BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reading a book is better than watching a film

Firstly I would like to the fact that who would want to watch a 5-14 hour movie? Surely people would get bored of sitting there watching something for so long, no-one would like to do that. Yes, you can come back to watching the film however people just haven't got the time, with a book it is able to read anywhere and everywhere and people would find it much easier to carry a book around and read it whenever possible. Most movies do their thing in 1.5"3 hours. A book is edited and crafted, but the writer is still working within an unlimited time canvas. This condensing of books into movies leads to deleted parts from the book or abbreviation of developments within the book(1). This shows that the majority of films are short and do miss details and sometimes it is major details. Books also do not miss surroundings, facial expressions or cinematography. You are able to know the surroundings because the book will go into detail about that a lot of the time and the reader will also set the scene a lot better then the film-maker. The facial expressions in a book are shown by the way the character is acting at that time therefore people are able to imagine it. The things shown in the film like facial expressions, surrounding etc, are just a group of people's opinions unlike a book which allows people to get their own opinions and judgements rather than them being made for them. Cinematography is unable to be performed in a book, obviously however the book doesn't need to ability to use cinematography because all the words in the book give you everything you need without the unnecessary things to put you off the message of the story. The con claimed that there is many philosophical films and yes there is however some uneducated people may find it hard to understand these films however if they was able to read the book and get guidance with that they will be able to have widened their vocabulary range whilst also being able to have learnt how to understand books. I would just like to say that kids may not understand the message of them films because them films are animations and are usually aimed at younger kids however by watching the film they will not be able to become more educated by sat in front of the television just watching something that they may find interesting but do not understand. Also, kids may not like reading books however parents should introduce reading books more often to their kids because it will help them in the future. Movies do build up on the imagery people receive however people should be able to make them judgements for themselves without having a director doing that for them, even though the director may have ambivalent movies. My Conclusion: Books will still be better than films even though people do prefer to watch the films as it is more entertaining however books are just better in the long run. http://www.barnesandnoble.com... (1)
Reading a book is better than watching a film

I agree with this statement very strongly. Films are a great thing to watch however they are no way as good as reading the book. My first point that I am going to make is the fact that books are able to have more detail and sections in them. The book is longer therefore does not have to be so restricted unlike the film which will have a certain time slot to try and fit everything into the film. Films miss out main points and sometimes miss out key information about the characters. This key information could be very important because it could help you understand the way that the character acts and how they cope and deal with certain things. The book will give extra information and detail which may help you understand it better. My second point is that books are a great way for people to become more educational without having to do loads of hard-work. It helps people widen their vocabulary range and think of better ways to write things. Books are probably more educational for young children that are starting to learn basic vocabulary and as time goes along the books will get harder for them unlike a film which will not have as much of an educational side because of the fact that everything is being said and thought for you. Lastly, the book allows you to have a wild imagination and build your own images up rather than having them chose for you straight away. The film makes you have a fixed mind set because all the views and images are created by the director and not by what you've made. The film just makes you think one thing rather then being able to have an expanding mind set. The book makes you have your own imagery and ables you to be able to be an independent thinker and create images for yourself.
Reading a book is better than watching a film

I'm glad pro has such confidence in his case, let's hope it's well placed. I could not make much sense of most of pro's first argument, for the sentence was long and confusing. But I understood that he claims that tv series are easier to follow than a long movie and asks me if I have ever watched such a film. My answer is no of course, but my personal experience is no determinant for the validity of the argument and is therefore completely irrelevant. Moving on, pro attempted to put down my argument by questioning whether enough people own smartphones and have a netflix account. Needless to say, most people these days have smartphones. I even dare to estimate there are more people who own a smartphone than there are people who frequently read books. Pro claims buying a book would be a better expenditure than buying a netflix account. However the cost of a Netflix account is 7 dollars a month while the cost of a book ranges from 5 to 30 dollars. So yes, if you would only choose of the two, netflix would be cheaper. But you could just as well enjoy both media and not limit yourself to one. After all books and movies are equally fun. Pro likes to get back on his argument of interpretation and imagination. He again uses Of Mice and Men and the movie equivalent of it. I thought I had made clear that translating books into movies rarely works, but pro overlooked that. He uses a terrible example to reinforce his argument. Instead, I will again fall back on There Will Be Blood; a movie that has not been translated from a book. In this movie we see every detail we need to say and don't miss anything. Pro complains about the subject of this debate, and somehow waited until the last round to do so. Nevertheless, the premise of this debate is "Reading a book is better than watching a film". I, as con, am supposed to argue that "Reading a book is NOT better than watching a film", which is exactly what I am doing right now. Pro made the point that films get put off track by addition of things that distract people from the message. Currently, I cannot find an example of a movie that does this. In every well-made movie every scene contributes something to the story, so I wouldn't call it useless. Pro proceeds to use a strawman argument by asking why a director would make a movie with no point being made. Never once have I suggested this. Pros following argument I could also not make much sense of because, I apologize. I understand that he was trying to say that movies these days are more complex than what they used to be. I highly doubt that since the audience for cinema has grown tremendously over the last decades, but that's not what this debate is about. Pro has again not made a comment about ambivalent movies, so that argument still stands. Time for the conclusion. Pro has failed to comment on multiple arguments I have made. I have presented multiple examples of movies with equal complexity and enjoyability as books.
This 1 round debate will get 40,000,000 (40 MILLION) views before the voting begins

By "before the voting begins" my opponent clearly meant before the upcoming US presidential election where Gingrich and Obama will have a duel to the death to determine who inherits King Georges throne to rule the United States. I argue that this debate will have a lot less views than 40 million before that happens. Please do not vote on this debate until Mr.Newt and Obama duel to the death
Racism

Slavery was over 200 years ago. You can't go to a black person and have them say that they have a grandparent still alive that was a slave, because it was over 8 generations ago. While WW2 that was about 50 years ago Jews are not recognized and they are white. You can that find a white person that is still alive was discriminated in the concentration camps. There was even white slaves from 200 years ago. Africans knew what they were going to do when they came to this country, they had to pay there way to America.
Hitler was an excellent political leader.

"Excellent Leader" depends on what the attributes are you assign to that title. The people of Germany at that time were in full agreement of the policies he proposed. He stuck to them, and although one could argue that a good leader gives a people what they need, not what they want, He did manage to return Germany to it's former glory (before WWII) which is what the people needed and wanted. So from this one could argue a good leader does both, which Hitler did. In terms of the atrocities, it depends what your ideological views and beliefs on civil issues, so when I say "putting those aside" I mean so we can actually answer the question without influence from our own personal views. In terms of his policies, he gave the public what they wanted, and what they needed to survive, and with this balance of giving the people what they needed (restoration from a near economic, and a body of government to believe in) and what they wanted (the atrocities, and scapegoats of the "non-aryans"), one could argue he was an excellent leader. He did lose World War II, yes, but not because of political philosophy or bad political leadership, but because he was not a good military tactician, which does not have to be an attribute of a good political leader in modern day. P.S. I intended to have more rounds, but I've set it up wrong, so thank you for your time and view,, and maybe see you next time in part II of this debate.
Hitler was an excellent political leader.

The ability to lead (or to get people to follow) does not make one a brilliant, effective or excellent leader. With power comes responsibility. A leader is responsible and answerable to the people following him and is entrusted to make correct decisions on their behalf. Any good Hitler did for Germany is vastly and utterly outweighed by the bad. Both Germany and the rest of the world would have been better off had Hitler never been in power. Ergo Hitler was not an excellent political leader. P.S. "putting aside the atrocities he later put forward" is tantamount to saying the soup was good except for the arsenic in the recipe.
Hitler was an excellent political leader.

Although Hitler is responsible for millions of disgusting war crimes and grotesques, he was a brilliant leader. After the hyperinflation caused by the disgraced and dis-respected Weimar Republic, he led the people of Germany out of the ramshackle government with promises of rebuilding Germany to it's former glory. Putting aside the atrocities he later put forward, his charismatic speeches and promises were set at the right time, and he was capable of having the entire country supporting him.
10.1 million people in prison, is much worse than genocide.

FREEDO made the following statement: "About 10.1 million people are in prison, somewhere in the world, right now. That's much worse than any genocide."[1] The resolution of this debate is based on that statement, in the context of that thread. As per FREEDO's request the resolution will be modified to reflect his true intention in that thread to: About 10.1 million people are in prison, somewhere in the world, right now. That's much worse than any genocide of equal #. No lawyering No semantics No new arguments in R4 [1] http://www.debate.org...
Is the war in Afghanistan and Iraq (in essance, even the whole 'war against terrorism' a religious w

Greetings to my opponent. Good luck and have fun, keep 'er clean. Just to clarify, I am stating that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, indeed religious conflicts between the Islamic peoples and the 'Christian infidels' of the West. As such, my resolution will also state that the entire affair is born back to the Crusades, in which the disputes over Jerusalem and the Holy Land cost many lives and stirred many sentiments. In fact, this was made quite clear when Husseim stated that he wished to eradicate all Western Christians. The East is Ancient. they date back to the beginnings of civilation, with the Fertile Crescant. In contrast, the West is very young. We tend to forgive and forgive, in time, but the Islamic revolutionaries have long memories and aren't so inclined to forgive. Thus, retaliatory attacks may be due from as long ago as an incident in the '60's or 1970s. Thus, this is my opening statement. Good luck to the contender. stay classy. I'll let you 'take the ball', to borrow the cliche'. :D
Race is a Poor Indicator for Differences Between Humans

I am starting this debate as another one I took part in with a similar subject didn't continue past my acceptance of the debate. I'm going to explain my position(s): -I am of the opinion that race is poorly defined in general, and does not hold any scientific weight. The slight variations in skin colour and any other physical properties does not warrant any reason to separate these so-called 'races' of humanity, and this goes two-fold for those that hold these races to be separate species of human. I am going to be looking at this topic from an Anthropological perspective and analyzing what the science says on this topic. For the majority of this debate, when I'm referring to race I am probably referring to differences in skin colour (though I may use different variations of the word, depending on the context). I wish my opponent, whomever it may be, good luck. Structure of the debate: Round 1: acceptance and statement of position (no arguments or rebuttals) Rounds 2, 3, 4: Arguments and rebuttals Round 5: Closing statement (may be used as an additional argument. If so, one must state it is an additional argument. This round is optional). For those who are going to judge this debate, please keep this structure in mind when doing so. Do not judge either myself or the opponent on the first and fifth rounds (unless it is used for an additional argument).
The international community should actively support the creation of a Palestinian state

I will be arguing that the international community as a whole, and democratized nations where human rights are respected in particular, should actively pursue the fulfillment of international law by acting to: A. End the Israeli occupation and colonization of all Arab lands to enable the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital; B. Ensure Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel enjoy fundamental rights equal to those of other Israeli citizens; C. Implement, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties in Israel as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. Round 1 is for acceptance, clarifications and definitions; Rounds 2 and 3 for arguments and rebuttals. Thank you.
Gun control lowers crime

Statistics are showing that stricter gun control reduces the rate of murder. There is no evidence supporting your claim that a gun is useful in self defense. It can endanger your life even more because if you're being threatened by another person, and you posses anything dangerous on you, you might use it because you're in a state of shock, and then violence will appear. However, if you have nothing to use, the criminal might let you go. See: http://www.freerepublic.com...
Gun control lowers crime

The purpose of a gun is to kill,yes in the military. but in the cities you buy a gun to protect your property, life, and family. so would it make you feel better if someone started shanking you if you did not have a gun? what if they had a chain? you may not escape shootings if you are near guns but you can certainly return fire. The person that goes on a shooting rampage doesnt license his gun, because he would get it take away. guns will always fid ways into this country.
Gun control lowers crime

The purpose of having a gun is to kill. How many times have we witnessed young students massacring other students and commit suicide with guns? Have you ever heard of one person stabbing several others to death, e.g. a student stabbing other students? It may be that a student has stabbed another student, but in many cases, the other student has survived, and he has been the only victim. With guns, victims are numerous, and you can almost not escape from shootings if you are near.
Gun control lowers crime

If a child were to vent out his/her anger on society by shooting up his/her school they would not undergo mental exams or even a background check. they could just get a gun and go (permitting no one at the school has a concealed weapon license which is hard to come by these days) shoot some innocent people. their parents could have unlicensed guns. He could easily (if the child was 14 years and up) buy a gun off the black market. people stop people with guns, not leftist laws
Gun control lowers crime

Thank you for brining up this debate. I hope that we will both learn something from each other. To begin with, you have to differentiate between two nations with widely different cultures. In Finally, in Switzerland, people have a good lifestyle in general. In the United States, there is a great number of poor people living under bad circumstances. Children get raised by violent parents, they get into bad friendships, and are therefore more likely to use guns in a wrong way.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Ok. Thanks to my opponent for starting this debate. 1: Do you think the Who is better than the Rolling Stones? 2: Have you ever not practiced what you preached at any point in your life? 3: Does a always = a? 4: Do you like Frank Zappa? 5: Have you ever lied? 6: Do you think all organisms should live? 7: Do you think it's important to maintain a healthy diet? 8: Do you like annoying other people? 9: Have you ever knowingly kept the truth from someone? 10: Do you think people should act in accordance with their biological imperatives?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I find this particular debate enjoyable, this will be the last one before I go back to doing some real debating. 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself/herself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself/herself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

More contradictions to report: I asked my opponent if she ever lied in question five, to which she said yes. I then asked if she didn't like honest people, to which she replied "no, not really. " Not only is the above a contradiction, as well -- but it makes her a hypocrite, which contradicts question 28, which was "do you like hypocrisy? " to which my opponent said "no, not really. " Further, my opponent claims to be a logical person -- but, according to her answer to question 12, she doesn't necessarily believe in the law of identity, which is A= A. For one to call themselves logical and not adhere to a prominent principle of logic is contradictory. <"Organisms do live, whether or not I want them to. "> Ah, but my question is being manipulated -- I didn't ask *if* an organism lived; I asked if *all* organisms *should* live, and my opponent gave an affirmative response to that question, which means the contradiction I pointed out stands, as well as the three I just pointed out. <"The definition of an organism is something that lives, therefore, even if I do believe an organism should die, living is a temporary condition. "> Whether or not living is temporary or not doesn't impact my question, which was "do you think all organisms should live? " The operative words being "should" and "all. " My opponent answering in an affirmative fashion means she thinks all organisms *deserve* to live, which means living being temporary isn't relevant -- what's relevant is that she thinks they *should* live, and that we should act in accordance with our biological imperatives, which would be to kill and eat certain animals; saying all organisms deserve to live, but then saying it's ok to go out and kill cows to benefit ourselves biologically is directly contradictory. To summarize, I've shown that my opponent contradicted herself on numerous occasions, which means according to rule eight ("If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself/herself, PRO loses"), I win.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Organisms do live, whether or not I want them to. The definition of an organism is something that lives, therefore, even if I do believe an organism should die, living is a temporary condition. 21. Probably not. 22. No, not really. 23. No. 24. Yes 25. A single deity... not necessarily God. Perhaps a god in accordance with Deist views. 26. I try to be... I probably do not appear as one. Yes. 27. No. He's an animated earthworm. 28. No, not really. 29. Only out of his biological imperatives. 30. Yes
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Well, firstly, we have ourselves a contradiction: My opponent said that every organism deserves to live in response to question six -- but also said we should act in accordance with our biological imperatives in question ten, and she also claims to have eaten steak with her answer to question 17. One of our biological imperatives is to feed on animals which are lower in the food chain than we are, which therefore means that in order to act within accordance to our biological imperatives, other organisms would have to die and be killed, which means if my opponent is to act on these imperatives, which she claims people should in response to question ten, then organisms would die, which contradicts her answer to question six. I can further elaborate on this if needed -- but I think it's a pretty obvious contradiction. <"however, transformers, transforming furniture, colour changing sprinkles... the list really does go on and on."> If the object's properties necessitate that it "transforms," changes color, etc., then the object is still itself, because it's acting in a constant fashion with its characteristics. The transformer = a transformer; color changing sprinkles = color changing sprinkles; the fact that they're transforming, changing color, whatever, is only further proof of that, if anything, which means that the objects are still themselves. 21: Was Sid Vicious innocent? 22: Do you like people who aren't relatively honest? 23: Does it bother you when people don't tell you something as a form of "protection?" 24: Do you think Jimmy Page is better than Jeff Beck? 25: Do you think "God" exists? 26: Do you consider yourself to be a logical person? 27: Earthworm Jim is greatness. Do you agree? 28: Do you like hypocrisy? 29: Did Easy-E really try to kill Wesley Willis? 30: Are abstinent people nonsensical to you?