BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Hurt Locker is a better film than Avatar

I thought Avatar was boring. On the other hand I thought Titantic was brilliant – a great story and history and tragedy all wrapped up in one. Avatar was like being in Seattle for a week – with sunglasses on. However for the the hurt locker I spent the entire film grabbing the arms of my seat. I was there in Irak, steps away from my death and the death of those around me. The tension, the suspense is at times breathtaking, literally. "The Hurt Locker" is a miracle and the definitive consecration of a great filmmaker, Kathryn Bigelow. This is also a rare occasion in which I went to see the film without having read a single review or knowing anything about it. One should try to do that more often because the impact of the surprise translates into pure pleasure and in this case, sometimes, you have to look away from the unmitigated horror. Jeremy Renner is a real find. He is superb. A kind soul, wild man with enough arrogance to make him appear reckless and yet his humanity precedes him. People may commit the mistake of avoiding this gem thinking that it's just a war film. Don't. It isn't. It's a great, engrossing film about human emotions, not to be missed. The hurt locker is the better film
The Texas Board of Education should not have adopted the new social studies curriculum

Ay! Que pena! Well, I don't have a lot to work with here, but I think that it would be good to sum up my arguments. The Texas board of education is making changes to the social studies curriculum that put undue stress on contentious areas of study and not enough stress on such important things as the rationale behind separation of church and state and Thomas Jefferson. Now, many people do believe that, since history is generally written by the victors, there is already a natural bias in the history curriculum that is already being taught, so to criticize the Texas Board of education would present a double standard. This, however, is not the case. I'm not worried about Bias in Texas's decision. I am worried about a misrepresentation of facts and ideas. If their curriculum plays down the role of slavery, for example, then the civil war will naturally have to be looked at differently, and that would change the very basic knowledge that most of us take for granted from our correctly represented education. Thomas Jefferson is an integral figure in history, and they're practically ignoring him. This is not a bias, it is rewritten history. Now, my opponent having missed a round, this debate did not progress as strongly as it could have, however, I feel that there are a few things that clearly warrant a PRO vote, whether or not you are in agreement with my premise. First of all, I have strongly developed arguments. CON does not. Second of all, I argued all three rounds. CON did not. Third of all, I was quite likely the first person in the history of this website to use Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov's name in a debate. CON was not. Vote for truth. Vote for fairness. Vote for perspective. Vote for Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov.
The Texas Board of Education should not have adopted the new social studies curriculum

Thank you for letting me take this debate. Throughout your argument, you make the point that schools should promote open-mindedness, and I fully agree with this statement. However, as stated in your sources, the Repbublicans wish to remove the supposed rationale behind the seperation of church and state, from the textbooks. Is this not not only promoting open mindedness, but allowing the students to have a totally unbaised perspective of history? I beleive that through removing the biased opinions that have been stated IN history, we are having a clearer view of what actually occured during these time periods. I urge you to find a history textbook that shows all of the instances where blacks harmed white civilians. There are rarely any such textbooks because ultimately, blacks won their freedom, and history is written by the victor. You must understand that when this school board wishes to change the textbooks, they are not changing history, rather, they are simply showing another side of the story of our country. Finally, I would like to point out that the USA is NOT a full democracy, it is technically a constitututional republic, so I do not see why this is an issue. This is why I beleive that the schools in Texas are toally justified in changing the perspective of their history books. Once again, thank you for the oppurtunity to debate.
The Texas Board of Education should not have adopted the new social studies curriculum

Today, against much protest, the Texas state Board of Education adopted a new social studies curriculum that waters down and/or removes various portions of our history, such as slavery and civil rights [1]. It also requires that students learn about alleged Judeo-Christian influences on our country at the time of its founding, but it does not require that textbooks cover the separation of church and state or any rationale behind that practice [2]. Now, I support open-mindedness, but this is not open-mindedness in any way. Schools are a coercive environment, and students are told things in school every day that they are expected to take as fact. In addition, young people are much more easily pressured and convinced of things than older people. These changes are not promoting open-mindedness, they are promoting a political agenda that only focuses on what will make said political agenda look good. Isn't that what we saw in Stalinist Russia and Maoist China? They are trying to change history for their advantage. It's happened before, but not in a legitimate democracy (or as the new Texas standards require, a "constitutional republic"). I'm not one of those people who hates the government, but this seems almost like government mind control, and that is rather excessive. I am looking forward to somebody taking this debate! 1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... 2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Our Economy

I do agree with my opponent most os the way. I see one error in my first post if the U. S prints more money that would mean cutting down trees and that wouldn't help the enviorment. Using Alterbative fuels would help though and when i mentioned that the first that i ment both of them. I know my opponent will win because i brought up no points in this debate. I did not understand his debate and could not respond in the correct way and I know this won't help me get anywhere on this site. I apologize to my opponent for not putting up a good debate. I am also sorry i could not understand his last post. Thank you all
Our Economy

As I understand it, my opponent proposed two solutions for the economy. They are: 1) Printing more money and 2) Use alternative fuels. I will refute each of these in turn. It is completely idealistic and naive to think that the United States Federal Government can solve all our problems simply by minting more money. Whenever this is done, the amount of currency in circulation increases, thus increasing the amount of payment a company needs to continue to experience the profits, or lack thereof, that currently exists. This idea is referred to as inflation. An explanation of why inflation happens with the printing of money can be found below [1] Using alternative fuels poses a more feasible solution, yet ultimately fails. As of now, no alternative fuel exists that can sufficiently replace gasoline or diesel as a fuel. The same is true of replacing coal to generate electricity. Let's examine some problems of the more common alternative fuels (whether they replace coal or oil as my opponent specified neither). Solar- Not cost competitive, needs excessive capitol, doesn't trap enough energy [2] Wind- Excessive space needs, not enough energy for the cost [3] Nuclear- Problems with nuclear waste, nuclear weapons, and the health of a society that uses primarily nuclear energy [4] E85- Potential damage to engines, actually loses energy (that is, more energy is required to make it than is gained by burning it), emits CO2, isn't efficient (compared to gas), and the list continues. .. [5] *Any other energies my opponent wishes to bring up will be refuted in the next round. For those reading as an audience, I'd like to point out that as CON, I need only to prove that the solution to our economic crisis does NOT lie in the solutions proposed by my opponent. I need not propose the SOLUTION to the economic crisis. Remember, people have been asking how this could be solved ever since this crisis arose. If the solution was as simple as to print currency and use alternative fuels, don't you think more Americans would be doing so? I think it safe to say that nobody likes the way the economy is right now, and that Americans would be willing to do whatever it takes to get us out, after all, paying over 4 bucks a gallon for gas didn't seem to stop anyone. .. I'd like to finish by, once again, thanking my opponent for proposing this debate and her solutions, and by thanking any reader and potential voter on this topic. Good luck, and I look forward to the counter-argument. --SOURCES-- [1]- Idea behind inflation . http://www.economicshelp.org... [2]- Problems with solar . http://library.thinkquest.org... [3]- Problems with wind . http://library.thinkquest.org... [4]- Problems with nuclear . http://www.mna.hkr.se... [5]- Problems with E85 . http://www.weatherimagery.com...
Heavy medal music is not "emo"

It's fine to say Heavy Metal is not emo. My partner has dropped out from both of the competition so I would like to say they are similar in a way where they are both heavy metal. They both consist of heavy riffs. I cannot say for sure that screamo is not metal. It is metal just made for younger inexperienced artists. Me saying that metal is also emo. At least some of them. Not all tell you to cut yourself but there are metal that are definitely emo out there.
Heavy medal music is not "emo"

Of course Heavy metal music is not "emo". You look at awesome bands like Manowar, Alice in Chains,, Gwar did some heavy metal here and there to name a few. It's called Hardcore, Post- hardcore. Even though it's not called "emo" because of the fact that it's just too heavy most of the time. Heavy metal is a genre that can be broken up into sections. Hardcore and Post-hardcore fall into heavy metal, but not heavy metal is not considered to be emo. The reason also that they are not the same is because the sounds of the instrument in Post-Hardcore it's mainly young teenagers with society issue screaming, with heavy metal it can be understandable. You can feel that's it's heavy metal due to the sounds of the instrument but still enjoy the lyrics as well. Listen to Manowar- Die for metal. In post-hardcore it's just lot of banging listen to Asking Alexandria, We Came As Romans compared to Metallica, AC/DC, Meshuggah and others and you can see they are similar but they are different. Also Heavy Metal came before the post-hardcore crap they call music.
Heavy medal music is not "emo"

As a teenage girl who listen to what most people would call "emo" and "suicidal" I do not think that it is fair that I have to be subject to that kind of torment. When I look at the top 100 list of songs all I see are pop/rap songs with lyrics talking about f**king women and how much swag and money they have. I think that is what is making teenagers today feel the pressure to fit in to society.
Trump will win in 2020

I would definetly say he has a shot, But you can not really say that someone will or will not win an election when we do not even know who else is running. And on top of that, Movements, Allegations, And alleged stories can all come up and change the way we view the politicians, So the likability of President Trump may be high today when in one year may be even lower or higher due to the events that happen during his presidency. Also, Most people are against Trump. He didn"t even win the popular vote, And I really don"t think he could win it in 2020 if he runs. And on top of that, Many people are against Republicans. Many people have seen them run the country and many don"t like it at all. I honestly don"t think there is a solid potential Democratic nominee, But like I said before, Events can happen that may change our stances on issues and ultimately could lead us to choose one candidate over another. In the end, We are too far from the election to even start making prediction.
David Tenant was the best Doctor

PLEASE NOTE: I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you have any queries or requests prior to accepting, LEAVE A COMMENT. If you are content with the rules as they stand and wish to debate this topic, PM ME if you meet the criteria, listed below. Criteria 1. You must be knowledgeable about Doctor Who. 2. You must have completed AT LEAST THREE serious* debates. 3. You must have won AT LEAST ONE of these debates. *Casual, satirical or humourous debates will be assessed to see if they count as "serious" debates. DefinitionsDAVID TENANT - Tenant's portrayal of the Tenth Doctor, 2006-'09, NOT the character of the Doctor himself. BEST - In terms of acting ability. DOCTOR - All eleven Doctors, EXCLUDING John Hurt's portrayal in the Series 7 finale. DOCTOR WHO - Both the classic series, running from 1963-'89, and the revived series, running from 2005-present. RulesFor Debaters1. PRO will be arguing that Tenant's portrayal of the Doctor was the best. CON will be arguing that another actor's portrayal of the Doctor is superior. Please specify the actor you wish to argue is superior in Round 1. Both debaters' arguments will be focused on: - Quality of acting - Quality of each Doctor's achievements - Quality of individual seasons - Quality of series finales2. BoP is shared as both debaters are arguing for a different actor.3. The round format is as follows:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments, no rebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Final rebuttals and closing statements, NO new argumentsThis cannot be changed throughout the debate.4. Forfeits result in all 7 points going to the other debater.5. No insulting or offensive remarks and no trolling. If you wish to change any of these rules, inquire in the comments before PRO has submitted their arguments for Round 2. If either debater breaks any of these rules, all 7 points should be awarded to the other. For VotersConduct: This field should remain unvoted unless either debater breaks rule 5. S&G: This should not be voted on unless either debater's argument is completely incomprehensible. Arguments: This should go to the debater who presented the best arguments. The debater that presented the best arguments for at least 2 out of the 4 topic areas should be voted for. Sources: This field should remain unvoted. In case of a forfeit: ALL 7 points should be awarded to the other debater. Any deviation from these rules will be considered a votebomb.
should wolves be reintroduced into scotland

IIn the 9th Century, Wolves lived in Great Britain and sorrunding areas. But in that year Hywel Dda ordered all wolves to be killed. That is the Histroy of the missing wolves, my opponent proposes to reintroduce Wolves back to Scotland which would end up spreading into The United Kingdom and Wales. This is quite a large proposal and it will most likely fail. Since the death of all the Wolves in Scotland, if you try to bring wolves back you could bring another type of Wolf over that will harm the native animals and mess up the food chain. 'They increase biodiversity' It is stable and we are not going to introduce wolves to make this worse, To stay safe and help the environment we should not introduce the wolves back again.
God who is the Lord Jesus Christ is is very real and I will prove Jesus Christ is God

Ave.I agree to the rules set forth in R1.I will clarify what position I am taking in this debate. Regarding god, I believe in what I call the 'Verificationist Method'. I do not believe in blanket statements like 'god exists' or 'god does not exists'. Instead, the verificationist method asks two essential questions: what are you defining as god, and what is the evidence that this god exists? Once these two questions have been satisfactorily answered, I will tell you if I believe in 'god' or not. I expect Pro to answer these questions in R2.We should also pay attention to the burden of proof. The resolution states 'God who is the Lord Jesus Christ is is very real and I will prove Jesus Christ is God'. Pro, by his own admission, has the burden of proof in this debate.[Underlines are mine.]This is all I have to say for R1. Good luck to Pro, and I hope we both learn something.Vale.
The Cleveland Show is a terrible idea

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. To start, I'm gonna have to point out the obvious: My opponent's "argument" hasn't given any reasons why this show is a "terrible idea," and since my opponent is quite clearly the claimant, the onus to provide some form of support lies solely with him...but meh, I'll have to wait until my opponent throws out some sort of a real rationale before I rebut anything; hopefully he chooses to do so soon.
The Cleveland Show is a terrible idea

Ok well that was fast. Anyways I didn't provide anything to support my argument in the first round so it would be more likely someone would challenge me. Much to my surprise it worked well. Anyways I do not think The Cleveland Show will be a good idea for many reasons. 1. The family that Cleveland acquired seems not much more than a rip off of the original family in Family Guy. They still have a baby who makes references to people he shouldn't even know about, let alone talk. He also has hostility to some family members like Stewie did. I am sure that even the most avid fan of Family Guy can see that it's a rip off of the original family that was originally ripped of from The Simpsons which they've also copied on American Dad. 2. Also unlike American Dad it appears Seth Mcfarlane used the same writers for the Cleveland show as he did with Family Guy as you can see in the trailer they pulled an other interchangeable reference joke. In short I believe everyone will just see this as a Black version of Family Guy. Maybe the first episode will do well even the second episode just because people are curious. However that's as good as its going to get for this spin off. 3. Spin offs are usually the sign that the creator of the show is not making as much money off their original program or that they are greedy. IN Mcfarlane's case I would say he's getting greedy as Family Guy is getting an Emmy nomination. However I think he did not put any effort in this new show idea as you can tell there is no originality in it and has holes they appear to not have covered. Example: Cleveland has a son in the beginning of the trailer despite the fact he never had a son in the Family Guy series. Most likely what will happen is that Peter will acknowledge this and quickly Cleveland will answer his question with acting like he was always there or something of that nature. Like how Joe had a son in the begging of the series and then he disappeared. Recently they just said he died in the War, just to satisfy questioning viewers. No effort. http://www.youtube.com... conclusion: The Cleveland Show was poorly made and it will not meet the success Family Guy did. It also will not be as much of a profit to Mcfarlane.
The mainstream media has a liberal bias

I have explained this debate topic before in an earlier debate which my opponent was not taking seriously. I will briefly explain it once more and allow my opponent to post his or her arguments first. "Mainstream media" is defined for this debate as the news sources from which the majority of Americans get their news, including printed sources, Cable/TV News, Radio, and the Internet. "Liberal bias" will be defined as a tendency to present news stories with the agenda of elevating policies or stances that are conventionally called liberal. This may be in the form of excluding or distorting information to serve this goal, as well as devoting time to certain issues or politicians unevenly. Taking the Con stance, I will argue that the mainstream media does not have a liberal bias, or at least that any liberal biases it exhibits do not overcompensate for any conservative biases it exhibits. My opponent will presumably argue that liberal bias in the media does in fact outweigh conservative bias.
only now is true, now is matter

only now is true, facts are not true fact=truth=knowledge=memory of personal physical experience know negates belief.. know is life, as im dead without my senses belief is false, as i dont know is true knowledge is truth, know is true, true is only now you even agree know negates belief no, without content numbers have no use, the number 5 as just a number in my mind is 0. everything is something, something is 1, matter is 1, a soda in my hand is 1 there is no matter for you to experience without your senses imagination is false, eat imagianry food for the rest of the week and see what happend
only now is true, now is matter

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter fact=knowledge=truth=memory of physical experience beyond truth and true is false, belief, and know is true information is the opposite of matter, 0 and 1 absolute is true even if i can only imagine it, its true that lies exist, but its also true that lies are false know=physical experience of now if you look at a rock i have in my hand, do i have to inform you that i have a rock in my hand? only know is true, if its not physical, its not real matter being real. the only distance that matters is whats reachable by my physical body, not by my imagination imagination is false, opposite of real, true
only now is true, now is matter

i can see dinosour bones with my eyes which is now there are not Things in the future and past, Things are true, and the future is always ahead of now the past is memory, and there is no matter in my imagination know negates belief, as i dont have to imagine it. if you are looking at a stone im holding in my hand then i dont have to tell you that i have a stone in my hand knowledge is memory of being now, so the past is "now", ai? memories are from now experience=now information is false and truth, and matter is true absolute is true even if i have to imagine it, but the informaiton is never true in the sence you think, you can never grab it with your hands, but its true a blind man cant see reality, cause and effect 4+5=9 in reality
only now is true, now is matter

i have to imagine 5 seconds ahead of now, and i have to remember 5 seconds ago, not real knowledge is the opposite of belief and belief goes to imagiantion, where as knowledge is memory of personal physical experience to say reality is 5 seconds ahead of now is to say reality is 5 second ahead of reality the future and past IS informaiton, and i am born now today, as only now is real the future and past is information, and informaiton is the opposite of matter, not real if we cut open a head and take out the brain, we cant poor the mind, thoughts out on the floor, so they are not Things they are nothing 1+0=1, why dosnt it equal 2? 0 bananas are imaginary, and math is absolute