If my opponent wants eyewitness testimony I direct him/her to these links. (5)(6)(7)(8)This isn't worth my or anyone elses time. If my opponent wants to make ridiculous claims and then insult everyone by using fake logic, they should not be debating this topic. Now if my opponent wishes to take this debate more seriously I will make a more detailed and better response in the next round. But for my opponent to make a debate about such a sensitive matter and then treat it like a joke is just disrespectful. (1)- http://www.holocaust-history.org... (2)-http://www.izieu.com... (3)-http://fcit.usf.edu... (4)-http://www.ushmm.org...; (5)-http://www.youtube.com... (6)-http://www.youtube.com... (7)-http://www.youtube.com... (8)- http://www.youtube.com...
Poetry -to rhyme or not to rhyme.

I used to believe if it didn't rhyme it wasn't worth reading. But I've grown up and have taken new views. I do take into consideration that some great rhyming poems are out there but on the whole I believe that it constricts the writers ability to well , just write. If you are constantly worrying and changing your words to fit around rhymes and half rhymes etc. Then you are also limiting the amount of raw emotion you are conveying. I have also grown to find traditional rhyming poems slightly tedious. So overall I believe writing a non-rhyming poem is more emotional, intriguing and of a higher standard compared to rhyming poetry.