BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should prostitution be allowed.

Argument" More jobs"Not by much. There are not a lot of prostitutes in the US."It's their body, who are we to tell them what to do with it?"The problem is that it isn't just their body, it's also the body of those who pay to have an hour with her. There is a huge risk for HIV in prostitution, and it can spread to "customers". Here are some AIDS and other disease statistics:-15% of sixth month of career prostitutes had an STD.-There is also a risk of cervical cancer.-80% prostitutes get an STD."Increase tax revenue" Again, it won't increase by much."Decrease sexual assault"That is completely false. Prostitution has had a history of rape, molestation, and abuse. Here some sample stats:- The sources say different things but the average age for prostitutes entering their career is any where from 12 to 17.- 62-80% of prostitutes are raped multiple times in their career.- 88% of prostitutes have been physically threatened.- 55-58% have been abused by customers.- 80-92% say they want to leave prostitution.- 75% of escort prostitutes have attemped suicide.- There is a history of PTSD with prostitutes.- 85% of prostitutes are raped by pimps.- 78% of prostitutes reported to have been raped 16 times or more by pimps and 33 times by johns.- The frequency of beating has ranged from 1 to 400 per year."If it is consented by both adults, what is the problem with it?"The previous reasons as stated. And in the previous statistics it is not always consented.Sourceshttp://sex-crimes.laws.com...http://www.rapeis.org...http://womensissues.about.com...
Should prostitution be allowed.

"If prostitution is legal, we could make prostitution licenses stating if they have STD or other sexual transmitted diseases."Lots of STDs take a while to detect, as in a couple of weeks [5]. And the average prostitute has about 3 clients per day [6]. She could create and STD in herself by having multiple clients in one day, and have sex with many more clients, and spread an STD, and people wouldn't know it because last time she got her prostitution licences renewed, the STD was hidden and they couldn't detect it, so most clients still won't know what they're getting into!"If prostitution was legal we would not need pimps anymore, who knows the new agents for the prostitutes could be themselves or the government."Pimp, noun. Definition: A person, especially a man, who solicits customers for a prostitute or a brothel, usually in return for a share of the earnings. [7]Those "new agents" are still pimps, just new pimps.And as for the government, prostitiution is a business. It is not the government's resposibility to manage a business. The government is not allowed to benefit certain businesses.Sources:[1] First link in Round 1[2] Second link in Round 1[3] Third link in Round 1[4] Only link in Round 2[5] http://www.healthcentral.com...[6] http://www.thedeliciousday.com...[7] http://www.dictionary.com...
COD VS Halo

Call of Duty does have an array of more customizable features in the weapons, Halo allows the character to choose what the player looks like in game with a variety of styles, colors, etc. Call of duty also has a perk system to make gameplay more interesting. Halo has in game pick ups, such as active camouflage and unlimited ammo. Halo also has a map design program, and mods are more easily available
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified

In reply to YOUR opening. The title says 'cannot' so, simply is never justified; I admit that in cases of newspaper cartoons it is unjustifiable, but in more extreme cases then it CAN be justified. You seem to have misunderstood me. The Qur'an says you should take action against thing against the religion of Islam. This is why homosexuals are beheaded, adulterers beheaded and the others in Saudi Arabia and other strict islamic states. You say the strong outrage is due to muslims themselves. This isn't true, I have two little sisters (they're twins, by the way), when we were younger, we would obviously argue and bicker; if they constantly annoyed me (which wasn't hard for them to do), would it really be due to me that I got angry and annoyed? No. It was their fault too. You can't blame Muslims for reacting to offence. You say 'Christians...can remarkably take it well.' This, too, is false. (Another life story YAY!) Growing up in the South East of England, one gets used to Conservatives and religious people, more so than further into London. I have come across a few Christians in my life, no matter how much I help it, I cannot stop getting into arguments with them. One insulted my strong left wing social views (even though all my others views are right wing), particularly on abortion and gay marriage; I then said: 'I don't insult your beliefs even though you believe in an invisible hippie in the frickin sky!' ...she reacted VERY badly, and left with tears in her eyes (she was a b***h anyway). Another gave me a Christian lecture when I read out a fact saying: 'the first water came from ice in space'. Christians do not take offence or satire well, at all, they take it very badly. You said: 'In relation to the actual rioting itself, you say "The only danger they pose is to themselves, they want to do that to themselves, by all means allow them." I don't understand, are you saying that innocent bystanders, people in nearby buildings or even police trying to contain it are not in danger of being harmed?' Yes, my friend, I do believe this. 'Childish babble' This is the ad hominem fallacy. You insult me when I make an argument rather than the argument itself. If anything is childish babble it's the ad hominem fallacy. I have no need to wish you luck! I have enjoyed debating and I have certainly been challenged by many of the arguments you have put forward. Thank you for an interesting, original motion to debate today! Henry, London, United Kingdom
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified

Granted, extreme lethal riots over newspaper cartoons are obviously not justified. However, you haven't defined satire. It could be insulting their religion at any extreme. "How is a cartoon Muhammad more offensive than a cartoon Jesus?" Because the Qur'an specifically tells people NOT to draw pictures of Muhammad or God. The Bible has less strict rules on this, even some Christian churches have Jesus in their stained glass windows. It's about the different rules of the two religions. "Both religions have similar principles and faith" Okay. NO. UK: gay marriage coming 2014. Saudi Arabia: off with the gays' heads. UK: women run into the sea NAKED to raise awareness for breast cancer. SA: women under thick black cloak and cannot be treated by male doctors EVER. The UK has been influence by Christianity and Saudi Arabia by Islam. The principles are not similar, they are entirely different. "Such reckless behaviour puts other people's lives in harm's way" The only danger they pose it to themselves, they want to do that to themselves, by all means allow them. I understand Muslims are not solely picked on, and I never said that. You really need to focus on what I am saying and not bring up the excuse: "you make it sound like..." No. I understand that other minorities are regularly picked on, including homosexuals, Jews and others. But Muslims, in the Western world, are picked on more than Christians, especially in newspapers. This is due to their radical beliefs, which I personally don't agree with either. Islam is not a friendly religion, I hate to say it. Islam is not nice, it isn't pretty; but our picking on them constantly really does justify their outrage. We aren't just 'poking jokes' at them, we are really having a go at them. And yes, I do "make it seem" as though they aren't accepted because most of the time they really aren't accepted into our society.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified

Muslims, first of all, do not expect 'special treatment', their religion is extremely strict and blasphemy is much more serious in their culture. I understand what you are saying, that Christians do not take to the streets if they are offended. But Muslims take offence easily to images related to their religion, this is because their God and their Prophet are not to be drawn and should not be make into ikons. But in the Western world we tend to ignore the feelings and culture of others and so we will provoke Muslims, knowing what we're doing by insulting their very proud religion, and feeling the consequences. I am an Atheist, and I do not agree with religion, but I support the right to freedom of religion. If you draw a picture in a newspaper depicting the Muslim Prophet, you insult 1.2billion Muslims across the globe; what else do you suppose you gain? Your newspaper might get banned, you may lose readers and you really just miss out overall. The only thing you've 'succeeded' to do it to offend Islam. If there were a sexist or homophobic cartoon in a newspaper, they would be sued, it would be taken down immediately and there would be a ton of 'inquiries'. Simply because it is a religion or a different type of culture does not make it okay. You say we need to learn to accept that we will get offended. But I think, really, we need to learn to accept others, and to accept that making others take offence is not okay.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion cannot be justified

My first point is the idea of Muslims feeling as if they deserve some kind of special treatment when it comes to satire. Turn on the television on any given day and it will be filled with shows that are poking fun at politicians, celebrities and religions. Is everyone who receives a little insult allowed to riot? How come Christians for example don't feel the need to riot on the streets over a cartoon Jesus? Yet Muslims will outrage over a cartoon Muhammad all the way from protesting to rioting. What I want to know is what gives them the right to cause such outrage over petty satire whereas other religions can just take it on the chin. Why should they deserve special treatment over everyone else? We are all made fun of at some stage and it's something we just have to accept. There is a right to free speech, which therefore includes satire, however there is no special right that allows Muslims not to get their feelings hurt, unlike the rest of us. I look forward to your response.
The Ancient Astronaut Theory is Correct

Before I even begin, I would like to point out that I do not ACTUALLY believe the ancient astronaut theory. However, I think that this would be a fun debate to try out. The BOP will be on me for this debate to prove that what has been dismissed as "coincidences" or "human intelligence" is actually artifacts and knowledge given to us by aliens. The opposition will only have a BOD.R1 AcceptanceR2 -3 ArgumentsR4 LESS THAN 1000 CHARACTER conclusion, no new arguments may be presentedDefinitions:Ancient Astronaut Theory - the belief that aliens have visited Earth before and have given us knowledge, artifacts, etc.Aliens - extraterrestrials that didn't originate on EarthI look forward to an exciting debate!
Iron Man is objectively better than Batman

Argument 1: Tony Stark is much smarter than Bruce Wayne. Batman is a pretty smart guy but he's an idiot compared to Tony Stark. Batman doesn't even build his own armor, he has Morgan Freeman do it. Tony built his own armor and a revolutionary power source in a cave. With a box of scraps. Argument 2: Batman is much less effective with dealing with criminals. Batman patrols Gotham and despite his best efforts Gotham is still pretty crappy. Batman's crime fighting method is; capture the criminal, imprison the criminal, wait for said criminal to escape, repeat. Iron man don't play that. Batman's entire rouge gallery can be solved with one word: missile. And Iron man has got plenty of those. I have more arguments but let's see if you can get past these first.
Iron Man is objectively better than Batman

Simple. I believe that Iron Man is a better super hero than Batman. We split the BOP. I have to show why Iron Man is better and my opponent must show why Batman is better. Now because comic book universes are so vast, we are only allowed to use the mainstream continuity of the respective super heros and/or their most recent film franchises. Also critizing opponent's super hero is very much allowed. 3 rounds, 1st is for acceptance.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

I am unable to understand your last post at all. It appears to be totally disconnected to your earlier posts or my objections. For example what do you mean by: "Slumdog" is used as the latest example of attacks on Western ideas or symbols of Western culture. " Also what is the meaning of this movie being more 'image than substance'? Is it a concession? --- In this debate 'the pro' has praised the movie 'Slumdog Millionaire' as an inspiring movie with important morals. I agree with the morals completely - even though I found the movie dull. However that is not the topic of debate. In this regard - I am afraid, my opponent has lost focus. Consequently my objections have been left unaddressed. My main objections are that this movie portrays neither poverty nor affluence correctly. While depicting poverty this movie exaggerates crime, and ignores real problems in slums. Moreover it feeds into the incorrect western stereotypes about poverty in Indian. Some attempt was made to counter the second part of the statement. It was argued that poverty in India exists and it is not a taboo to discuss it. Absolutely correct. But my focus was on 'incorrect' part. I would have no problem, had the movie correctly depicted the poverty in India. As far as depiction of affluence is concerned, no clear argument was presented at all. So I assume that this point has already been conceded.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

The way in which Slumdog Millionaire has brought the issue of global poverty into the spotlight exposing our collective squeamishness with having images of it thrown in our face by a film. Since India has advanced to become a global power, all things Western, especially Western culture has been tabooed. Indeed, "Slumdog" is used as the latest example of attacks on Western ideas or symbols of Western culture. All in all, it is a movie more about image than substance. It vividly showing audiences who have not faced poverty and hardship the lives that many in this world are compelled to lead allows it to be more than just a film. It ends up being a story that will open most audiences' eyes to something new – hopefully bringing tangible benefits to the world's poor while eliciting an honest introspection about what people often must and can do without.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

You have said: By telling the story of Mumbai from a low-class point of view, the viewers are taken to the extremes of emotions from hopelessness to redemption. A message of movie is that intelligence and love is not the exclusive privilege of only the wealthy and educated. The feelings of truly living to survive were captured. I am glad you found the story engrossing and inspiring. However you are confusing an inspiring story with a realistic story. Only recently, I saw Kung Fu Panda (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It is an animation story where blundering 'Po the Panda' goes on to become Kung Fu master. It is an inspiring and entertaining story. However everyone will laugh at me if I say that Kung Fu Panda portrays Kung Fu well! You have mentioned the gangster's house and expensive TV. Is that what you mean by a successful portrayal of affluence? You have also said: Conditions in the slums are not improving significantly Although it appears as a bit of digression, I think I must address it. Conditions in slums are improving significantly. However I agree that they are not improving as fast as we would like it to. You have concluded: It is a reminder to everyone that they can and should be responsible for the conditions of their society on some level, regardless of the country they currently inhabit. While we may not agree at all about the movie, I agree completely with the moral.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

Slumdog Millionaire showed glimpses of the affluence in India by displaying the gangster's rich house and the expensive TV, studio, et cetera. As India rises out above its poverty, so do the poor. When Salim casts his hand across the soaring skyline of modern Mumbai, he can say honestly, "India is at the center of the world." In this the scene, Jamal meets his brother following work at a call centre. Ultimately, the film focuses on the poverty existent in slums because that is where the characters originate from. Poverty is an integral part of the story as Jamal overcomes obstacles presented by a low-class background. This movie reiterates the possibilities of succeeding in a world where money dominates while respecting rights and caring for morals. Slumdog Millionaire is reminiscent of Forrest Gump both in the sequence of the movie and the morals. Forrest Gump does not originate from a wealthy family and he had been severely crippled by his learning ability. His mother exchanged sex for his acceptance to a public school while Jamal and Salim's mother could not afford necessities. Single earner families' disparities as compared to two parent families is noticeable. It shows that wherever you come from, you will always be hindered by obstacles. What is admirable is overcoming those bumps courageously and with determination. You can become happy and fulfilled by being truthful and loyal. Both Gump and Malik pursued a childhood friend who was the sole motivation for their actions. The obvious difference is that Forrest Gump thrived while Jamal Malik survived in poverty. It shows the wideness of the income gap worldwide. In Canada, we need a minimum of $22 000 to live while worldwide, people need only $15 000 to be considered to be high-income. By telling the story of Mumbai from a low-class point of view, the viewers are taken to the extremes of emotions from hopelessness to redemption. A message of movie is that intelligence and love is not the exclusive privilege of only the wealthy and educated. The feelings of truly living to survive were captured. Conditions in the slums are not improving significantly, and Boyle set about to create an understanding as to why slums are the way they are for the world. Boyle wanted them to see that the poor do not want to be lowlives and steal from the rich. He knew the only way to do that was by exploring the reasons as to what makes a violent criminal. Even from the beginning, Jamal is portrayed as a honest, caring boy. Later on, he is shown use cheap tricks to take of advantage of tourists at the Taj Mahal. Jamal may not not reached the extreme which his brother, Salim, does by shooting carelessly, however. It is a reminder to everyone that they can and should be responsible for the conditions of their society on some level, regardless of the country they currently inhabit.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

This time you have at least tried to answer my objections - though wrong ones. You have said that Indian poverty is not a taboo subject. People are being far too reactive. I do not have a problem if someone wants to depict Indian poverty. Naturally we are neither happy nor proud about that. However it is a challenge before us - and people who depict poverty actually help us by reminding us about the task ahead. Actually there is a small problem. There is a perception that it is the only thing being highlighted. However, that is not a very big issue. However my assertion is - the movie has ignored the real problems associated with poverty. Drugs, gangs, sexual abuse, religious fascism do exist. But these are not the real problems facing the majority. The real problems - like education, health care - all of which contribute in making poverty such a vicious circle - are glossed over. The reasons - I suspect are financial. This is not a problem with Slumdog Millionaire alone but many other movies in this genre. Agreed movies are not documentaries. However there are different kind of movie. The makers of Slumdog Millionaire cannot indulge in the kind of fancy present in movie like Cinderella. However let us go back to the topic of this debate. Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well We are debating whether Slumdog Millionaire portrays poverty and affluence well. You have already conceded that it does not represent affluence at all. This movie misrepresents poverty by exaggerating crime and ignoring real problems. Certainly you can argue it is only a movie. But then you concede my point.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

It's not a documentary. It's a story. It's meant to be all that realistic either. Just look at the most ridiculous part of all: every single question relates directly to one of the events in his life in chronological order. But it's just a movie. It's not supposed to be "the typical life of a kid growing up in the slums." It's supposed to be a grand, amazing story of a kid who's been through unbelievable misery and miraculously lives happily ever after. It's just a story, it requires you to suspend your belief, but it never claimed to be the truth. Like I have stated, Indian poverty is not a taboo subject that no one is supposed to address. This isn't the first movie about a kid growing up in the slums of Bombay. There was one ten years ago called Salaam Bombay, it was also nominated for an Oscar and was made by an Indian director, and IMO was more realistic and more depressing than Slumdog. This also isn't the first movie to feature religious riots, or the Indian mafia, or child prostitution. So I don't see why Slumdog Millionaire is criticized for depicting these things when it is not a new subject; several other movies, made by Indians, have shown these things. Yes, India is not just poverty, yes it is becoming a world power, yes yes yes. However, that does not mean that you cannot talk about existing poverty too. In fact, 10 million of 18 million who live in Mumbai live in slums. The film takes place there and does not discuss any other parts of India. In 1993 - when Jamal would have been 5 years old - over 55% of Mumbai's population lived in slums. The anti-muslim raid portrayed in the movie was based on several real events. While it may be unlikely that the full collection of events that occurs in Slumdog Millionaire would happen to any one person, it has all happened to someone or other - not that that means life in the slums is like that for everyone, but it's there. Denying the presence of such things would be like saying the United States is a rich country, thus, there is no poverty here. Also, as there is child prostitution in the U.S., Canada, Europe, etc, there is child prostitution in India. Nowhere in the film does it claim that such issues as rampant problems that is consuming India. People are becoming offended that they showed the slums at an extreme, but it is irrating that they look past the fact that the film clearly showed that it was not destitute and depressing, and that people had lives and were happy with where they were. True, conditions could be improved, but it was not all doom and gloom