BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ending to Lost was lame

The problem with Lost is that the entire show was one long bait and switch and what we're left with is far inferior to what we were promised. My opponent begins by pointing out that purgatory (flash-sideways world) is the only way to resolve all the character issues (like Jack and Kate not getting to be together). But: 1) The writers chose a religious concept, purgatory, that is rather exclusive to Christian doctrine; it's too specific to be considered generally "spiritual" and "satisfying" to many fans. Lost was supposed to have universal appeal and its spirituality from seasons past was of a more general nature. 2) It doesn't make you feel better because you think that the flash-sideways world is real, only to have the rug yanked out from under you. Watching Jack die and then being "reassured" by him reuniting with Kate in an alternate universe, only to learn that it was "not real" is like having your dog die when you're 3 and your mom says, "it's okay, we can bring him back to life." "Really???" "Haha, NO, just kidding! But you'll die soon too, so don't worry, you'll see him before too long." 3) Ben's character issues are unresolved. He is still an outcast because of his actions and must wait outside the church at the end. He does not achieve redemption. "Jack's father stated that the survivors gathered after death because of the importance of the island in their lives [1]" First, note that Lostpedia is not a legitimate source; I could right now edit out all these theories I don't agree with and replace them with my own. Second, just because there is an explanation doesn't make it a good one. My opponent still doesn't answer why Desmond had to re-unite with Penny in purgatory; he would have already done so in real life. There's also no reason that Jin and Sun needed to re-unite. I accept that purgatory is timeless under Christian doctrine. The writers for the show Friends wanted all fans to feel like the characters would be okay after the finale. The writers of Lost obviously didn't care about having the same universal appeal. Unresolved Questions Desmond - he didn't kill the Locke-monster; all he did was pull a giant stopper out of the Island – lame. Mr. Eko – Jacob protected all candidates; no one ever said anything about finding emotional closure. The writers owe us an answer because the smoke-monster supposedly had a plan the entire time and didn't kill at random. Healing: only Jacob had the power to bring someone back to life. What was up with the water at The Temple? Pregnancy: the Epilogue shows that polar bears could get pregnant on the Island before the statue broke. A fertility statue breaking is a pretty lame explanation for why women couldn't get pregnant on the Island. Lost was only intriguing because it promised answers – this was the cornerstone of the show. If the answers are lame or non-existent, the cornerstone of the show was based on a shaky foundation of false promises.
The ending to Lost was lame

Thanks, bluesteel. 1. The finale's central plot documented the destiny of the island, but offered few answers to the emotional struggles of each castaway. It was only during the flash-sideways that we witnessed the conclusion to important character relationships, some of which could not be accomplished outside of that realm. To remove this element and ignore these essential connections would have been a huge disservice to the fans. The introduction of the sideways realm was also a natural extension of the narrative. Spirituality and death were consistent themes throughout the series, with many individuals sharing interactions with the deceased. The prevalence of these concepts made its exploration necessary for a satisfying finale. As for the logic of the finale, Jack's father stated that the survivors gathered after death because of the importance of the island in their lives [1]. Given the length of his stay on the island, it is no wonder that Desmond made an appearance. The sideways realm was also timeless, giving Hurley an eternity to give up his title of island protector and regain mortality. 2. While I will address Pro's questions, he gives no explanation as to why these particular issues degraded the show's ending. A series need only provide answers that, given the context of the plot, would naturally reveal themselves. Lost did so, and to disclose mysteries that would logically remain unknown would be senseless. - Desmond's task was to kill the smoke monster by destroying the island. - Mr. Eko found emotional closure moments before his death, thus losing Jacob's protection. The fact that he was popular is of no consequence. - Walt shared a connection with the island. Considering no character on the show understood the nature of the island's power, this question could not be elaborated on without jeopardizing authenticity. - Jacob practiced minimum interference to better witness the essence of humanity [2]. - Healing effects is a side-effect of the island's electromagnetism [3], as is interfering with childbirth. - This premonition came true. Following Claire and Aaron's separation, she went mad, fell under the employ of the Man in Black, and very nearly caused his escape. - My opponent answered his own question concerning the numbers. - The resolution to the Kate-Jack-Juliet-Sawyer love quadrangle occurred in the finale, with each finding their soul mate in the afterlife. While I have shown the finale's components to be necessary for a satisfying resolution to the series, Pro offered only grievances that may or may not influence the show's overall appeal. I await his reasons for why these objections, each of which I have shown to be either unfounded or trivial, outweigh the vast network of stories, mysteries, and relationships resolved in the show's final moments. 1. http://lostpedia.wikia.com... 2. http://lostpedia.wikia.com... 3. http://lostpedia.wikia.com...
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

Upon accepting, you will acknowledge the following definitions and terms in the debate. Gun: A weapon incorporating a metal tube from which bullets, shells, or other missiles are propelled by explosive force. Control: (In this instance) to determine the behaviour or supervise the running of Guns and firearms. Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: More Arguments & Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements & Rebuttal No counter arguing or rebuttal is to occur in the 1st round, save your ammunition for the 2nd round. And please, no trolling, respect our opinions and differences, and just keep within common sense. Alrighty, :)
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

I understand, we all wish to strive to a Utopian society. But in a Utopian society there would be a means of effectively shutting down a crime as soon as the potential danger ensured. It will be hundreds of years before we have some way of doing that without turning the society into a complete military state. Yes Britain has a low crime rate but so do many countries with low gun control like. But it can also be claimed that countries with a strict gun control have the highest crime rate of the industrialized countries like Mexico. Mexico has a high crime rate of 11.23 per 100,000 gun crimes yet they also have similar gun laws to that of Britain. How are these countries vastly different in crime rate. There are also countries with low gun control and low crime rate,For example, Switzerland have .77 deaths per 100,000 people. If they want to buy a gun it is easy as getting a drivers license. They have to prove they are mentally capable to own a gun.In reality the only things they ban is assault rifles although if a man has served in the military he has able to keep his weapon. Gun control is not an effective way of reducing crime. This also mean having more guns is also not an effective way of reducing crime. So the problem lies elsewhere. Although guns are the easiest way to kill someone they are also the easiest way to protect yourself. Most likely if somebody in one of the massacres was carrying a concealed weapons (Any of the US Massacres) by legal means, meaning they got a concealed weapon permit from the state, the murder would be put down far more quickly than waiting for the police who never came on time. There are times when a man carrying a concealed weapon has saved the day. There was a uber driver in Chicago who shot a man who opened fire in a crowd in Logan Square. Most likely the reason it was effective for Britain was because of their culture. Within the U.S there are countries with high crime rate but yet they also have the strictest gun control. There are also places where historically a very harsh restriction on gun ownership was placed yet the murder rate increased. In Jamaica gun related deaths were 35.22 per 100,000 people. History goes in both ways it doesn't just acknowledge the good gun restrictions have done. As I mentioned before gun control is not an effective way of reducing crime neither is no gun control.
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

I understand that a utopian society is highly improbable to ever exist, however I am being optimistic that we can reach somewhere close to the utopian society, or even to say the least move towards it more than we are currently today. As long as society advances, it should strive to advance towards a utopian society. The model of gun control I am proposing, is identical to the British Firearms act of 1968, in this model all handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited from use, however a few pistols are licensed for use, but are under strict watch from police. Let me also state, that gun ranges are licensed to let people use these weapons prohibited to the public, as long as they do not leave the range. We aren't just removing guns from the system, we"re monitoring them. And if anyone wants to go have a shoot, go to a guns range. It"s as simple as that. Let me also highlight the brutal effectiveness of this system. Britain"s homicide rate per 100,000 people is 0.22, USA on the other hand. is 3.90. Although bad, it isn't as bad as the US Virgin Islands, with 52.6. The effectiveness of this system, is highlighted through statistics. Britain has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. And although, they have the ability to pick up a knife instead of a gun. Did they? Guns cause violence, and they are the easiest way to let impulses of emotion run loose. In 1996, the Port Arthur Massacre in Australia is an example of this. A young man who was mentally troubled, picked up a gun and killed 3 dozen people, as well as burning 3 hostages before surrendering to police. This highlights the ratio of effort and destruction of a firearm. If firearms were more controlled, he would still have emotional impulses, and go for the next best thing. A knife. However, the ratio effort and destruction is drastically different. It isn't as easy as clicking a trigger, and having a dozen dead people in front of you. You need to chase after people, and those people have time to run away and get to safety. It also means less deaths overall. I don't mean to sound heartless when I say that, but it"s true. A knife is a lot harder to mass murder with, than a gun is. Regardless of mass shootings, or not, it"s quite clear that following a British model is a lot more beneficial. The homicide rate in Britain was approximately at 3.96 in 1915, remaining there until 1968 when the Brit"s adopted this system. From then, the homicide rate fell to 0.22 (where it is today). Homicide not being suicide, of course. History highlights politics effectiveness, and most certainly it gives this system the thumbs-up. And as con stated, there is no sure way to determine what prevents future crime, or what will even work. However time shows us what works, and what doesn"t. The British model does however function in the way it was designed. Evidence for this is found in history, from the drastic change of 3.96 to 0.22.
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

Yep, it's my first debate so I'm sorry if I say something weird. Also I am not trying to sound heartless, forgive me for sounding so cruel when I talk about homicides or mass shootings it's not intetional. I'm just trying not to bring emotion into my arguments, and keeping statistics and facts the priority. First of all we should state the amount of gun control we are debating because we both understand we have to keep rules in place to keep the criminals from getting guns. I am debating on a low gun control for the mass, such as background checks to see who is able to own a gun, (distinguishing criminals from non-criminals) assuming it is enforced correctly and perfectly. Of course there has to be a way of distinguishing them, legal gun-venders can't be just selling guns left and right. There is no sure way of preventing future cime. You can merely assume that doing one thing will prevent it. Any person is liable to human emotion. In the moment people may lose their composure, and get very violent. There could be a fight, and it might get worse from there. No person is able to escape their emotion. To prevent it you would need to keep the person from owning a weapon. But what if that person is a model citizen, only at that time, they lost their ability to reason. There would be no way of knowing if he was to commit a crime. I don't think a stable enviroment is free of crime, the crime may be kept to a minimum but it will exist. Crime would be free in a utopian society, but that would simply be impossible, or highly improbable. In order for that to happen every human in that community would have to be hate free. It is simple for a person to pick up a gun and kill someone, but it just as easy as using a knife. It is also very easy to make a bomb. It is no secret on the internet it could just take an hour. In that same hour it would take a future shooter to go to the store and pick up ammunition. Yes the shooter can buy ammunition little by little day by day. Both have the possibility of raising suspicion, but shooter buying the ammunition would cause more uncertainty. As the bomber just needs to be in the safety of his home. When you talk about the mass shootings you do not realize that mass shootings have a very small percentage relation in gun homicides. They also take place in places where gun-free zones. Mass shootings get so much media coverage that people may think these things happen often. I don't mean often in the amount of time it takes place over the last century. In fact over half of gun deaths are caused by suicides. Killing yourself with a gun is just as easy as popping a handful of pills, and digesting them to kill yourself, or merely jumping off a high place. (Forgive me, I sound heartless) I don't think it would matter to someone who wants to end their life how they're going to do it.
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

Thank you, con for making this debate possible. I look forward to seeing the outcome of this debate. Let me start by disregarding how important gun control is for the creation of a stable society, we can all agree that a stable crime free environment, is imperative to a utopian model stable society. I understand that we need rules to prevent criminals from doing more criminal activity, however it is imperative that to the overall masses, there needs to be gun laws to prevent future crimes. Criminals are people who have already committed a crime, but this bracket removes the possibility of future criminals from the masses. It is important to notice this difference. Rules should apply to criminals, of course. However rules should apply to non-criminals to create difficulty for future criminals to use such a weapon as a medium to carry their evil deeds. Let me also highlight, the simplicity of people using guns to carry out their deeds. All it takes it to grab a weapon, a few rounds and with little to no planning, time and effort you have a dozen dead people in a mass shooting, as well as the cops chasing you down furiously. Now, I understand that if we do impose gun laws that criminals will find other ways to enact their violence, but this does come with it"s benefits, for example as I mentioned before, the simplicity of becoming a mass murderer with a gun. Other methods take a lot more time and effort than just picking up a firearm, and clicking the trigger. Bombs for instance, require hours, days or weeks of effort, and with this time, it gives people more time to notice their evil deeds and other suspicious activities. By making the criminals have to go to longer lengths, it makes the community able to pinpoint suspicious activities and to catch the criminal at hand. Regardless of how they conduct their methods, the amount that they do it is more concerning. By placing gun control, it removes the simplicity of merely picking up the firearm, holding the trigger, and having dozen bodies scattered in front of you.
Gun Control is necessary for a stable society.

Strict gun control is not a necessary ingredient to the making of a stable society. Of course, you need rules to keep criminals from doing more criminal activity with weapons, that doesn't mean you should impose restrictions on the mass. To say you need strict measures for a country to become stable is not true. Guns are a medium in which violence is to be used. Imposing restrictions on guns would mean those who wish to do harm to others would look for other ways to enact their deeds. If you want to stop the violence you would need to impose restrictions on every possible way a man could kill another man. Of course, some ways are easier to kill. For example, a gun is very much easier to kill than a with your hand. But people are not dumb if they truly wish to cause harm to the world there are many places where they can get weapons. A bomb can be made from household items. It's that easy. Well, all they need is an internet connection.
The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is a failure

When believers criticize the other faiths they reject, they use reason and science to do so. They assume these other religions have the burden of proof. They assume human not divine authors to their holy book(s). They assume a human not a divine origin to their faiths. Believers do this when rejecting other faiths. So dispensing all of the red herrings about morality and a non-material universe, the OTF simply asks believers to do unto their own faith what they do unto other faiths. All it asks of them is to be consistent. The OTF asks why believers operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume your own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to your holy book(s) and see what you get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption. So the OTF uses the exact same standard that believers use when rejecting other religions. If there is any inconsistency at all it is not with the OTF. It is how believers assess truth claims. For it should only take a moment's thought to realize that if there is a God who wants people born into different religious cultures to believe, who are outsiders, then that religious faith SHOULD pass the OTF. If Christians want to reject the OTF then either they must admit they have a double standard for examining religious faiths, one for their own faith and a different one for others, or their faith was not made to pass the OTF in the first place. In either case all of their arguments against the OTF are based on red herrings, special pleading, begging the question, the denigrating science, and an ignorance that I can only attribute to delusional blindness.
The Outsider Test for Faith (OTF) is a failure

John Loftus, overat debunking Christianity has proposed the Outsider Test for Faith. It is covered extensively on his blog, but the 'most mature form' can be found in (Loftus 2010). Rational people in distinct geographical locations around the globe overwhelmingly adopt and defend a wide diversity of religious faiths due to their upbringing and cultural heritage. This is the religious diversity thesis. Consequently, it seems very likely that adopting one’s religious faith is not merely a matter of independent rational judgment but is causally dependent on cultural conditions to an overwhelming degree. This is the religious dependency thesis. Hence the odds are highly likely that any given adopted religious faith is false. So the best way to test one’s adopted religious faith is from the perspective of an outsider with the same level of skepticism used to evaluate other religious faiths. This expresses the OTF. I wish to argue that the OTF is a failure. The argument above does not make its conclusion more plausible. More broadly, the OTF is not a threat to the rationality of religious belief.R1 accept, no new argument in R5, references in comment thread fine. Any other questions/queries, feel free to get in touch.Enjoy life,Thrasymachus
Smash Bros New Characters

This is a debate to express one character you'd like to see in the next Super Smash Bros game. You can't argue for a character that already appeared in an official Smash Bros game, and you must come up with 4 Special moves (Up B, Neutral B, Side B, Down B), as well as a Final Smash; a super powerful attack you get by destroying a Smash Ball. Also, you should come up with a solid reason as to why that character should be in Smash Bros. As an overview of the Smash Bros series (so unfamiliar people can know what we're talking about), Super Smash Bros is a unique fighting game franchise made by Nintendo where, instead of getting the enemy's HP to 0, you beat up the opponent, then send them flying offscreen. The winner will be whoever the voters think has a better canditate for Smash Bros, preferably analyzing the characters' movesets and reasons to make judgement. My character this time is Ridley from Metroid.
Should Public Schools allow Christian Clubs to pray against gay marriage? Yes or No.

Greetings everyone. I am a firm conservative evangelical Baptist Christian who believes in freedom. I would like to invite anyone to debate me on this issue. Just after gay marriage became legal in Wisconsin, my home state, I called on the Christian group Youth Alive that I am a member of at my high school to pray that God would stop this sinful act. However, the Club reps said that it would force a closing down of the club by the school board if we did just that. We have the right to be conservative and against gay marriage in this country, don't we?! I am in favor of Public Schools should allow Christian clubs to pray about whatsoever they see fit to pray for, even if it is same sex marriage. So, should Public Schools allow Christian clubs to pray against gay marriage in a public school? Yes or No. Thanks again, and I look forward to debating with you, Kylar
Should Public Schools allow Christian Clubs to pray against gay marriage? Yes or No.

Well thank you for being respectful and actually acknowledging what I'm saying, there's too many people that don't even bother considering others' points. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with praying with willing people, but when you bring it outside of that context, it can become detrimental, and like you said, there's already friction between your church group at school and the GSA. I'd recommend leaving the praying (in a context that can be detrimental or hurtful) to private, or in your church, if they pray like that.I take it we didn't need a full 5 rounds haha.
Should Public Schools allow Christian Clubs to pray against gay marriage? Yes or No.

I agree with you, and I appreciate your kind words. There is already friction between Youth Alive, the Christian group at my school, and the GSA to an extent. I just think that we should be able to pray about gay marriage, whatever our view. However, we can always do this in church, I agree. Therefore, I can actually agree with your points. Again, thank you for your kind words, and taking the time to debate, Kylar