BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

I believe that there is some truth to the phrase "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". Besides making a catchy chorus for a Kelly Clarkson song, this saying sums up one of the main forces that has been keeping life going on planet earth for million of years. I realize that there are situations in which an event may injure you to the point that you cannot function like you did before the incident and in many ways, become weaker; however, there are always ways in which, inadvertently, you become stronger because of these events. One of the main reasons that life has persisted and flourished on planet earth is organisms ability to adapt and evolve. One example is a small child learning for the first time that when you touch the oven, it my be hot. They touch the oven, get burned, cry, and then in time, realize that they shouldn't do that again. This ability to adapt has helped many animals, including humans, survive. I realize that some experiences may weaken you, but I believe that whatever happens, you have gained something, be it knowledge, experience, or skill, that makes you stronger in some aspect. Because of this, every experience you have in your life does in some small way make you stronger, thus fulfilling the phrase "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Finally, I don't think that this phrase should barred from media or anywhere else. Like most phrases and sayings that we use, it is not meant to be pulled apart, analyzed, and taken literally. It is simply meant to inspire people and give us the hope that even though we may be battered, scarred, and bruised by life, something good will come out of the chaos. Life is a struggle, and we have a tendency to tell ourselves things like this to help us keep going. Some of what we say may be true, and some may not be, but when you have some happy thoughts to think, life looks a lot brighter wherever you may stand. Over to you, Pro.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

I will argue that 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' is a misleading claim that should NOT be repeated or endorsed in society. Pro will argue that it is NOT a misleading claim and is factually sound, or whatever. 3 rounds, 24 hours between rounds, 3000 charactersArguments:1) ParalysisWhat doesn't kill a person could in fact paralyze them from the waist down or from neck down, making them lack the ability to move some or even all of their limbs. Being paralyzed by something most certainly does not make a person stronger, since being paralyzed leads to several other bad conditions that only weakens a person even furtherhttps://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.wpi.edu... 2) Mental illnessWhat doesn't kill a person could mentally scar and haunt that person for the rest of their lives to the point that they can barely function as a normal person, if at all. People can suffer from mental insanity and mental illnesses based on events they experienced that they survived and didn't die from that still leaves them weaker than they were previously. People who suffered from abusive or neglectful parents, were in abusive relationships, grew up in rampant poverty, were targets of violent crimes, etc. can develop mental problems later on in life that impairs them from being able to function as a normal person, thus making them weaker, not stronger. https://en.wikipedia.org...3) Loss of limbsExplosions, accidents, fires, frostbite, etc are all events that can kill a person that if they do not can still result in the lost of limbs. This is similar to paralysis except that instead of them losing the ability to move their limbs, they just lose their limbs completely. Thus what doesn't kill a person could indeed make them weaker since the physical feats of strength they could otherwise accomplish are now drastically limited due to the losing of limbs. 4) CarcinogensSmoking cigarettes is widely known to be extremely dangerous to one's health and even kill a person given enough time by causing that person some form of cancer, most famously lung cancer. Other materials and things that are also carcinogenic may not necessarily kill a person, but surely weaken them by taxing their immune system with cancer, which can leave a person physically weak and susceptible to other diseases. So what doesn't kill a person could still give that person cancer and make their immune system weaker as a response, since human bodies are very ineffective in fighting cancer on its own. Over to you con
Fun debate, you chose (Nothing really serious)

Interesting insights. This is a humorous debate, so I'm going to tirade my hatred on perverts. I thank Pro for allowing me to hate on perverts. I hate perverts, every single one of you should stop talking about sexWhy is it that everywhere, everything has to be about sex? You go to your biology class and somehow somebody is going to mention that xylem vessels resemble their somewhat dubious long shaft or if your goddamn lecturer mentions things that are "long", everybody reacts with "well. .. .that is long". In other times,even a T-Rex in an archaeological class somehow resembles a sexual position? ?? ?WHY? WHY? ?? ?? ?? ?WHY TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? ?? ?Art is a valid substitutePro mentions that the value of art should be pure. .. .. .. f! ck no. If everybody gets creative about the positions they once took last night, they should consider art as a valid option of venting out their sexual frustrations. That way, I can sympathize and gain useful insights regarding the various advancements of art. Here's a few examples All the pictures are:1)Long2)With a position?3)In ContactWhy should we talk about the sweat and the movements we made when we can appreciate beauty itself? Why seek stupidity when you can at least pretend that you're insightful? If somebody mentions this to me, I don't have to suffer the awkwardness of social ineptitude since I can relate and start showing more pictures of art that could *possibly* satisfy these savage monkeys. .. .. . :(I mean, hypothetically, I might show them these. .. . And these. .. .. . People should start being arooused by these so we can always have a smarter earth >. < albeit a bit too perverted. ART IS A VALID SUBSTITUTE, I STAND BY MY FOOL'S STATEMENT. YOU SEXUAL IDIOTS SHOULD TAKE ART AS A VALID FORM OF AROUSAL.
Fun debate, you chose (Nothing really serious)

I have a few points to bring up, and a few definitions I would like to bring to the table as well. First of all, for the purpose of this debate, I would like to define art as a still image drawn or created by a human and I would like to define sexual use/arousal as sexually provocative or appealing My first contention of why art should not be permitted as a form of sexual arousal is that it takes away from the actual beauty and care put into the art itself. Art is a beautiful thing, holding an almost endless amount of value, we can't let sexual pleasure interfere with that. We should make it so that the first thing brought to someones attention is the actual work of art itself, not whats on it. We should care about how much thought and effort was put into the piece and not how sexually appealing it is. This entire debate is based around a concept that is completely up to interpretation. Art simply cannot have a definition due to the fact that art is different to everyone. Some might not even consider drawings art, but rather music. Since this entire debate is based around a definition that doesn't exist, there will be some pointless conflict surrounding it. But since I believe that the quality of art is not so much what it depicts, but the quality of it, I chose to argue that sexual appeal has no place in art, for it distracts the viewer from all the hard work put into it, and directs their attention to the sexually provocative images, so for this reason I believe that the proposition wins this debate
Fun debate, you chose (Nothing really serious)

I accept. Thanks for having me. I'd like to thank Pro for allowing me to choose the topic as I wish. If Pro permits, I'd like the topic to be....1) Art should not be permitted as a medium of sexual use/arousal.Standard Debate TOS applies. I am an asexual, so if pro allows, I'd like to take my original position as Con in this debate. You will begin as Pro.I await your case.
Dues Ex Vs. Dishonored

I understand Dishonored has some game choices also, but what I am trying to push is the variation of which you can go about the game in dues ex. In dialogue, there is also different choices too. It is not, good or bad, because there is also an option to upgrade your augments to use the social enhancements. The way in which you go about completing a mission, does, in fact have an effect on the characters around you. In dues ex there is also no "Ridiculous XP" system. Yes you earn xp, which earns you praxis, but you can also find praxis and buy praxis which enables you to upgrade the character. There is certainly room to experiment in dues ex, there are many pillars of the game and different ways to play. This game has such a high replay value. So, if you like exceptional graphics, Many pillars of game play, a deep satisfying story line, and an awesome setting to explore, you'll choose dues ex. It's been around for a while.
Dues Ex Vs. Dishonored

True, in Deus Ex you can choose what is right to you, however Dishonored features this same system in similar light. In Dishonored you can go through the game like a complete ghost, not alerting a single enemy to your presence the entire game, or you can embark on a path of blood. What makes the system is Dishonored work so well is that there is no choices that say this is what you should do, and what you have to do. In the game overall killing every enemy in your path is most of the time in fact less challenging than stealthily making your way through, stealth is not easy. So it is up to the player whether they wish to take the path of stealth which can change so much in the game including the way you interact with non-playable characters and the ending of the game entirely. You are allowed to change the world your in, which simply allows the player to become completely immersed in the world, you can forge your own tactics, you can take out major targets in dozens of lethal or non-lethal ways, and you can end the game with a ruined world in chaos, or a world which flourishes in harmony and peace. It all comes down to one of the advantages it has over Deus Ex, what Deus Ex did, Dishonored was able to improve upon. The world in Dishonored and the way the player interacts with it is up to their play style, it is not linear, and in fact has a great effect on the world. The skill system in Dishonored is not complex, there is no complex tree that dictates what the player can do later on because they did not get a beginning skill earlier. There are very few skills in Dishonored which are passives, most of them are active skills which the player can use to suit their own style. They could use bend time to sneak away from combat, combine it with possession to cause an enemy to be killed by his own bullet, or to sneak past enemies completely to assassinate a main target, there are ways to use them no matter what play style you use, assuming you understand the skill. There is no ridiculous system of xp in Dishonored that rates players on what they do, you upgrade your skills using runes which you find across the large sandbox levels, the game encourages you to explore in order to find these, which can be used to gain new skills. If you follow a strictly linear path, you will not gain the advantages of being able to upgrade your skills. You can play the game however you like, and it encourages you to experiment, and develop your own style which will change the world of the game.
Dues Ex Vs. Dishonored

Next I will go into the way you can go about the game and the game play itself. In this game, the choices you make are not distinct. They aren't simply "right" or "wrong" In this game you can simply choose whichever choice seems right to YOU, enabling your own moral compass. That being said, the way you can complete the missions is also not in any way, "cookie cutter." You can be a ghost, going about all of the missions completely undetected and earning more exp, while you might be missing some vital things. You can be a panther, quickly striking and going back into the shadows. The advantage of this is that you can retrace your steps and collect anything you want, without alarming anyone or upsetting your moral compass (or pritchard's). You can hack everything, and sneak past the cameras undetected. You can also talk your way out of almost everything. From what I understand, In dishonored, your choices only affect the game slightly, although I'm not sure, because my web filter won't allow me to... but I have played this game. I did not have as many choices as dues ex, and I think gamers like the fact that they have option to chose how to go about the game, and that It can greatly affect the outcome of the game. Now about the gameplay. I will touch on this briefly. Gamers can customize Adam Jensen to their liking, even to assist them in whatever pillar of game play they choose. I think that this customization is one of the advantages that makes it better than dishonored.
Dues Ex Vs. Dishonored

The points you made about Deus Ex are all valid, however each one of them can be said about Dishonored. Multiple of them to an even greater degree. While the graphics of Dishonored was very different to the gritty, modern military shooters with realistic graphics. it had its own unique style. On top of that, the style worked well, it allowed the immersive world of Dishonored to be seen in a different light, and allowed the player to really become immersed in the world. The story of Dishonored seriously asks moral questions that so many games try to do, but fail at executing it. The protagonist of the game did not even had a voice actor, yet that only makes the game better, he is the character of the player, and not one that has been made and custom bred for them. Unlike so many other games, you can develop your own character, you can not choose the characters name or appearance, yet you can make the character that you decide to make. You can play as a vindictive killer, or a merciful person looking for the truth. What Dishonored has is not flash, there is no extensive ostentatious cinematics, but a story with real depth, and mechanics that flow together seamlessly. The two games have striking similarities, and while Deus Ex is a true classic, it was Dishonored that had the opportunity to refine and expand upon what that game did right.
Dues Ex Vs. Dishonored

For my first point I will just go off of personal experience.... I know that this game is old now, but It is one of the most epic games and staples in game history. Dues ex has been around for a long time. The graphics are good for the time it was made. The story line is amazing! It goes into depth very well. The fact that you can upgrade Adam Jensen any way you like and then go about the game in any way is very good. You can either avoid all enemies, strike quickly, or go out guns blazing. You can even mix and match. The game can accommodate all of these choices. Another thing I wanted to bring up is Adam Jensen's take down moves. Amazing. The character development is on-point.
Despite the recent NIE, the US would be justified in taking military action against Iran

http://www.cnn.com... Even if they aren't directly attacking our troops, they are supporting insurgents who are. They're providing weaponry and expertise, and crossing the Iraqi border to do so. "Our presences in Iraq and Afghanistan are quite the opposite of diplomatic leverage." Clearly you have no grasp of diplomacy. If someone comes up to you with a gun and says "give me all your money", are they going to put their gun away and leave just because you ask nicely? Obviously not. This is because you would be in no position to make any demands, and he would not in any position to make concessions. On the other hand, if you pull out a gun yourself, you would then be in a position to make demands such as "Put your gun away and nobody will get hurt." Our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are most certainly diplomatic leverage. Diplomacy cannot take place if you don't have a military (in other words, a gun). "I have already explained why the situation in Iran is dissimilar to the one in Pre-WWII Germany." Really? Is it competing centers of power? How does that invalidate the whole analogy? No events in history are EXACTLY the same as events today, but that doesn't mean that we can't draw comparisons and learn from it. Why don't we talk about the similarities? Both Hitler and Ahmedinejad said over and over again that they want to exterminate the Jews. Both Hitler and Ahmedinejad said that they want to establish an empire. Both Hitler and Ahmedinejad toned down their rhetoric when talking to foreign media. Foreign media fell for both of them. Both of them were ignored by the only people who could have stopped them. The only real difference is that Ahmedinejad is more dangerous, because he literally believes that he is ordained to usher in Armageddon, which he himself has admitted, and even trumpeted. "Ahmedinajad is not the "religious lunatic" you make him out to be, nor is he even a religious leader." I can't debate someone who is so divorced from reality. Have you listened to him talk AT ALL? Have you ever watched the film "Obsession?" They said the same thing about Hitler before he killed 6 million Jews and 12 million others. How do you explain the statement "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."? How do you explain the empassioned chanting of "Death to Israel, Death to America" at the conclusion of his speaches? How do you explain his denial of the holocaust? You can't be serious. Diplomacy may be the answer, but if it doesn't work, we would be justified in attacking Iran. I personally think regime change is possible, and that violence will not be needed.
Despite the recent NIE, the US would be justified in taking military action against Iran

Let me address your issues one by one: First of all, there is no credible evidence that the Revolutionary Guard is a significant present in Iraq, other than hearsay. We would be no more justified in invading Iran on this basis than we would in invading our ally Saudi Arabia, where multiple studies have shown that 50% of foreign insurgents in Iraq come from. Once again, allies of ours such as Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from, also back and harbor terrorists. Thirdly, Iran is surrounded by nuclear states such as Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and Russia. Why should they be demonized for developing nuclear weapons when the United States, the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, has a stockpile of thousands? Finally, if it's Ahmedinajad who's your problem, then what you're talking about is regime change. Iran has a more open public forum than any other nation in the Middle East except for Israel. All across Iran, citizens are voicing their displeasure with Ahmedinajad and the dissent is growing by all accounts. What makes Iran different from Nazi Germany is the competing centers of power. In a recent article published by the New Yorker, Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh quoted an anonymous former defense official with close ties to the administration who said that the President believes that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government." The problem with that logic is that bombing a sovereign nation rarely ever gains you any favor with its citizens. Invading Iran would actually strengthen Ahmedinajad's power, not weaken it. We must consider what "justifies" one country invading another. Simply because we think Iran might be trying to get nuclear weapons, as you have suggested by casting doubt on the National Intelligence Estimate, doesn't mean we are justified in invading them. The UN Security Council, who is charged with the maintenance of international security, certainly wouldn't see it that way, as we saw when Colin Powell tried to use that same reasoning for the invasion of Iraq. According to Article 2 Section 4 of the UN charter, the use of force against any state in the absence of an acute and imminent actual threat is illegal. Iran does not pose any imminent threat to the security of the United States and the problems we have with Iran can be resolved through diplomacy instead of bombs, therefore any invasion would be unjustified.
Despite the recent NIE, the US would be justified in taking military action against Iran

I have just one question. If the intelligence comminity has been wrong for the last few years about Iran's nuclear program, why should we suddenly believe them now? What changed right before the release of the NIE that suddenly merited our trust? Unless you can present a reason for us to believe that the intelligence we have is suddenly accurate, then we must logically conclude that it is not. In other words, the burden of proof is on you. But, let's just assume for a moment that this NIE report has any credibility. There are several justifications for attacking Iran: 1. We have caught the Revolutionary Guard in the act of supporting the insurgence in Iraq, and in some cases, actually participating in combat against our troops. This constitutes an act of war. It is actually incredible that we haven't already attacked Iran. It just demonstrates the nearly limitless patience of the American people (or, more likely, the ineptitude of certain factions within the government). 2. Iran is a notorious hotbed for terrorism. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as other terrorist organizations. Not only that, but the Iranian government provides safe haven for terrorist organizations. We will never eliminate terrorism as long it is institutionally recognized by a state government. 3. The NIE report still maintains that they WERE refining nuclear material for the purpose of weapons. Moreover, it does not say that they have stopped refining, only that they have stopped refining for weapon development purposes. In other words, the NIE report says "They're not as dangerous as we thought they were because they say they're not refining for weapons purposes." Are we seriously supposed to believe that? This is tantamount to a terrorist organization, notorious for bomb threats, saying "We want to obtain dynamite, but only for mining purposes." We would be the biggest FOOLS in history if we believed them. 4. To top it all off, Ahmadenijad is notorious for his violent, radical, inflamatory speach. We could make the mistake that Neville Chamberlain made prior to World War two and assume that it's just propaganda, tough talk, or we can learn from history, take him seriously and prevent World War III. The real question is, why WOULDN'T we be justified in using military force against Iran?
Despite the recent NIE, the US would be justified in taking military action against Iran

Despite the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program as of 2003, President Bush still claims that Iran is still a threat. After the debacle of the Iraq War, you would think that sabre rattling would be the last thing on the White House's mind. Does anyone else out there believe that Iran poses a threat to the US, and if so would we be justified in invading them? I welcome any takers.