BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

R1. - Since for some reason my opponent has a mad desire to see numerical values assigned to this equation I will: A hypothetical person assigns the followng numerical values for quality between star trek and star wars: Star Wars - 99 Star Trek - 104 The Star Wars Film is 2 hours long. The Star Trek season is 10 hours long 99/2 = 49.5 104 / 10 = 10.4 Equation proven. With this equation, the average content per time is the method used to judge value. This is fair in comparing something that has a smaller amount of content. R2-D2 My opponent is attempting to assert that everything in life can be broken down into numbers. Emotions and opinions can be broken down into numerical factors. I don't understand the purpose of this argument? R3 Pro has faulted me for "using opinionated sources from someone other than yourself". I don't know what my opponent is expecting from a debate that is based on opinion. "R32" " If you have an IQ of 150 and are in Mensa and have a 4.0 score from college, then you are stupid because two guys say so? " You are stupid if the entire population agrees that you are stupid. As society determines the definitions of words. " You have yet to point out a scene from Star Wars that trumps Star Trek. " I do not have the burden of proof. R42 My opponent concedes that Star Trek is geeky. In 19th century, in North-America, the term geek referred to a freak in circus side-shows. In some cases, its performance included biting the head off a live chicken. R43 "Most people. A value cannot be assigned by two guys saying 5 is 7 or 24 is 88. Just because most people like it does not mean that it is better. " This is actually the definition of "better" " You have a BOP too, exactly the opposite of mine. " You claimed the BOP and you have it as you are the one making the claim. Pro has admitted: 1. We are determining the average content to determine which is better 2. Star Trek Fans are geeky 3. Most people prefer Star Wars 4. He has he burden of proof 5. He forfeited a round 6. Called my argument inhuman/unoriginal Pro has proved: Nothing. That's right. Pro has not proven the resolution for which he self admittedly has the burden of proof.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

Alright man. Time for the final battle. ============================================================================== R1. I can say A=BC or X=YZ. This can be true. Or false. A=3= B=3xC=1 is true. A=38245= B=686xC=1000000 is false. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R2. Why am I? The world can be thought of as numbers. You are 98 years old. You weigh 400 pounds. You have 4 hairs on your head. Your computer has 4 KB of RAM. It has 1200 baud connection. The world is numbers. It's just what the numbers are that matters. 1=Good. 2=Bad. 3=Awesome. 4=Horrible. Logical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R31. I never said you didn't write your argument. You are using opinionated sources from someone other than yourself. This is like saying, "Hey, this movie is made by a director I hate and is 1 minute long and has 2 cast members but some guy on the street said it was awesome so it is. " You cannot rely on sources other than factual sources to prove a point. ----------- R32. Values from the masses? If you have an IQ of 150 and are in Mensa and have a 4.0 score from college, then you are stupid because two guys say so? I don't think so. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R41. You have yet to point out a scene from Star Wars that trumps Star Trek. ----------- R42. Geeky? Geeks make the world go round. A geek made your computer. A geek made the lightbulb above your head. Geek is a quality that can be assigned a value, as all can, and that value is a good one. Geeks are the driving force behind the modern world. ----------- R43. Most people. A value cannot be assigned by two guys saying 5 is 7 or 24 is 88. Just because most people like it does not mean that it is better. ----------- R44. You have a BOP too, exactly the opposite of mine. ============================================================================ Con has: Relied on the masses to formulate an opinion, thus removing individuality from his argument. Not pointed out a trait that specifically makes Star Wars itself better, and not merely the fans or real-world impact.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

If my opponent forfeited is other debate to work on this then he made a poor choice. Especially since his argument is weak and short. R1. My opponent conceded this point based upon acceptance of the equation. R2-D2. Why are you expecting numerical values for a non-numerical equation? I do not have to provide values in order to establish we are comparing average content. R3. I'm clearly human and can post a picture of myself? I'm original because this argument is written by me and is not copyrighted. "A summation of polls is not evidence. It is the populace's opinion, not yours. Since you cannot give evidence to support that the populace is right, negated. " Words and values are awarded by the masses. If everyone thinks you are ugly except for yourself, then you are ugly. As the definition of ugly is determined by everyoe Pro has admitted all of the following: 1. We are determining the average content to determine which is better 2. Star Trek Fans are geeky 3. Most people prefer Star Wars 4. He has he burden of proof Pro has proved: Nothing. That's right. Pro has not proven the resolution for which he self admittedly has the burden of proof.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

I forfeited my other debate to work on this. Thanks. ------------------ R1. I can agree on an equation's foundation. F=MxA is true. But what is the answer? Moreover, you fail to observe any of this. ------------------ R2. If you cannot provide values, no argument can be given. Since you can't give an argument, you are refuted. ----------------- R3. I have not called your argument too long. The rest, you give no evidence that you were not inhuman and unoriginal. ----------------- R31A/R31B. A summation of polls is not evidence. It is the populace's opinion, not yours. Since you cannot give evidence to support that the populace is right, negated. R31A2. Oh yes, perception is reality. I put my hand on the stove. But I don't think it's hot. Thus, my hand is not burned (though it is. ) R31A3. Is geeky bad? Geeky can be good. .. or bad. This would require you to put up an argument proving geekiness is bad. Since a geek is by definition more intelligent, then geeks are the cornerstone of modern civilization. Why You Should Vote Pro: I. Con is relying on the masses for his argument. A. Most of these people are superior individuals like Roger Ebert. II. Con has bad grammar. III. Has not proved geekiness is bad. IV. Made a false statement. I never called his argument too long. V. Is going to be ripped apart by Trek geeks anyway.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

R-1 I do not have to prove that Star Wars is superior in order to disprove your assertion that Content =/= Quality and that Content =/= Value. You agree upon the equation thus your A1 is conceded. R2-D2 "no values were given for Q or C. Thus, this is an unprovable equation." I take it you really hated algebra class? There cannot be a numerical value for quality because quality is a preference. In this refutation I do not have to provide any values in order to establish an equation that equalizes the content in comparing the two shows. Thus your A2 is refuted. R3 Pro has done the following: 1. Called my argument too long 2. Called my argument unoriginal 3. Insinuated my argument was inhuman As he has devolved into ad hominems instead of refuting anything he has conceded this point. A1. The pro has conceded this argument by not refuting it and instead saying it was invalid to argue about. However in a debate that has few facts to back it the minuscule amount of information that is available cannot be ignored. The pro for some reason is attempting to invalidate the opinion of others to establish rank. However then with this criteria, the pro is invalidating the entire debate. Let's face it people, perception is reality. People clearly perceive Star Wars to be greater. Also note in this argument con devolved to ad hominems and insinuated I was again inhuman. A2. I do not have the burden of proof. However it's common knowledge and thus why I do not have to provide evidence which is the reason you chose not to refute it with any facts. A3. Pro has conceded this argument by not setting up an argument that Star Wars fans are less geeky. He has ignored the scientific test and has nothing to refute it. He set up a straw man about "devoutness" Since he has not refuted it this argument also stands. Why you should vote con: 1. Pro accepted the burden of proof and has proven nothing and all his arguments have been refuted ---> "I must convince the opposition (or at least the voters) that Star Trek is superior to Star Wars." 2. Pro has insulted con several times calling me "inhuman and unoriginal" 3. I have proven that star wars: A. Star Wars is rated more highly by a summation of polls B. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour C. Have less geeky fans as proved by a scientific test Vote for someone who HAS an argument and does not even need one as he does not have the burden of proof.
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

Thanks for the debate, First of all, in your equations (1000 hrs mediocrity<12 hours of brilliance) you give no evidence to support your claims. You claim Star Wars is superior to Star Wars, yet you do not support your claims directly to this equation. You did not even point out one powerful, moving, action-packed scene that could be debated on how good it actually is. R2-D2. Value=Quality/Content This equation can be proven if values are assigned to Q and C. However, no values were given for Q or C. Thus, this is an unprovable equation. You give no explanation, subtype, or even archetype of what makes Star Wars better. You simply state that Star Wars is better, without pointing out a scene that makes Star Wars the superior show. R3. As said above, it's the amount of action on average that counts. Star Wars, by common consensus, has more. You are having your debate held up by the shoulders of the masses, rather than writing your own debate. While it is fine to post links if, for example, your argument is too long, you are simply attempting to prove your point by using the opinions of the masses, rather than your individuality as both a Debate.org member and as a human being. A1. Star Wars is found on the list of best films ever created. Star Trek is not. This is an invalid argument for two reasons. First, Star Wars had a more aggressive advertising campaign, and could therefore reach more homes. Thus, more critics could catch the news from the grapevine and flock to it, giving it high reviews just because they saw mind-altering propaganda. Most of these people have never seen Star Trek- thus, it is impossible to base an argument on what they liked more. Second, you are once again holding your debate on the shoulders of others. Just because Gene Shalit or Roger Ebert say a movie is the best of the year doesn't mean it is. Movie reviews can help you decide what new blockbuster to buy when you can only have one, but don't let them write your opinions for you. Use you individuality to overcome the opinions of others. You are a human being. Please make your own argument. A2. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour. While I could agree with this statement if I chose to, the fact is that you put up a blank slate. You have not backed this up with any references, outlines, or even a link. A3. Star Wars fans are less geeky. Star Trek fans are more devout. Why? Because the show is better, and they have an entire fictional universe for their minds to orbit, as opposed to two wars. Thus, they enjoy the show more and can enjoy pretending to be Data or Spock because they are well-defined characters that they are mimicking and not just a cardboard slope that you have not made an original argument to defend. Con has made an argument that has nothing original to defend it and is backed by the opinions of far superior individuals. Vote PRO. An ORIGINAL argument by The Godhand
Star Trek is better than Star Wars.

R1. Content =/= Quality Content =/= Quality 1000 hours of mediocrity =/= 12 hours of brilliance R2-D2. Value = Quality/Content Therefore to judge both things equally we must divide out time to see which is the best per hour rather than by judging something that tediously drags the viewer through hours of boring crap to spill out an hour of drama once every thousandth hour. R3. As said above it's the amount of action on average that counts. Star wars by common consensus has more. A1. Star Wars is found on the list of best films ever created, star trek is not. . http://en.wikipedia.org... A2. Star Wars has more action and drama per hour A3. Star Wars fans are less geeky and more attractive evidenced by the following scientific test: I googled the phrase "star wars fans" These two images appeared first: . http://www.tshirtwatch.com... . http://www.realbollywood.com... I googled the phrase "star trek fans" . http://www.mtv.com... . http://graphics8.nytimes.com... . http://www.wired.com... . http://www.eatliver.com... I googled the phrase "trekkies" . http://www.stomptokyo.com... . http://upload.wikimedia.org... It should be clear what series is the real winner.
Tourism reduces the development gap, use a case study.

Con forfeited this round as agreed, I hope voters do not penalise him as this is the way the debate is supposed to be organised. In everything, there is a profit. So by paying money to the aviation industry to take a plane, or paying a hotel to stay there, you are basically giving the country more business opportunity and therefore more money. This money, could be used like China did, putting them into government industries therefore increasing the country's industrial strength, or it could simply be kept in these industries as they become stronger and await more competition. I refuse to use a case study as it does not help in a debate.
"Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective.

Haha, I mean, yeah. But here's an argument. So the topic as proposed is that "Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective. Well, effective at what? It seems reasonable to posit a group of individuals who's primary interest was not in the short term goal of making sexual encounters healthier and safer, but in creating a culture opposed to those sexual encounters. One of the ways you could perpetuate a sex-negative attitude among otherwise reasonable people is by making sure that sex is actively dangerous. It's tough for this hypothetical-religious (or otherwise, really, I suppose they could be like just angry secularists)-group to actually create NEW dangers, so they sabotage the efforts of others to safeguard against the old dangers. If you accept the notion that our culture is currently pretty sex-negative, and I think you should, cause it is, then you could potentially see your way clear to Abstinence Only Education being wildly successful. You can't really teach people not to have sex, but if you waste enough time and money trying at the expense of real education you can probably teach them to be afraid of sex. Which one do people want?
"Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective.

But, why aren't they addressing the lack of progress towards an even more sex-negative society? Namely, a society where everyone waits to have sex until marriage and even then only do it with the intention of reproducing. What are the hypotheticals to do? Onto the people who are hurt by abstinence-only: What if some of those victims are children of the hypotheticals? I remember seeing an article a while back that said that despite pledges of chastity and wearing promise rings, many religious teens are taking the plunge pre-nuptials. Then, the condom breaks or they think that one time won't get them pregnant. What's a hypothetical to do? Additionally, are these hyotheticals on the fringe of society or are they the norm?
"Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective.

That's an interesting tack to take, but I don't think it counters my ultra-bizzare people's real concerns. The reason is that they hate sex not because it produces something they dont like (abortions, abandoned babies) but because it -is- something they dislike. Their concern isnt based in anything except their belief that sex is bad. Now your claim as to this abstinence only education not meaningfully producing less immoral teens is another matter. This seems empirically true, but its only important if it bridges to your next claim cleanly and I don't think it necessarily does. - Teens are still having sex despite a sex-negative culture - Because of this, it is logical to teach them safe practice. It would be logical for me to do that, sure, and yaknow.. for like. Anyone. But these particular hypotheticals are really very upset about sex. They don't like it. If their plan doesn't work its still the best plan going since teaching about safer sexual conduct -also- wont stop teens from having sex. This leaves only two real concerns: - Do we care about the people abstinence only education is hurting? - Will either plan work eventually? To the first: no. They are sinners, right? To the second: Safe-sex education will never lead to people not having sex. Dangerous-sex education might, if the environment got like.. really bad. So there you have it. Crazy people, who are crazy, like crazy things. I dont know, I guess these hypotheticals arent like, entirely without basis in reality? But whatever.
"Abstinence-only" sex education has not been effective.

So, maybe in the hypothetical super-religious got what they wanted in a sex-negative society, but it hasn't markedly decreased the immorality of today's youth. While teen births may be down, teens are still having sex. Something like 3 in 5 high school seniors are not virgins when they graduate from high school. Clearly the abstinence-only education has not scared everyone away from sex. Because teens are having sex despite the sex-negative society, it would only be logical that we provide the knowledge and tools for them to do so safely. If more people are having safe sex and not getting pregnant or spreading STDs/STIs, it would follow that there would be less abortions and abandoned babies as a result.
Pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do.

When gerald Ford pardoned nixon he robbed the American people of justice and showed that certain members of society were above the law and needn't follow the rules of the common people. For I think rather than ending the nixon scandal and restoring americas trust in government it actually further hurt the American peoples trust in federal government because when the government was given the chance vigorously pursue corruption they instead gave the mastermind of this corruption a get out of jail free card. You might dispute that this restored trust in the government but to me history tells a very different tale for 6 years after nixon was pardoned america underwent a conservative resurgence that promised a smaller government and less government interference. These traits were popular in goverment because of the "crisis of confidence" that the american people suffered after the Watergate and its corrupt ending that let president Nixon avoide justice
Pardoning Nixon was the right thing to do.

Pardoning Richard Nixon was the correct thing to do because it ended a long and tedious scandal and that would have made people lose even more faith within their federal government and with their leadership within the nation. It would cause a stronger divide amongst our citizens that we already faced throughout the 1960s and the early 1970s. And if a trial were to start it would be very difficult for a former president to obtain a fair trial in such circumstances as this, and it would only extend the scandal and the National nightmare. By pardoning Nixon, Ford quickly and decisively ended the nightmare once and for all.
2nd Amendment

You have some very good points. First of all, I"d like to say out of all the people who I"ve seen argue for the 2nd amendment being a good law, you are one of the few that have actually presented reasonable arguments. You could be right in saying that banning all guns in the USA isn"t possible since Americans love them too much. In Australia, a country that banned guns completely in 1996 - some citizens didn"t want to have their guns taken away from them either. What do those people say now after over 20 years of the gun ban? They say they"re okay with it now. These people were angry at first, but after a while, they just accepted it and are no longer upset about it. Take a look at this video, with emphasis on the man who is talking at 3:36 - The problem with the right to bear arms is anyone can purchase a gun easily. According to this article: http://www.businessinsider.com..., in 33 states, you can buy a gun without any background checks. And even if there were more background checks, it would still be pretty easy to get your hands on a gun. You could just take it from a friend or family member, for example. That"s why no guns at all would almost guarantee that there wouldn"t be any mass shootings. Yes, some may be able to get their hands on a gun somehow, but it would at the very least reduce the chances of a mass shooting from happening. The number of mass shootings in Australia is 0 because they banned guns. The UK almost completely banned guns, and while there are still a few gun-related homicides, there is significantly less than the USA, where pretty much anyone could get a gun. As you said, "The lifetime odds of being killed in the US from any murderer with a gun are 1 in 315." That is appalling. And unlike stair-related deaths, we can actually prevent a great number of gun-related deaths. Also, if there was a tyrant, wouldn"t they shoot us down first since they"re the ones that command the military? As well as nuclear weapons? Besides, are there actually any cases where a tyrant was stopped due to the citizens having the right to bear arms? If there is, please let me know.
2nd Amendment

The second amendment may seem like a good idea at first. If there was a tyrant or a corrupt government we can just gun them down. But imagine that there is not a single gun in the USA for a moment. In this imaginary world, most of the citizenship agree that the government is turning into a corrupt one and needs to be overthrown. The first thing they should try is to start peaceful protests, like The Salt March in India. If those peaceful protests against the government don't work though, the citizens could turn to violence. Again, there are no guns in this world, and so they'd use other weapons, such as fire, swords, etc. And if the rebels are the majority of the population, then the government would be outnumbered. Therefore, it is likely that the rebels will take down the government. My point is that there are other weapons you can use in order to overthrow a corrupt government. If there were no guns, then there would be no mass murdering anymore because there would be no weapon (except a bomb) that could kill masses amount of people. I mean, it's pretty difficult to kill a great number of people with just a knife, right?