BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The book is generally better than the movie

My first point is that comparing a movie to a book is like comparing a pencil to a picture of it. Writing a book and making a movie are definitely a different art form from each other.Each of them are bound to their own limitations, and have their own set standards to meet at the very least. Movies, in general, lasts for 1 to 3 hours.This is one of the limitations the art form has to work around on. There"s also the movie budget and so on so forth. Books can stick to as many words as they see fit. Money has no power over the quality of the story either. They are, however, limited to the imagination due to their lack/absence of visuals and audio. Now knowing these limitations that both art forms have to work on, it is unfair to state the superiority of their story telling between each other with the reasons stated by my adversary. I"m not stating that movies are generally better than their book counter part. What I am saying is that the book cannot be better than its movie counter part. Moving on to my adversary"s claims, Pro stated that, "books for starters are able to tell you what is going on inside the heads of the characters." Although this is more often the case, this does not mean to say that movies are incapable of portraying the thought pattern or emotion of a character. Thought patterns and emotion can be simply announced by a narrator in a movie (e.g. A Series of Misfortunate Events). They can also be made through cinematography such as camera angles, transitions, audio, etc. Second, Pro stated the advantage of books due to their ability to make better use of the imagination, which he states to be limitless in boundaries. I completely agree with this statement. It is simply undeniable. Of course, this shouldn"t be a basis to claim that a book is better than a movie, because, again, both are different art forms that are set in their own limitations. No one can say that because the movie had audio and the book did not, it was better than the book. The lack of the other cannot be used against it, and the possession of the other cannot be used to move it onto a pedestal. Third, Pro stated the possibility of the movie to go off-canon. Even though Con implied that going off-canon is something to be frowned upon, I can say that he is being biased. If story telling is the matter here, movies and books have the tendency to be a different story from each other due to the addition or the removal of details. Again going back to my very first point, they are different art forms. If movie makers think that modifying an element is necessary for the enjoyment of the audience, then so be it. Again, let us remember that there"s not only one man behind all of these. We have to consider the editors, and those who gave an educated opinion over the modifications that they made. Fourth, we can't solely base the quality of being better than the other on accuracy of details. Again,both are a different art form that has their own target audience and limitations. Thank you.
The book is generally better than the movie

I believe, in general, the book is better than the movie. My reasons for this is that the books for starters are able to tell you what is going on inside the heads of the characters. You can see facial expressions in movies, but besides them not looking like really sincere looks, it doesn't tell you their whole feelings or their whole plan. The book also leaves a lot up to the imagination, and the imagination goes to unlimited amount of places. If you ask me, the book gives you the tools, and you make the movie in your head. How many of us can agree that the movie wasn't what we imagined inside our heads? I sure can. Especially when I watched a documentary about a musician that wrote a book (I am Ozzy by Ozzy Osbourne the book and God Bless Ozzy Osbourne the movie). The documentary didn't tell us everything he was thinking. And also, all the nonfiction stories turned in to movies. Lone Survivor. Even though I had family in that movie, I still have to say the book is better. It goes in to more detail. Also, in such movies, they add things for hype which can be fun and all, but can be inaccurate to the event, falsely relaying information. An example is Inglorious Bastards, the World War Two movie. It depicts Hitler getting killed when that is not the case. Overall, the books are more accurate, and leave a lot up the imagination, which is a lot more fun than having the whole story be shown inaccurately on screen. I do not dislike movies, and there are movies that take exception to this idea, however, I feel the majority of books are better story tellers than movies.
The book is generally better than the movie

Just to end this debate, I will restate my points. To emphasise my main point, I state that the flagship of my argument is that the book and the movie are simply incomparable. A book cannot be "generally better" nor be worse than the movie, for the reason that they don't share the same art form, limitations, and more importantly the same standards. Supporting this, I say that a book and a movie does not have the responsibility to tell the same story, but have the responsibility to tell a story. I thank my opponent for this challenging debate. I hope he didn't forfeit the last round however. If the voters think that it is unfair that I used my last round while my opponent did not, then please feel free to dismiss my words on Round 4. I know that my opinion is an unpopular one, but I hope the voters will let go of their own bias. I have taken up two weeks with my professor's discussion on this, so I do believe that I know what I am talking about. Again, thank you to everyone!
The book is generally better than the movie

I agree that books, through supplying a more apparent thought pattern, give more depth to the character within a story, than the movie. However, I must disagree that the both art forms share the responsibility to tell THE story; rather, I believe that both art forms share the responsibility to tell A story. Ladies and gentlemen, a movie does not promise to tell the same story as a book. A movie, however, promises to offer something new. This may be thought provoking, entertaining, saddening, disgusting, or any adjectives for that matter. They may now base the movie to an existing story for that purpose. Please note the word, base - a mere foundation or lowest level thereof. Let"s face the reality here, it doesn"t come to us to much of a surprise if the movie leaves out minor or major details from the book it was based on, nor does it surprise us that a movie will go off-canon. We have seen most, if not all, movies that were based from books to show this tendency. This then begs me to ask this question: Do we, the audience, honestly choose to watch a movie to see the same exact story as we may have read in the book? Some and maybe most will argue yes, but I say otherwise. We go to the movie to watch a different story. A story as it was chosen to be interpreted. If you tell two persons to read the same book, they would have different interpretations. Much is the same if you picked out three, four, ten, a thousand, or more. No story is the same for any person. A movie and a book tell similar stories, but not exactly the same. They share similar settings, but not exactly the same. They share similar characters, again, but not exactly the same. Almost nothing between them is exactly the same. Now looking back to Pro's argument, I can say that a book tells a story very well, but they don"t share the same story as the movie.Therefor, we can"t say that one told it better than the other.
The book is generally better than the movie

The main point behind my opponent's argument is that you can't really compare the two. They both have their own restrictions. However, and I can only keep my argument brief, both do have one thing in common, especially when the movie is based off the book: they both have a responsibility to tell the story, and a book tells the stories better than a film can because more can be covered in a book, and besides that, books can convey the thoughts of the characters better without any dialogue where a movie has only facial expressions and narrations at best. All of these arguments are coming from someone who has a tough time reading, too. Reading is something I enjoy but have a difficulty doing. I'm not retarded, in fact, most of my family and many of my friends come to me for historical and scientific answers including physics, chemistry, and biology. Overall, reading has a better way of conveying a story from teller to audience versus a movie. Movies are enjoyable, but are certainly not as effective at conveying a story compared to the story telling abilities of a book. Of course, I will admit, how a book is written and how a movie is made can affect which is better at conveying a story.
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

I do think it is appropriate to have an organized and armed militia to defend those who feel they cannot defend themselves, or just wish for a little extra help. This militia already exists. They are called the police. The police are required to complete background checks, pass all types of training, and defend and protect the people's respectable values and morals. Now, there have been many situations where the police's morals and values have been in question; however, you must ask yourselves this: If we cannot trust those who have earned the badge, then how can we trust random strangers with the same power? A militia that is organized and armed with military grade weapons that come to the aid of the people in extreme conditions is called the military. They are so organized, in fact, that they have 5 different branches that specialize in their own ways of defense. "U.S. Armed Forces are made up of the five armed service branches: Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy." (1) You can read more about them on their website that is provided below. The U.S. Armed Forces undergo more thorough checks. They do not allow any members to have any current or treated mental illnesses which reduces the chance of power getting into the wrong hands. The U.S. Armed Forces are trained in more difficult circumstances. They require their members to pass even the most difficult of tests, be extremely fit, and learn to and will fight anywhere in the world to protect our freedom. They also meet the other criteria that you wish a militia had-- military grade weapons. Now, we cannot only rely on those with the power to save us. What if we have no one else to defend us but ourselves? I do think that guns should be available to the public. With the proper training, guns can be life-saving tools. Without the proper training, they can kill the innocent. So, how would we go about regulating proper gun control laws? The people should be allowed their right to bear arms, but I believe this power should not be unlimited. I will end this round with a famous quote. "With great power comes great responsibility." - Spiderman (1) http://www.military.com...
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

Indeed the world has changed, my friend brings up a great point, not only have the designs of firearms changed since the old days but so have the ways that firearms are portrayed in society due to liberal media and television. Whereas in those days firearms were indeed a weapon to defend oneself with, we must not forget that in those days those weapons were exclusively meant to be used for hunting in such environments like the frontier that stopped at the Appalachians mountains at the time. What I meant to say is that, where firearms were once used for honest means in rural societies, we see that the media and television both have shaped our interpretation of weapons to only be used in means of self defense or be used by such individuals as murderers and fools. While I do indeed argue at the means to defend ourselves, we must also not forget that how firearms are seen may be taken from a biased or inaccurate source, though often than not the media is fair enough to give us most of the facts. While firearms should be taken seriously, we should take care to understand that you should not always bend to the level that society has asked of you but to create your own level. Whether it may fall short or far surpass that of modern, politically fashioned beliefs. And indeed, there seems to be the need for further reform of firearm distribution to people who have neither the training or morals necessary for someone to handle a gun. Such as we see in her example of toilet seat manslaughter at the hands of one inexperienced teacher ( I applaud her for that example :). As of now, I have no disagreement that people are indeed in need of proper training, lest they do something far more regrettable than discharge a firearm on a toilet. But, as for my belief in arming organized militia with military grade weapons, it still stands. I can concur, that if such are eager to obtain the equipment, that they best purchase them with their own money such as even a government must to equip its own troops. It would make it far more difficult for the wrong men to get their hands on such the equipment, seeing as most that are mentally unstable and the like are less active in society and therefor less likely to amass the funds to purchase military equipment themselves, while allowing the common man in an organized militia to be able to protect themselves under the duress of any emergency. Until next time, I give you Voiceless.
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

It's not just a peaceful solution I am fighting for, it's a safe solution. "Its evident in the news, and evident in our lives, that it is human nature to want to take things that do not belong to them or whom try to take things that cannot be taken willingly." I completely agree. The founding fathers made this clear by allowing the people to have rights that protect their life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness. One of these rights is the right to bear arms; however, one must recognize that the arms that were available to them at that time were only able to fire about 7 rounds a minute. These days a semi-automatic rifle can fire over 180 rounds per minute. I believe that a homeowner should be allowed to securely conceal a weapon in the house, but an unprofessional should not wander the streets with a gun. Take it from an incident in a Utah elementary school where a teacher accidentally shot the toilet (1). Breaking down those 10 examples: 3 of the 10 examples were about off-duty officers and armed guards saving the day. 5 of the 10 examples were about homeowners defending themselves. 1 of the 10 examples was about a situation in a public places where the person didn't even use the fire arm in defense. The last 1 of the 10 examples is about a neighbor helping a young girl in danger (I really applaud that by the way). These cases explain how useful fire arms can be in self defense. I will explain more in the next round. (1) http://www.sltrib.com...
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

While a peaceful solution does seem well enough to everyone, and that it is a righteous idea for someone to think, my opponent must remember that we do not live in a righteous nor fair world. Its evident in the news, and evident in our lives, that it is human nature to want to take things that do not belong to them or whom try to take things that cannot be taken willingly. While I would be happy to come to a peaceful conclusion, what will you do ( men ) when someone invades your home and threatens your life, what will you do ( women ) when you are cornered and are confronted by the makings of sick thoughts. We cannot deny, that while weapons may seem frightening or dangerous to some, that weapons have been known to have the lives of honest Americans in the process. Just read the first of these ten examples if you don't believe me. http://townhall.com... I can agree that people should be trained in the use of firearms and/or taught in the right sense of morals, after all, a weapon in the hands of someone untrained is in as much danger to themselves as they are to others. I can say that before you even think of giving military grade arms to a militia, or more relevantly the police force, that they best be taught the proper use so that you don't end up doing something stupid to ruin your life or others. My opponent makes good, simple points; but I believe that she is still missing some valuable ideas in her arguments that could be of closer relevance. Therefor I shall leave my argument here, so that this conversation of ours can develop further before I press on into how this peoples militia should be run. I now turn it over to Voiceless.
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

Thank you for the challenge. I accept this debate. (: I believe that the right to own any gun on the market is a dangerous right given to the people and a more peaceful solution can be created without the need for excessive firearm use. I believe that certain powers are given to certain people who have worked for them and who have practice the protection of proper ethics and highly appreciated values. I believe that giving gasoline (military grade firearms) to the public will result in an extreme inferno (the consequence of giving civilians military grade firearms) that could take America down one bullet at a time.
Gun Right, Again I Know, Extreme vs Withdrawn

Hey ladies and gents :). Now I know what you're thinking," Man, not another gun debate," but today myself and my friend Voiceless will be arguing from an Extreme ( argued on behalf of myself) and an Anti ( argued on behalf of Voiceless ) firearm point of view. We hope not only to argue on the behalf of our fellow debaters, but also to come to a fair and equally recognizable compromise between the two parties. Comments are greatly encouraged along with circumstantial evidence for both sides to use to the full extent of our debate. First round is simple, acceptance, and a quick summary of the points that we will hope to represent. I'll go first. And by the way, I accept ;) I believe, that while only a minority may share my point of view, that not only should weapons be easily accessible and that they should be regulated rarely. But I also believe that military grade firearms and vehicles should be accessible to the militias for the eternal preservation of these great states and the liberty of its people from complete federal control. I believe that its only fair that if the government can give this equipment to our law enforcement, that it is only fair that we too should be able to defend ourselves against corruption should it get out of control in the future. Now, I leave it to Voiceless to present her point to you all.
Online Schooling VS. public schools

Extend my C1: learning self-motivation My opponent says that some students don't "cram. " But some do. School is supposed to teach students how to do work responsibly. Some students fail out of college because they never learned this lesson and cannot adjust to a lecture style course. Online K-12 classes are all lecture style - watch a lecture, no hand holding. Students who struggle to do their work on their own will simply fail out sooner and will not have a chance to improve their work ethic. Extend my C2: inverted-U Remember Gladwell's inverted-U. When class size gets too small, students lose out on group work and on having other students ask questions that they didn't think to ask (but need the answer to). My opponent says that some students don't work in groups now. But many teachers see group work as a very important tool, as Gladwell documents. It's important to teach students to work together with others and it helps students to learn critical thinking skills because they learn why their classmates arguments are better or worse than theirs, and they have to argue why their solution is the best. According to Gladwell, studies have documented that making class sizes *too small* actually hurts learning, at least in K-12. Extend C3: scam artistsMy opponent says, "parents will research. " However, there are many adults know who get scammed by sketchy for-profit colleges. There's no reason that the same adults wouldn't get scammed when picking schools for their children. A school's website can *seem* legit, but the website might completely disappear in a month. There is no official government accreditation. Schools can claim that some fake organization accredited them. There is too much potential for abuse. Extend C4: degree not taken seriouslyMy opponent doesn't really answer this, except to say that some students don't need history or science. However, these are basic educational requirement. You can't really be a responsible citizen without a basic understanding of history. And you can't really go into most fields without a basic understanding of the scientific method. In addition, colleges like the University of California will not even consider you as a candidate unless you meet your UC eligibility requirements, which includes taking basic science and history. Thus, my opponent proves my point: online schools do not necessarily require you to take the courses that colleges require you to take. You might take a bunch of artsy classes and then realize that you messed up and can't get into any colleges. It's better to have a normal public high school where the classes they require are the same ones that colleges require. In addition, even if you take all the necessary courses, colleges will not take your grades seriously if you went to some random online school. These schools do not have the same credibility as normal public schools, from which colleges can compare you to your peers and to last year's class. Thus, if you go to school online, you might be jeopardizing your future because no college will take you.
Online Schooling VS. public schools

You don't have less work with cramming a week's worth in a day. By that, I mean, people who are advanced will have the chance to speed up, and if you take a little more time, or need more focus, you can spread it out over a week. The "cramming" would be used for vacations, or family issues. Not all, but some students, don't work in groups, for the satisfaction of understanding the material, instead of hearing what others say about the topic. If parents take this matter of online schooling seriously, they will make sure to find an online school that is completely credible. If the student does as well, it won't even matter if they take online classes or public schooling. Some jobs, don't require a science or history class to complete them. With individual attention, the student will better understand the material, and get one on one instruction.