BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An english curriculum that focuses on the classics is better than one which analyses modern films

An english curriculum that focuses on the classics is far more relevant to the subject as compared to one that analyses modern films. There is a reason why classics endure and films do not. Films, are in fact, not prose nor poem. They are not an 'entire body of writing'. Therefore apart from the 'history' part, they actually cannot truly be defined under an english curriculum. But for the purpose of this debate, I will carry on. The sole intention of english studies is to further our mastery of language. In books, we recognise language devices (such as personification, foreshadowing, hyperbole etc) and appreciate their emotional power. In films, on the other hand, teaches cinematic techniques more than literary devices.Another important thing to note is that films in general cannot capture the experience of a scene as clearly as in writing. The sights, smells, perspectives of the narrator cannot be accurately portrayed on screen as compared to being written in a book or a script. A story example: the narrator is wandering in a dense mist that is smothering and disorienting him. He is lost and helpless and feels utterly insignificant. In text, his emotions and confusion can be very distinctly written. When adapted into film, however, how much can a person really understand or analyse the actor's emotions? Only on the surface, plus guesswork. How much of the acting is accurate? It varies. Reading and analysing text allows the reader to experience the written world, instead of watching through a screen simply for entertainment. Films are created to entertain the audience—no proper film is catered only for the purpose of analysing. 'Better' in the english curriculum means more beneficial in terms of literature learnt in the english curriculum. While modern films are more interesting than Shakespeare plays and designed to capture the audience's interest, they are not better than classics in terms of english.Films also do not give enough time for character growth. In films, scenes cannot drag for too long as it would waste screen-time. Many crucial parts of a character will often be neglected and replaced with entertaining scenes. Likely, the audience would be too caught up in the next scene to care about what just passed. Therefore, if the curriculum was to switch entirely from classic literature to analysing modern films, it would not be a very effective learning. The whole point of the subject is not to simply teach language, but to grasp the subtle implications in the character's words—why they are the way they are and why they act like they do. Films should only be used to engage the interest of students before introducing them to the written world. They cannot, under most circumstances, be a total replacement for the classics.
An english curriculum that focuses on the classics is better than one which analyses modern films

I will be arguing on the moral side and one of my arguments will revolve around the relevance to society. How are students supposed to be interested in such works such as Shakespeare? It doesn't relate to modern times nor does it focus on issues revolving round our everyday life which is what youth will grow up with and have to face. It would be morally incorrect to have the school system focusing on something that doesn't pertain to our modern society, whereas film and television are always up to date and focus on every day issues such as the news. If we don't teach the children how to deal with these problems as soon as we can we will be disadvantaging them. I mean do we still say and i quote " Romeo, Romeo where fore out thou Romeo"? I don't think so. Im our modern society we would say " Romeo where are you". The Guardian newspaper posted "A well meaning English teacher can take a student through the meaning of every word in a sentence and it soon becomes a drawn out and confusing process". So what point is there to reading 14-18th century literature when there is such more more to learn from films and television? Im not saying these works should be forgotten i am saying they should be laid aside for people interested in such works. This is why we have english literature as a subject. Studies from ABC news reported that students find it hard to understand Shakespeare's work and want to learn things that relate to more modern times. To bring this back to my point, how will 16th century literature help the children today and the modern problems facing society? Films are always being made about current events and televisions shows are as well and this is what we should be teaching in schools. It is a moral obligation to teach students and if they are sitting in class bored, reading a book that has no use in modern society we are breaking this. Is this fair to youth?
An english curriculum that focuses on the classics is better than one which analyses modern films

I accept your challenge and will be arguing that classic literature such as Shakespeare or Lord of the Flies are better for an english curriculum as compared to modern films. NOTE: By 'english', I'm assuming literature, as strictly-english lessons are actually the study of the english language (focusing on language structure, not hidden and implied meanings) hence generally have nothing to do with films or classics. Literature: 1. writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays. 2. the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.: the literature of England. 3. the writings dealing with a particular subject: the literature of ornithology. 4. the profession of a writer or author. 5. literary work or production.
Resolved: An Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero.

1) Introduction I accept your challenge Con, and good luck. ICC = Islamic Cultural Center I hold that an Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero. Since the owners of the property have every right to do so, it is up to my opponent to present evidence as to why they should not build an ICC on their private property. 2) Contentions A) My opponent will most likely argue the "insensitivity" of building an ICC so close. In fact, a Muslim center known as the Masjid Manhattan has existed on 20 Warren St. in downtown Manhattan for 40 years [1], and yet there has been no media hype for its destruction, nor has anything really bad happened. The truth is much of the fear about an ICC being built is just that: fear. A fear that has been blown out of proportion by the media. This should also put to rest ideas like the "Cordoba Initiative", since a mosque already exists in close proximity to Ground Zero. B) Building an ICC should not cause any alarm or fear because it is a Muslim building. Those who committed murder on 9/11 where radicals, the same way Charles Manson was a radical and Timothy McVeigh. We do not associate all Christians to be murderers because of the actions of a few. In addition, many good Muslim men died on 9/11, normal people who just went into work like it was any other day. Even some of the first responders were Muslim. C) The downtown area has been experiencing rapid growth [2] over the years. In order to cater to what must be a boom in all sorts of populations, different houses of worship must be built, from synagogues to mosques. D) I hope my opponent is familiar with the First Amendment, so I will not post any evidence. The fact is, if Americans have embraced this ideology ravenously since its inception then they should continue to do so. I want to try to make the point that allowing the ICC to be built in downtown Manhattan is a reminder to the world of our civility, and that this is what separates us from those who despise this country. Imagine trying to build a church in Riyadh [3], it would never be allowed even if the Christians in the area had been completely benevolent since their arrival. 3) Summary In preparation for an obvious retort by my opponent I wish to state that it is foolish to assume that the actions of few represent the feelings of a whole. Given the evidence above, If I were Muslim and I have no connection to 9/11 like the other 99.99% of Muslims, I would be offended that I cannot build a house of worship because of an irrational fear spread by ignorant pundits. I realize that people who supposedly followed the same religion as me committed murder on 9/11, also killing Muslims in the process, and I have an understanding of why people may fear me but restricting my rights, or being offended by something that has no bearing on your life is completely unnecessary. [1] http://www.masjidmanhattan.com... [2] http://www.lowermanhattan.info... [3] http://www.time.com...
Resolved: An Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero.

I challenge anyone to debate me on the topic Resolved: An Islamic Cultural Center should be built near Ground Zero. My opponent will argue the affirmative and I will argue the negative. The format of the debate is: 1. Introduction, Definitions, Observations 2. Basic Contentions with Evidence 3. Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals 5. Summary The resolution today questions whether an Islamic Cultural Center SHOULD be built near Ground Zero. Although the builders of this center have the legal right to build it, I believe that they should refrain from doing so for reasons I will specify in my next post. Good luck and thank you for accepting.
going into a girl to girl relationship is fine

Ok thank you and good luck. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there are three major discriminations it would be race,financial status, and sexual preference. I negate the resolution: that going into a girl to girl relation ship is fine. My opponent's definition of fine is "accepted by the people." So the affirmative has to prove how going into a girl and girl relation ship would actually be accepted by the people. Cont 1: No mandate or force on earth could ever change how we believe. Our religion, beliefs, ect cannot be changed no matter what people say. The government could say that homosexuality is okay and should be accepted, but would we truly accept it? The answer no. Therefore there is no possible way that acceptance to homosexuality can be realized. Cont 2: Majority of religions would be offended. Religions such as Christianity who believe in every word of the bible would be offended. They think Adam and eve not Adam and Steve (Switch them into girls) And many others religions too. Now why is this important? What's the warrant? Okay if having religions being offended is not enough, then we must take into the account of the safety of these homosexual couples. If people are offended they tend to react. Maybe not physically but they will talk. Eventually names would be called and a slippery sloped is formed leading into violence and maybe even genocide. Hitler did it, Whose to say some one wont stand up and take his place? For these reasons I urge a negative vote.
Debating is good for you!

Thank you for your response contender! You argued that my argument must be unique, but this isn't related to the topic at hand: whether debating is good or not. Furthermore, this is a debate about how healthy (psychologically, academically, etc.) debating is, not a contest between intellectual discussion and debating. Even if you did prove intellectual discussion to be superior, both can still be good for you at the same time. Now let's get to the meat of my argument. Although fewer than half of African Americans who go to school actually finish it, males of that group of people who debate are 70% more likely to graduate and 3 times less likely to drop out than non-debaters. A study in Minnesota during 2005 uncovered that students who debate get higher scores on tests than students who don't debate, debaters have higher self-esteem, have little attendance issues, etc. (Source: "Debate: Key to better Academic Achievement" by Alfred C. Snider. Vermont, date of publication not specified). Conclusion for this round: Debating not only helps academically, but can improve communication, as well as cause students to enjoy school more. Again, thank you for the response. I apologize if this resolution is too difficult to negate, but I have encountered many people who believe that debate is simply an inferior form of communication and nothing more.
Debating is good for you!

I accept.BoP Analysis:BoP is shared, but in order for my opponent to win, they must prove uniqueness. None of these arguments are unique to debating and in round 2 I will elaborate on why intellectual discussion is better for you. If I can prove intellectual discussion to be superior, I then prove debate to be harmful, as your are engaging in an activity that does not give you the maximum value in terms of benefits.Thank you. I await Pro's arguments.
Debating is good for you!

My first debate on here! As many people try to stay away from politics and science, their will to debate has decreased. This is a problem, since debating has many good effects on people, such as: -It gets people to think critically. -Debate can challenge bias. -You can meet many cool people by debating. -Debate can encourage positive action. And many more. I don't know why anyone who dislikes debate would be on this website, but I'd like to hear the standpoint of anyone who dislikes it, or thinks that debating has bad consequences.
which game is better: cod mw2 or cod black ops

Arguments extended. Brief RebuttalCon asserts that there are more perks in Black Ops however there are lots of perks in both so we see no validity of this. There are perks in both and both have good perks so this does not prove either side better. As far as weapons go weapons yet again are great on both sides so this can not be used. Finally there are MORE maps in MW2 (12) than the 5-6 he is discussing [1]. None of my opponent's claims have evidence and my arguments are all extended. It's obvious, vote Pro. This is all I can write because of the abusive character limit. 1. http://vnboards.ign.com...;
which game is better: cod mw2 or cod black ops

It should be noted that I only have 600 characters to debate and this is rather abusive. I can't control the briefness. C1: Modern Warfare 2 has higher ratings than Black Ops. Modern Warfare 2 received a 9.5 rating from one of the top gaming website, IGN. [1] On the other hand Black Ops received a decent 8.5 rating. One has to understand that we shouldn't go off of what we think but a cumulative review by professionals. C2: The graphics of MW2 are superior to those in Black OpsC3: The levelling feature of MW2 is superior to that of Black Ops. C4: MW2 has much better maps than Black Ops. Here's a video: . http://www.youtube.com...
which game is better: cod mw2 or cod black ops

OK the debate is about why you think COD:MW2 is a better game than COD:BLACK OPS OK this is my case; COD:black ops is a more advanced game even though the game takes place in a different time frame than COD:MW2 with more perks and also bringing some perks from past games like last chance, hard line ETC. The weapons on the other hand are less advanced than the ones in COD:MW2.but the thing is that the weapons are re-made than the modern design of the weapon Lastly the extensive map packs they are i believe 5-6 map packs and each one is different from the other either have different COD:zombie missions to more multi-player maps and that's my case i will be waiting for the opposition's statment
Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder

This debate will only involve abortions during the first or second trimester of pregnancy. Pro will have the burden of proving that abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder. As Con, I will have to refute or invalidate this claim. Definitions: Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [1] Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy [2] Second Trimester of Pregnancy: time period extending from the 13th to the 27th week of gestation [3] Rules: -First round is for acceptance of definitions. -Second round is for main arguments. Pro may not rebut my arguments until the third round; he can only state his own. -Third round is for rebuttals to our opponent's main arguments and then summary of one's own. No new arguments may be made outside those that are needed for rebuttal. Pro may not respond to the rebuttals I make to his arguments, since I am unable to respond to his rebuttals of mine. [1] https://www.google.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder

I made my decision based on emotion because it is the way I see it. Why should we say this isn't murder just because someone before us wrote the definition that we follow? What if he had written it differently to where it is murder? We're just following what a human being before us wrote and we believe. I guess it is just the way you see it. The ones that believe it isn't murder just look at definitions people before us wrote and believe it isn't. People who believe it is look at the life the baby may have. Should humans have the decision over life and death? I suppose I will lose this debate because I based it on my emotions and opinions and not a definition.
Abortion before the end of the second trimester is murder

I would like to begin by saying yes, yes it is. "Annually 50 million babies are aborted worldwide." and "In America 3700 babies are aborted a day. One every 24 seconds."[1] Is it any different if I killed you now than if I killed you as a fetus. If you kill a fetus you take the life they will have. You take away the wife/husband and children they may have. Would you want to be killed as a fetus because your mother didn't want you or wasn't able to care for you? That means you would never know your friends or your family. This question in my mind shouldn't be based on definitions. It is a moral question in my opinion. In conclusion, you may not be taking away someone's life but you are taking away the life they're going to have. [1]http://www.cpforlife.org...
The logical base for claims of religious superiority is inherently fallacious.

My opponent seems to have misunderstood what logic is. It does not deal in truth or falsehood, at least not directly. Logic is about the relation of ideas to one another; the content of those ideas is purely secondary. An argument can be valid even if every claim it contains is false. For example: All unicorns have two horns Socrates is a unicorn Therefore Socrates has two horns. Flawless logic, perfectly valid. "In order for the conclusion that Religion B is Better than religion A but that automatically presumes Religion B to be correct to even begin logical evaluation.Thus the Conclusion that B is logically superior requires that the premise that B is true to also be true and vise versa." Manifestly untrue. Are you going to call the above syllogism illogical as well? What if you had a syllogism made up of claims you didn't know the truth values for? Would you be unable to determine whether it was logical or not until you discovered them? This is a logical proof: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu... Having no idea what the letters represent, one can still ascertain whether it is a valid proof or not (it is!) "It actually means religion is entirely distinct from the realm of logic. Because that "leap of faith" has no logical grounding. It inherently contains an assumption that differs from person to person and thus cannot hold universal logical appeal." Nothing has "logical grounding". Things are grounded empirically, though observation. Logic is about relationships between concepts, which don't require grounding at all. Its quite likely that all religions have equal empirical grounding; that is, very little. However, speaking in terms of logic, some belief systems, and indeed some religions, can be superior to others, and indeed are.
The logical base for claims of religious superiority is inherently fallacious.

I apologize for the forfeit in R2. I had more pressing matters to attend to. My opponent provides a hypothetical comparison between religions coming to the final conclusion that "The deity of religion A is clearly self contradictory, as well as being unsupported by evidence, whereas the diety in religion B is simply unsupported by evidence. Speaking from a purely logical point of view, B is superior to A." However this doesn't actually answer the original argument I made. I argued that there is no logical argument for religious superiority because such arguments are always predicated on the belief that the premise of the religion is true in the first place. In order for the conclusion that Religion B is Better than religion A but that automatically presumes Religion B to be correct to even begin logical evaluation. Thus the Conclusion that B is logically superior requires that the premise that B is true to also be true and vise versa. "While it is indeed the case that all religions require a leap of faith, it does not follow that one cannot be logically superior to another." It actually means religion is entirely distinct from the realm of logic. Because that "leap of faith" has no logical grounding. It inherently contains an assumption that differs from person to person and thus cannot hold universal logical appeal.
The logical base for claims of religious superiority is inherently fallacious.

Metz has claimed that no religion is logically superior to any other since they all require a leap of faith, and illustrates this with a fallicious syllogism. While it is indeed the case that all religions require a leap of faith, it does not follow that one cannot be logically superior to another. I will compare two ficticious religions to show that this is not the case. Religion A holds that its deity is made of an "incorporeal substance"; that He is omnipotent in the sense that he can do literally everything (including square the circle and other such nonsense) and that He is powerless to control human actions because he imbued us with "free will". Religion B on the other hand, is silent on the physical embodiment of its deity, claiming only that He is extremely powerful (though not omnipotent) yet infinitely good ( and thus worthy of worship). The deity of religion A is clearly self contradictory, as well as being unsupported by evidence, whereas the diety in religion B is simply unsupported by evidence. Speaking from a purely logical point of view, B is superior to A.