BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Was casting Iron Fist as caucasian whitewashing and "a missed opportunity?"

This will be a good debate... First off. I will start with the origin of Iron Fist. Daniel Rand was the son of Wendell Rand, the CEO of Rand Indeustries. He lived a pampered and privileged life as a child. Danny's father decided to take him, his mother and his business partnet Harole Meachum on a trip to Kun 'Lun (his father previously lived there). But his parents both tragically die during the journey and Danny is found by Kun 'Lun archers who take him to the city. For years, he learned martial arts and at 19, he gains the power of the Iron Fist. Now in the movie his origin is slighly different: his parents were on a business trip to China/Hong Kong but their plane crashed in the Himalayas. Danny's parents are killed but Danny survives and is found by monks who take him to Kun 'Lun and he learns martial arts, gaining the power of the Iron Fist. Nevertheless, basis of his character remains intact from the comics- a privileged upper class boy being required to live in the harshest conditions under strict rule which in the end, makes him a better person. In the comics, since, his conception, Danny Rand has always been a caucaisan male. I don't see any reason to change that. It is not "whitewashing" if said character was originally white. Sure, I'd understand the outcry if Danny were originally Aisan in the comics, but he wasn't therefore the controversy was completely unfounded. People say casting Iron Fist as white rather than Asian promotes the "white savior" narraitve, but I don't think this really holds true. If you've seen the TV show, then you can remember at the end of the season, Danny discovers that Kun 'Lun has been destroyed because he abandonned his post- the city he was supposed to protect. That doesn't seem much like a savior to me. Also, telling from Danny's best friend (also from Kun 'Lun), we can assume it is not just Asians (east Asians) who inhabit Kun 'Lun. For all we know, there could also be blacks, Hispanics, etc. Iron Fist's race is somewhat essential to his character as he's supposed to resemble an outsider- indifferent to a culture other than his own and learn from it. Sure Asian Americans might be considered outsiders to Kun 'Lun too, but they will still look like the inhabitants (that is if most or all the inhabitants are east Asian). Danny is not just supposed to be culturally an outsider, but also LOOK like an outsider- and Aisan American just doesn't live up to this. In short, I don't think Marvel missed an opportunity at all and I'm glad they didn't pander to these people. Sure, the show got negative reviews from critics but most of those reviews were just people whining about Danny being white. Plus, Iron Fist was one of Netflix's most binge watched series and has a 77% approval rating from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes- yes not as high as the other Marvel Netflix shows but we can obviously see that many fans don't mind the series. https://www.rottentomatoes.com...
Was casting Iron Fist as caucasian whitewashing and "a missed opportunity?"

Interesting topic. Thanks to SegBeg for the question. As my opponent stated, I will be arguing that Iron Fist is whitewashing, and "a missed opportunity". Although normally it would be apropos to try to establish what "whitewashing" or a "missed opportunity" might be, with sensitive social topics such as these it might be even more interesting to appeal to our commonsense, or moral intuition in our arguments. I thus defer to my opponent for his initial round of arguments.
The Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos are the best teams in the NFL

I bring up the redskins because they lost to them. Blaming the refs is not an option. I also bring it up because if falsifies your statement. The Dallas cowboys do NOT have the best record in the NFL. They are 6-2, The cardinals are better at 6-1. Half a game better. The cardinals have the best record in the NFL. With Tony Romo, we have seen numerous chokes in pressure situations. His stats are decent so far, but generally against a bunch of nobodys. We all saw what happened week 1 when he played a real defense, a slew of turnovers and ineptitude. Tony Romo is not an elite quarterback. Demarco Murray is playing lights out, but a great running back does not make you a great team (Check out the vikings through the AP years). The cowboys are NOT the best team in the NFL, in terms of talent, record, or coaching. Jones is an awful owner as well, always getting into his teams business and not trusting his coaches to make the decisions he hired them to make. Player wise, record wise and organizationally, the cowboys are not at the top of the NFL, and a case could be made they are barely top ten. I do not need to make that argument though. I only need to prove, as I have, the cowboys are not the best NFL team. Denver is among the best teams in the NFL. Because you have chosen not to weaken your statement to "The broncos are the best team in the NFL" as I gave you the opportunity to do, I will concede this point to you because I do not need it to defeat your original statement, and it is a harder argument to make, one that i do not want to lose points with voters on making unnecessarily, as i believe your original statement has been thoroughly dismantled. . Concedeing: The broncos are a top 2 team Original statement: The Cowboys are best best team in the NFL AND the Broncos are the 2nd best team in the NFL, I have shown, is a FALSE statement because the Cowboys are not the best team in the NFL.
The Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos are the best teams in the NFL

The win against the Titans was one of their easier games, granted, but the Texans are a great team, with stars like JJ Watt, Robert Clowney, Deandre Tompkins, Andre Johnson, and Arian Foster. The Rams defense is very intimidating, and their special teams are very tricky, (watch the Seahawks and Rams highlights) and the Redskins? Why would you bring that up? A lot of bad calls by the referees, such as a pathetic call one pass interference on the Cowboys D. And I am waiting for you to try to dismantle the Broncos statement.
The Dallas Cowboys and the Denver Broncos are the best teams in the NFL

No confusion on this end. I will start this argument by defeating the argument for the cowboys. You're statement is inclusive, The cowboys AND the Broncos are the best teams in football. This is distinctly than the cowboys OR the broncos are the best team in football. Denver you have a stronger case, and if you wish to weaken your statement, we can debate on that front as well, but the cowboys argument is easy. The Dallas cowboys did indeed beat the defending super bowl champs, at home. They ended the longest home winning streak in football, 19 games, in that game. However, in subsequent weeks the Seahawks LOST to the Rams, a non playoff team with a laughably held together offense, and stuggled to do much of anything against the Panthers, a team that has been getting lit up all season by lesser teams. Clearly, Seattle is not the team everyone thought they were, and are at this point are agreed to be unlikely to repeat as super bowl champions. The win looks a lot less impressive given this information. They also lost their home opener to the 49ers, A team that struggled to to give the broncos even a decent game. But what about their wins, there must be some quality there, right..? Not so fast. The wins that have people such as yourself so impressed, crowning them as the best in the NFL The Titans: 2-6 The Rams 2-5 The saints: 3-4 The texans: 4-4 The giants:3-4 No wonder your argument hinges so much on Seattle: THAT is the ONLY team they have beat with a winning record. Hardly so at 4-3, with a loss to the rams and it took them a last minute drive to beat the awful Carolina Panthers last week. The cherry on top, giving the 3rd win to a Redskins team down to its third string quarterback on monday night football, proving they are nothing but pretenders, who cannot handle the spotlight and take care of business against a team who is generally awful. They lost to Brady Quinn, A guy who couldn't make it in CLEVELAND! Through their generally weak schedule, inconsistent play, and marquee win against a team proving to be much less than we thought they were, they cowboy's are NOT the best team in football. Not even close really, they are just the piece of crap that floated to the top of the toilet bowl.
The Bible is corrupted.

The bible has not been corrupted. We can see the truth in it if we look. Noah's ark has been found. Source: (https://answersingenesis.org...). Even the Qu'ran says it isn't:" Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34) Source: (https://carm.org...) . Various parts of the bible can be proven true if you compare it with evidence
The death Penalty should still stand.

My opponent's source states: "Attorneys for Morales rested their case after an anesthesiologist said errors by prison staffers with no medical background may leave inmates conscious and in excruciating pain masked by drugs. He said inmates could feel as if they are drowning, but obervers would not be able to tell. No human endeavor can be performed to humane perfection every time. " I rest my case. It's unrealistic to limit the prison sentence to one year and then perform the execution. It takes years of paperwork, trials, suspensions, and tests to convict someone of capital punishment. It is more painful to have the convicted remain in prison for life. Death shortens punishment time, and takes the convicted out of misery.
The death Penalty should still stand.

Yes we can go back and forth with link like . http://cbs13.com... the states experts say that it is painless, I read your link, and it said that it cost $114 million more than life in prison, but that is not for lethal injection. another reason for the price being so high is because they are fed for 20 years while one death row. Reducing the sentence to one year would save millions. just type in Prison Violence and see all the stories about people hurting others in prison. The reason I am against pain is because the constitution. I really don care about the prisoner. Why are we so worried about them getting a little pain, when they had no mercy on the victim?
The death Penalty should still stand.

Lethal injection does cause pain. Here is an article that supports the cruelty of lethal injection: http://www.newscientist.com... If a person is in maximum security prison, he would clearly, in general, be unsuccessful in hurting someone else while in prison. Although hard evidence may be found, there is still ALWAYS a chance of error in capital punishment cases. Edited videos, skewed data tests, and other factors are not one hundred percent accurate. If my opponent read my sources, he would have seen the statistics that prove the death penalty being more costly than life in prison. My opponent has sourced nothing to prove his claims. I heavily urge a Con vote.
The death Penalty should still stand.

Cruel...willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others. I didn't say that I believe in shocking the prisoners to death. I think that they should die with a lethal injection that causes no pain. if a person who is in maximum security prison for life after raping and killing two children, what stops him from hurting someone while he is in prison? I believe that they should only have one year to live, that would save millions. Like I said before, I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on. It is a fact of life, everything has a small risk. You claim that The death penalty is more costly than life in prison. the injection cost $86.00, to house a federal prisoner for one year $22650.
The death Penalty should still stand.

The death penalty violates our constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of laws. The enactment of the death penalty serves to be inconsistent with fundamental values of our democratic system. Capital punishment does not deter crime, and it is uncivilized in theory and unfair in practice. The death penalty is more costly than life in prison. [1] Evidence is not absolute. There is always chances of error in cases involved with the death penalty. [1] The death penalty does not deter crime. [1] All of my arguments can be seen in this debate: http://www.debate.org... [1]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The death Penalty should still stand.

I think that the Death Penalty should stay. I do not believe that it is right to let a murderer stay in prison living off of tax dollars for the rest of his life. I believe that the penalty should only be used on people they have hard evidence on so they can avoid executing the wrong person. If the death penalty stayed, there would be less crimes in and outside of jail. Criminals would be afraid to kill someone fearing for their lives. Does anyone object?
God exists

1: Fibonacci If there is a non-random pattern in nature it follows there is a creator. If atheism is true the universe came about by random means and theres no non-random patterns.The Fibonacci sequence starts with two numbers then gets its next numbers by adding the last numbers0,1,1 add the two ones, 2 add two and one, 5, add five and two,7.........When coming up with a ratio for this pattern we have 1.61803... the title given to it is Phi.Phi shows up an astonishing amount of times in nature.The narwhal shell is a case but io9.com lists 15 examples in naturehttp://io9.com...Its in flower petals, seed heads, galaxies, hurricanes, pinecones, faces, fingers, animal flight patterns, our DNA are only a few cases. This is a mathematical pattern that shouldnt occur this many times if the universe was random. Maybe once or twice is believable but not this many. A God is responsible.2: The ontological argumentModal ontological argument shows gods existence through deduction and modal reasioning(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn‘t.(3) If God doesn‘t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn‘t.Therefore:(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t.(5) If God necessarily doesn‘t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore:(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn‘t exist.(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn‘t exist.Therefore:(8) God has necessary existence.(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.Therefore:(10) God exists. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info... Premise 1 is true because God is the perfect supreme being. It would be more supreme and more perfect to exist in all possible worlds than one.Premise 2 is true from the law of excluded middle.Premise 3 is true because of the Becker PostulatePremise 4-6 follow from abovePremise 7 is the premise that needs to be attacked. It looks like premise 7 is true because it looks like God is at least possible. It is a big big claim to assume God can't possibly exist than to assume God can possibily exist.8-10 follow from the others.
Gene Therapy

I know that it costs money, I realize that, and it's not the only option. You can either deal with it, or you can amputate a part of the body that is affected by your disease. Both solutions don't cost as much money, unless of course, you do absolutely nothing to help yourself and you end up in the hospital for a longer time, your symptoms getting worse, more medical bills, more money. I also understand that it can cause disease in the family, but gene therapy can be used to reverse the disease. Even if you didn't successfully get the implant, at least you had the guts to try, to turn your life around for the better. My opponent states the she believes it should be illegal, not even letting the people who want to try it to make them better. So they wouldn't have a chance to live a life they've only dreamed about. You stated that it's dangerous and if it's suppose to heal you why can it kill you? Every medicine out there has no guarantee that it will work and that it will heal you. Some people are allergic to medicines, that could kill them. Even prescription medicines can kill you if you don't pay attention to the amount you're suppose to take or if again, you're allergic. So are you against all treatments that could kill you? Because unfortunately, any type of medicine/treatment can so no one would ever be healthy again. Do you really believe that they should have to live the rest of their lives with this disease. The people used this method because they were desperate, they want to get better and you're not even going to let them try?
Gene Therapy

Gene Therapy affects human health and the economic world. It affects the human health because it can fail in replacing the gene that needs to be replaced. During Gene Therapy they put a virus in someone and hopefully it will go to where it needs to and not back fire. But in some cases the virus can mutate in the human into something even worse that it started out as. If a germ gene was put into a person then it would affect ther genes and that persons blood line forever. It could make someones family line develope different problems. Why do you think it is okay to do that? It affects the world(or economics) because it is only offered to the more wealthier people. If a person is in poverty or close to it but they need gene therapy done, then they cant pay for it. Its a rich solution, not made for the poor to get help. By using gene therapy you could be at risk of getting leukaemia. Do you want people to risk their lives and possibly spend MORE money on chemotherapy? And after getting gene therapy -for the people who survived- could get the idea in their head about designer babies. Because Gene Therapy and making Designer Babies is basically the same thing right? except the designer baby is made before its born. Many people have ethical issues with gene therapy because they say its wrong and unnatural to mes with someones genes. They are worried that it will mess up the natural makeup of the human being.
Gene Therapy

I think that people who are the patient or a guardian of the patient should do some research. The doctor will tell you some of the basics including the risks of the injection. If people are so worried about what is going to happen, then look it up! Get the facts you need to make your decision. The doctor's opinion is just a recommendation, you don't HAVE to get the injection, they just recommend it to you. It's not the doctors fault if it doesn't work, you should've known the risks and if it was likely to work or not. You can also ask the doctor questions about it instead of just jumping into it. It can help you, it may not, but it's not the doctors responsibility to give you every detail, you need to ask. Almost 70% of the time gene therapy works according to http://www.uvm.edu... The benefits of searching the topic is that you get a whole bunch of information that could help you make your decision and decide what would be best for you. It could be a whole new life for you but as you know, not everything was an 100% chance of working. You can definitely learn more and all that you learn is more beneficial to you and you can ask more in depth questions.
Gene Therapy

Jesse Gelsinger died in 1999 at age 18 because of Gene Therapy. Jolee Mohr died in 2007 at age 36 because of Gene Therapy. In Gene Therapy so many things could go wrong even though its supposed to heal you. Viruses are injected into your body and are supposed to go to the problem. but what if it goes wrong? what if it the virus doesn"t replace the problem, what if it attacks healthy cells and kills you or makes your situation even worse than it already is? My opponent is going to tell you why Gene Therapy should be allowed. Yes, if gene therapy or gene transfer works it could save lives and fix any physical problems. Its just very risky to have a experimental operation done with a virus. I strongly believe Gene Therapy should be illegal to have done in the US or anywhere in the world.
Gene Therapy

Gene therapy is a method of therapy that can get rid of diseases, whether it is a genetic disease or not, it can be taken care if with gene therapy. Majority of the time, gene therapy is used as a last resort for a lot of things but it takes much time. Gene therapy is when doctors inject a normal/non mutated gene and inject it into a virus, the doctors then implant it into you. The purpose of putting it into a virus is because the virus is supposed to carry the gene to the malfunctioning gene(s) and "swap" them. The virus destroys the gene(s) and then exits the body. I believe in gene therapy because it could be a chance for someone with an illness or even a syndrome to be able to live a normal life without medications or having to go to the doctors office every week. Most people would kill for a chance for this opportunity, I should know because I'm one of the people with a genetic disease. My disease is called Crohn's disease. This disease really messes with your digestive system. And the treatments are either poisonous IV's or feeding tubes where you aren't allowed to eat ANYTHING. I would do almost ANYTHING to have the chance to live a normal life. I understand that it's risky and there's no guarantee that it will work, but I'd rather die knowing that I tried to live a happy normal life then die living in misery.
Gene Therapy

if gene therapy gave the disease then why would the family want to use it again in risk of making it worse, just to reverse it? I do believe that the public should not be allowed to use gene therapy until it is fully developed and is no longer an experiment. because of right now the solution of gene therapy is still an outcome that we are on edge about, even though many other solutions wont come out with the same outcome gene therapy has many more things a risk if anything goes wrong. And what if a citizen tries gene therapy dreaming of the life she will have after the implant just to find that it went wrong, either even more sick or dead. I think that until it is better developed it should not be allowed to be used on human beings because it is still in experimental mode.
Facebook is better than Twitter

Thank you very much for the quick change of arguments with no anger. :) Refutations "You are able to get other’s tweets easily just by following them in twitter.But in facebook you must add the person as a friend to get their updates." This doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing. By adding the person as a friend and having them accept, this ensures security and privacy. Where in Twitter you could have 'stalkers' following you around and reading everything you say, Facebook requires that the person receiving the friend request wants the request sender as a friend. Overall, Facebook has better security, privacy, and eliminates unwanted stalkers. "You don't have to waste time dealing with quiz invites and unexpected pokes and tags." Because this is exactly what Twitter lacks. Twitter lacks any extra functions, like games, or quizzes/questionaires, or advertisements some people might need. And furthermore, Facebook users don't necessarily have to respond to these things... They can simply ignore them. Quizzes posted on your 'wall' can be overlooked. Pokes can be removed or ignored. Same things apply for tags. All the arguments on the Opposition side of this debate have been refuted. All the arguments on the Proposition side still stand. As a result, the Proposition should win. Thank you to everyone for reading and thank you to Sumone2Every1 for being very lenient. Hopefully, we can have a debate where you are on the side you truly wish to be on. Thank you.