BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Oscars awards ceremonies should change their system of awarding films

I'll try and explain more in depth what the debate topic is over first. In my opinion the Oscars should create new categories for awarding films and retire the traditional way of the ceremony. Instead of a group of critics who are the majority biased towards different religious backgrounds or political parties, the viewers of the show and audiences who saw the movies should be responsible for who the nominees and winners are. One of my primary concerns of the recent 86th Oscars was how, once again, the vast majority of awards went primarily towards 2 films. Gravity and 12 Years a Slave essentially swept the ceremony. It was obviously clear from the start that 12 Years a Slave (a lackluster film at best) would win Best Picture, simply because the term 'racist' would be thrown around if it wasn't and because the critics who decided the winners are politically biased towards being 'racially sensitive.' It seems as if this ceremony's only worthy awards handed out have been the technical awards. For example,the winner of the awards in sound and visual effects went to Gravity, which while I felt it was only a decent film, I agreed it should have won the technical awards it achieved. The problem lies in the critics wanting to award for both diversity and commonplace, two ideas that can't work together. This can best be shown by this year's Oscars awarding the acrid and completely obnoxious song 'Let It Go' from the soundtrack of Frozen (a song with little meaning or point) over U2's beautiful 'Ordinary Love' from Mandela. The same could be said for 'Let It Go' winning over 'The Moon Song' from Her. And yet, as soon as they try to diversify, they award Cate Blanchett Best Female in a Leading Role. Simply put, there are no more surprises when it comes to the ceremony and the winners of the awards themselves are often times dull and bland films to watch. I feel as if the biggest crime at the Oscars this year was both Nebraska and Captain Phillips neither won any award, but a movie about slavery (been there, done that) and a film about an astronaut evading debris can take home the majority of awards. Categories such as 'Best Performance by a Star in an Action Role' or things like 'Greatest Portrayal of Suspense' would change things up for the Oscars and make it so that more films can be recognized and awarded for the things THEY were trying to portray. There are too many good films out there to deny recognizing simply because the awards don't allow for a diverse experience. On a side note... When The Lone Ranger and Iron Man 3 are nominated for Oscars and Shakespeare in Love triumphs over Saving Private Ryan, you know there's a problem.
Womans Right

Human right's apply to all people, that's why they are called 'human' rights. Subjecting half the human race to manual labour and rape is unjust, shameful and cowardice. Not to mention it would cripple the current economy if all the women were forced to stay at home as they would be out of their current jobs and following intercource the population would skyocket leading to overpoulation in an already declining economy. So my opponents idea were to take of it would only create a rod for one's own back, as I have just demonstrated.
It is possible to believe in evolution and be Christian

This debate will be limited to evolution as an explanation of the diversity of animals. Evolution as an explanation for the beginning of life on Earth is a different debate that being honest, I have very little knowledge on. This debate was spurred after I saw someone say that that humans evolved from monkeys. Uh...no they didn't... I feel such misconceptions are what lead Christians to denounce evolution entirely without truly understand what it is about. Some time ago, a teacher of mine (religious teacher) said that Charles Darwin's theory included the theory about the creation of life on Earth which is actually a more recent theory. We tried to explain this wasn't true but he wouldn't listen to us. Oh well.. As a Christian, it has been difficult for me to reconcile my religion and science. However, I have realized that after the creation of the original living things on Earth, God used evolution as a way to diversify our plants and animals and allow all living things adapt to their changing environments. I mean, there is so much evidence. For one, ring species being a highly credible example. This is meant to be a respectful debate. Let's not argue about whether God exists or not. Let's debate about whether you can be a Christian and believe evolution happened.
I won't conradict myself

1. No, I use to support and still somewhat socialism 2. No, he put people in labor camps 3. I never tried it but probably yes 4. yes, it made Katrina more powerful 5. No, if I'm a veg. I wouldn't want to killed. 6. Yes, 7. Yes 8. That's not for me to descide 9. you mean you as a person, ehh your okay 10. somewhat, I just coppied and paced from someone else's match and it looked interesting 11. Do you want to debate something after this.
I won't conradict myself

The first contradiction is the one that I pointed out in round 2 about the contradiction in his rules. He never responded to this contradiction therefore it stands. The second contradiction is that he said that I didn't break any rules of the debate and then he said that I broke the rules by not asking enough questions in rounds 2 and 3. However, I did in fact ask ten questions in each round. In round 2 I asked the question "Aren't new contradictions apart of ANY contradiction?" this is in fact a question that follows the rules and in round 3 I asked ten yes/no questions (there was no trickery in this one), therefore, I did not break the rules and my opponent DID contradict himself. Do you like communism? Was Stalin a good person? Do you like chocolate cheesecake? Does global warming cause hurricanes? Do you support Euthenasia? Do you like puppies? Do you like dogs? Did you win the debate? Do you like happy bread? Are these questions pointless since I am not allowed to point out new contradictions in round 5?
I won't conradict myself

1st of all I missed the GW question, but answered it in the Comments sections if you didn't see it before this round began, 2nd Any contradictions I make and you drop are considered a dropped contradiction. Violations: You violated the rules by not asking enough questions in the last round and this round 1. yes 2. A humane way yes 3. yes 4. maybe 5. yes, THanks to the NFL I have no fear of it any more 6. Yes, I made state in debate my novice year. 7. yes 8. yes, pizza is good
I won't conradict myself

The first contradiction of this debate is in the rules that my opponent proposed. In the third rule he says that I can point out ANY contradiction in round 2-5 but then he says I can't point out a new contradiction in round 5. Aren't new contradictions apart of ANY contradiction? Therefore, he contradicted himself by saying that I can point out any contradiction and then he says I can't point out any contradiction. Do you believe in a literal six day creation period? Does global warming exist? Do you like cake? Do you support the views of the Republican party? Do men have the right to die? Do you support PETA? Is carbon dating accurate? Do you support the war in Afghanistan? Have I broken any rules of this debate?
I won't conradict myself

I mostly accepted this debate because I see a contradiction in my opponent's rules, but if my opponent responds to the contradiction properly next round (as I am not allowed to point out contradictions in this round) then I will carry on with the debate and point out contradictions that my opponent has made. Are you a christian? Do you believe in evolution? Are you an atheist? Are you a republican? Do you have trust in our government? Do all men have rights? Have I broken any rules of this debate? Have you broken any rules of this debate? Do like cheese? Do you like cheesecake?
I won't conradict myself

I've recently seen a couple of these debates, and quite frankly, I'm interested. ==Rules==1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers.2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No.3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-5, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5.4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken.5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins.6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person.
Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

Members of the voting jury, my opponent has established the following case. 1)Has agree with all three of points that I have presented 2)Has not shown how Atheism and Theism are illogical just stated they are equally illogical to each other (twice) Atheism and theism have not been proven to be illogical. I leave you with the definition of illogical. Illogical is (adjective) not logical; contrary to or disregardful of rules of logic; unreasoning.
Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

Up until this round all my opponent has done is to outline the following:1) Nothing is god, god is nothing2) X goes to Y and Y goes X.3) Side A: The other side of the paper is correct. Side B: The other side of paper is incorrectAll three are in favour of my resolution.Atheism and theism have been successfully proven to be illogical to an equal extent and if my opponent chooses to meet his BOP in round 5, do nto consider it because it is unfair if I cannot rebuttal.
Air guitar is better than regular guitar.

First of all, it doesn't make it more fun. I'm sure somone that can play "Free Bird" on guitar would beg to differ with you. On the otherhand, myabe the reason you think air guitar is more fun is becuase you can't play guitar? When playing real guitar, missing a note gives you a chance to get better. Which means you get to play more and more. Air guitar you'll never miss a note, therefore it gets boring. Also, who would want to listen to guitar noises of the mouth?
Air guitar is better than regular guitar.

Any one can play air guitar. You don't have to spend a bunch of money on guitar lessons and a guitar. If a girl wants you to seranade her with a song you can just pull out your air guitar. Air guitars are amazingly cool and it doesn't matter which notes you play because you make the sounds yourself. Also air guitar is freakin amazing because it was used in the 1989 movie Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, which is probaly the coolest movie ever. IN this movie the air gutiars make real sounds. so Obiously air guitars are better.
Cyber Secuity

What? A forfeit? Unexpected. Oh well, vote for me. I would like to take the time to say the following: MIRZA HAS NEVER SEEN THE WIZARD OF OZ! PANDA HAS NEVER SEEN THE LABYRINTH! M93SAMMA HAS NEVER SEEN MR. ED! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
should abortion be legalized

The rights of a fetus do not trump the rights of a woman's sovereignty over her body. A person that is murdered in cold blood doesn't suck nutrients from a host nor does could he cause internal bleeding, cause severe damage to her vagina, and potentially death. A woman that is raped suffers severe psychological damage that potentially never goes away. The suggestion that a woman that is raped should carry his fetus for 9 months, causing devastating effects on her body and then go through the incredibly painful process of childbirth which can possibly lead to death is heinous. "Yet occasional infants do specifically stimulate themselves sexually. Kinsey (1953, p. 142) reports one record of a seven-month-old infant and records of five infants under one year who were observed to masturbate. Twenty-three girls, three years or younger, appeared to reach orgasm in self stimulation. http://www.ipce.info...
should abortion be legalized

I do not think abortion should be legalized. My first reason is it is worse than murder. something that hasn't even seen the light of day you are killing because you don't want to have that responcibility. I understand there are some circumstances like rape but atleast give it up for adoption don't take it's life away before it can even say something. I also here stories of people who are still in there youth getting pregnant. But if you are old enough to have the pleasure of sex. You are old enough to hav the responcibility of a kid. Also many people use this as a birth control people use abortion instead just so they dont have to take the pill which is the worst case to me. that's why ithink abortion should not be legal.
should abortion be legalized

Yes, you can't stop rape from happening but you can stay away from forcing a woman to carry her rapist's baby. The fact rape will always happen strengthens the point. Give a source for those obviously ridiculous numbers, in that study i linked 5 infants reached orgasm, this doesn't mesh with "23 that could reach a orgasmic point before puberty" in the entirety of the world. A 5 year old child is not capable of raising a baby, her parents raised the baby. The sad part is that this poor 5 year girl that was raped will never have a childhood because her parents were irresponsible enough to allow her to have the child. It's not an unanswerable question, the mother has personhood, citizenship, a name, relationships, and is not leaching from an umbilical chord. The sovereignty a woman has over her body overrides that of a fetus...which has 0 sovereignty.
should abortion be legalized

Now as I said in the last round rape is a special circumstance. You can't stop rape from happening and it's unintentional sex. But for your other point there are a estimated 3,385,657,600 females on earth 23 that could reach a orgasmic point before puberty and 1 case of someone under puberty having a kid and she gave birth to the kid at the age of of five and raised it. So yes if you're old enough to have the pleasure of sex your old enough to have the responsibility of a child. But I want to address your other point. It could cause harm to the female body. But that's the unanswerable question which is more important the baby or the fetus.
scientifically inexplicable happenings occur that appear supernatural but almost never to atheists

My opponent has conceded the debate by admitting that I have "technically fulfilled the debate requirement. " The modifier, "technically", is irrelevant, since I clearly spelled out my understanding of the requirements in Round 1, and my opponent verified in Round 2 that my understanding was correct. As Pro admits, any extra requirements for acceptable evidence should have been listed in Round 1, so that I could conduct appropriate research. As for Pro's rebuttal of the Brad Pitt case: The events being researched and presented in this debate must meet the requirements of being "scientifically inexplicable", "appearing supernatural", and having happened to atheists. As I have already stated, the Brad Pitt Achilles incident potentially fulfills the requirements. Brad Pitt is an atheist, a scientific explanation is not readily available, and the incident may indeed appear supernatural to a superstitious or religious person. "Religious" and "superstitious" are often interchangeable adjectives. Obviously, whether or not something "appears" supernatural is subjective, as is my opponent's denial that the event can be described as a "miracle". There is science that explains the development and birth of a child, but there is no currently known science that explains why an actor playing Achilles injured his Achilles tendon. I thank Pro for complimenting my points "a" and "b", but she is mistaken in believing that they prove her point. They only show the difficulty of located recorded events. They do not rule out the existence of such events.
scientifically inexplicable happenings occur that appear supernatural but almost never to atheists

con gives two examples of miracles happening to atheists and then they converted. i have acknowledged that this happens in other debates, maybe i should have excluded it here. as i said there, sure i guess you technically fulfilled the debate requirement. it doesn't do much per the main gist of what's being debated, whether atheists have a similar basis to say they too have 'apparently supernatural' things happen to them. if it's just here and there as a springboard to christianity, i wouldn't say their basis is at all similar. con also gives the example of brad pitt. that is merely an ironic happening. maybe even unlikely. it's in no way shape or form a miracle and it's pretty much ridiculous to include it. it's just as bad as when theists say their child being born is a miracle etc, and insisting it's true. fluff and stuff. i do give pro credit for a well written 'this is why i actually CANT negate the proposition...". well written, but it still pretty much proves the point of my debate.
scientifically inexplicable happenings occur that appear supernatural but almost never to atheists

I will use this round to determine that I fully understand my responsibility in this debate.Although my opponent's resolution would place the burden of proof on Pro to prove that "inexplicable happenings" that "appear supernatural" almost never happen to atheists (a resolution that is impossible to prove), my opponent is asking that I, Con, do the proving. I am willing to accept the burden and do as my opponent requests, but only if I am correct in my understanding of the request.If I am not mistaken, my opponent's request is as follows: I should supply at least two, or, as my opponent put it, "just couple", examples of scientifically inexplicable happenings that appear supernatural happening to an atheist. Although whether or not something appears supernatural is subjective, for the purpose of this debate I take it to mean an occurrence that is not easily or readily explained scientifically. Some might call it a "freak coincidence", or "luck". If I succeed in supplying two examples, I win the debate.Pro, if I am correct, please acknowledge so in the next round. If not, please clarify what it is you are asking. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

first off should gays be allowed to get married. my thought is no. Ok. .. .they have no way to have kids of there own. So? Should having kids be needed to be married? so if something where to happen like every one was gay. as people start to die off we would not have any way to get the planet filled with people. No. now am I saying gays r wrong no. what I am saying is that they can date all they want I don't care as long as none come after me. but they should not be allowed to get married at all. I really dont understand what you just said, but you have a warped view on homosexuals.
Gay Marriage

first off should gays be allowed to get married. my thought is no. they have no way to have kids of there own. so if something where to happen like every one was gay. as people start to die off we would not have any way to get the planet filled with people. now am I saying gays r wrong no. what I am saying is that they can date all they want I don't care as long as none come after me. but they should not be allowed to get married at all.
Rap battle! Minddagger VS FlatStanley

oh you think his spelling is bad? Using his insults to make a comeback You must be getting kinda mad So starting now I"ll be picking up my older brothers slack A name like that"s so edgy I cloud cut myself I know my brother is stupid He thinks the earth is like a shelf He is mentally retarded But still don"t appreciate you picking on him He gets enough at school And your parents keep trying to beat our heads in So sorry you aren"t cool Your just looking like a fool
Rap battle! Minddagger VS FlatStanley

I don't care I look like bread heals I'm mistaken? boy, you think santa isn't real! I'm going to make you rage more than when I play cuphead So you might need to relax buddy, here have a mead. Because I'm called dagger, cause I spit sharp bars into your brain causing emotional scars This flat dude, is just going to cause more misspellings cause when I unleash my dragons, you'll be repelling
Rap battle! Minddagger VS FlatStanley

you play roblox? see, that's just sad Minecraft is better, though I'm really bad I may be though, but I'm still winning, cant you see? Ill one shot ya, sonic OC's have nothing on me Ill end this rap by telling you something very suit-y Come at me and ill 1v1 you at call of duty! I'm a master! I detect rudeness and mad vibes. While you are the ultimate master of generating bad rhymes My mom disappointed, ok, I have something else instead Because unlike me in an obby, you'll be dead.
Rap battle! Minddagger VS FlatStanley

RAP BATTLE Instrumental: Minddagger VS Flatstanley! BEGIN you sure that you really want to try and rap me? I mean after all, you have basically no victories. go make another earth flat rap and get mangled because everyone knows that the earth is a triangle go ahead and rap to try and even the score. because you'll be more scorched than when you faced ice in an insult war.
Biblical descriptions of the nature of the Christian God and free will are contradictory.

I'm thinking of running this as a stock Parli case, so I thought I'd give it a test run. The proposition for offer is that the concepts of the nature of God and the mechanics of free will as described in the Bible are contradictory. The existence of God or free will are considered opposing premises and are not up for dispute themselves; rather, Con must prove that the two are logically compatible. God is classically described as an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving being that created everything and who reigns over all. Free will is the concept that the actions of members of humanity are expressions of personal choice as opposed to results of some form of predestination. My syllogism is as follows: Premise 1. The Christian God exists. Premise 2. Free will exists. 1. The Christian God created humans which are free-willing and capable of doing evil, and who have done and continue to do evil. (1) 2. The Christian God maintains a dominion wherein everything is made to be the absolute best it can ever possibly be. (Conclusion from the definition of God) 2a. Logical reasoning would lead us to believe that Premise 1 and Point 1 are at odds with Point 2. This contradiction is addressed, albeit poorly in relevance to the gravity of the issue, in the Book of Job. Job asks God why terrible things happen to him and to those around him, and God essentially says "I'd tell you, but you just wouldn't get it". (2) Since the omnipotence and benevolence of God are stressed alongside this statement within Scripture, assuming that these three points are valid leads us to the conclusion that what we observe as evil is actually a factor into the greatest goodness possible. 3. With the world being constantly maintained to provide the best results, even actions which we deem evil work to maintain the divinely guided path towards the ultimate good. 4. If our actions are guided by God to bring about perfection, then free will cannot exist. The conclusion reached is that either God or free will do not exist or are otherwise inadequately defined in Scripture. I await my opponent's response. (1) Gen 4:7, 6:5 (2) Actually, his words were related to the reader by Job: -"God's voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding." (Job 37:5) "Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know" (Job 42:3)