BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lowlands of Scotland should apologize for the Highland Clearances

I myself a highlander, unfortunately must defend the horrific acts done against us. Yet in a way they we necessary, these new breeds of sheep were making the highland lord (now land lords) very wealthy and these lord were evicting people for the sake of profit. Some of these lord did not want to evict the people, like Lord McDonald who could not afford to keep the people there was forced to do it. This was not just happening in the Scotland but all over Britain, this was a decrease in the cottage industry and people began to move to cities for employment. This was Britain workforce this is what pushed Britain's factories forward, which also pushed the country forward. This was a new age of modernity and profit and the Highland lords were not going to be left behind they were left behind then the country would crash and poverty would hit every one.You say this is worse then Hitler and Mussolini, well I disagree. Because they singled out a group of people and killed them, it was genocide. The Highland and lowland lords did not round these people up and kill them they just did what was necessary, for them to get profit. The potato famine killed thousands of Irish men women and children, but in Scotland the death toll was in the hundreds. this is because in Scotland the better off helped them in their time of need while in Ireland the better of could care less this is partly Sir Walter Scott's doing for in his novels he praised the Highlander, and now the praised Highlander was endangered so they wanted to help.Your argument is that the Lowlanders should apologise to the Highlanders, but why if the same thing was done to the lowlanders by the Highlanders. If anyone should apologise it should be the lords who did it. Unfortunately they are dead so it cannot be done.Also many Scots not only emigrated because of the clearances but because of the poor working conditions, pay, and living conditions.ttp://www.scotclans.com...http://www.cranntara.org.uk...
Lowlands of Scotland should apologize for the Highland Clearances

The Lowland Clearance were an extreme act of brutality and in some cases racism on the Lowland's part. One can even argue that the Scandinavian influence on Lowlanders might have even propelled that desire for world domination, which I'll explain to you later. It was a time when the Lowlander Anglo-Saxons did everything they could to be purge a Nordic, Protestant Scotland or Gaelic, Catholic (and in some cases Anglican, since Highlanders would must likely identify with southern England before the Lowlands of Scotland). I also add as a side note (which maybe my opponent will agree or disagree with) that the Lowlands of Scotland, and the north of England, are solely responsible for the British, alone. The king who did the colonizing was Scottish -- King James the First. There was nothing English or Anglican about him. He was the absolute monarch behind the conquest of Virginia. And the first colonial governor, though English, hailed from Yorkshire. That was John Smith.The Highland Clearances were basically pretty much like the trail of tears. It was conquest. It was basically an attempt to steal the Highlander's land, in which it forced many Highlanders to emigrate to Canada, where they remain for the most part today. Of course there was resistance to this, but it wasn't successful.http://en.wikipedia.org...;Personally if you ask me this is worse than anything Hitler or Mussolini did.
The Right To Life Begins At Conception (For All Practical Purposes)

If one decides to demolish a building, one must be certain that the building is abandoned by all human beings before proceeding.If one is not certain that the building to be demolished is abandoned, then for all practical purposes, the building is inhabited by a human being.Likewise:Whether or not a new human being comes into existance at conception is a topic of heated debate in the fields of philosophy, science, and politics. Since there is doubt, for all practical purposes, it must be assumed that conception marks the beginning of a new human being with the right to life.
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

Crimes against minority groups, or between different groups of people, are probably as old as humanity itself. Human history is filled with accounts of genocide, and human rights violations motivated by the race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation of the victim. However, efforts to enact legislation to impose heavier penalties for crimes motivated by hate are a relatively new phenomenon in a number of countries. One of the key conflicts in enacting such laws is whether or not it is appropriate to penalize someone because of their beliefs and motives. Critics of hate crimes legislation argue that it is perfectly appropriate to criminalize acts of violence, but not appropriate to add additional punishments for a person's thoughts or speech. Another problem associated with hate crime proposals is the difficulty of determining which groups are to be "protected." While some countries have laws adding penalties for crimes motivated by acts against ethnic or religious minorities, most countries do not have special penalties for crimes committed against people for their gender or a different sexual orientation. It is also possible to conceive of other identities based on group affiliation, such as political party, occupation, or social status. Acts of violence against the poor, for example, could also be considered a hate crime. As more groups are defined as "protected" the distinctiveness of the penalties becomes lessened. Proponents of hate crimes legislation are quick to point out, however, that the most egregious hate crimes against minority groups are often part of organized social movements or an extension of an ideology of hate that permeates entire segments of a society. Strong penalties are necessary to indicate the intensity of government or societal condemnation of such crimes.
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

"Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating forfeited this round. " This is not a response to my argument. In fact, this is a crowning reason to vote affirmative. 1. My opponent loses grammar, as (s)he has referred to him or herself in the third person, which is not ideal grammar. 2. My opponent never thanked me for my response. I know I neglected to thank him in Round 1, but I thanked him this time. He hasn't thanked me once. 3. Convincing Arguments goes to me, as my opponent only posted one sentence claiming that he forfeited. He has conceded the validity of his arguments. 4. Conduct goes to me, simply because I didn't give up. 5. Sources goes to me, as I provided the example of Wisconsin v. Mitchell.
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

Observation 1: The affirmative needs only to show that Hate Crime Enhancements (HCEs) are unjust. That is, I don't have to prove they don't work, et cetera, only that they are unjust. Value: Justice Justification: Justice is explicitly stated in the resolution. This makes the assumption that it has value. Cr:The Fourteenth Amendent Justification: In the United States, we recognize that all men are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law. The 14th amendment to the constitution creates a good standard. C1: Hate crimes are inadequately defined A. There is no consensus on what a hate crime is. Different states have different definitions. In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the Supreme Court found **that** definition to be consistent with the 14th amendment, however Indiana hate crime laws have been overturned because they were in violation. B. Any universal definition would be too broad or too vague. A universal definition would either a) include more or less every crime, as it would include any crime in which any discrimination whatsoever was shown; which is ridiculous, because everyone discriminates when choosing a victim, a mugger would not choose a body-builder to mug, but under this definition, he would get an HCE, or b) leave important minorities unprotected. Neither of these alternatives would be "just" and so you throw both out. C. Hate Crime Enhancement laws are vague. This is important, because it allows prosecutors to abuse these laws to give longer jail terms to men that don't deserve them. That, by any means is unjust. C2: Motive can't be proven sufficiently to support hate crime enhancements A. Even if the defendent showed prejudice in the past, it doesn't mean that he was prejudiced in commiting the crime. People change. A different motive is always possible, and with the burden of proof on the prosecutor, conviction is nigh impossible. B. Even if slurs were yelled during the crime, it doesn't indicate racism for sure, as they may have been just words of anger. C3: Hate crime enhancements are used unjustly A.Because of the high burden of proof, prosecutors don't always use HCEs, even when applicable, thereby violating my Cr. of the 14th Amendment, which requires "Equal Protection under the Law" That isn't equal, so you can't accept HCEs as just. B. HCEs are used disproportionately against minorities, indicated that they may have become a tool for prejudiced people, rather than a deterrent Again, this violates equal protection under the law. Anything that does this is not "just."
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the United States.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I personally believe that they aren't in some cases. Take the case of Matthew Shepard, intentionally targeted and beaten to death by 2 anti-gay assailants. They planned to kidnap the next "gay" they came across in a gay bar and then attack him. But there are others that aren't hate crimes. Like if a white gang member intentionally shoots a rival gang member, but doesn't know that he's black, or jewish, or what. I would greatly appreciate a debate here. I need to write a paper by Fri. And any help would be good. (It's a Lincoln-Douglass debate Case, for the NEG side, meaning that NO, hate crime enhancements are NOT unjust in the UNITED STATES).
Mustaches are a turn off

According to a zoosk study only 2% of females on the romantic social network preferred mustaches.A study done in 2001 by Nigel Barber showed that men who sport mustaches are considered more attractive and more successful in the marriage market. Combine this with the added symmetry of a mustache that I had previously brought up and there is indisputable evidence that mustaches are not a turn off.I do not find any of those traits related the mustache's social standing attractive.There are no sources here. We must look to the evidence I have provided, which has disproved the resolution.Sources: Barber, Nigel (2001). "Mustache Fashion Covaries with a Good Marriage Market for Women". Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour 25 (4): 261–272.
Mustaches are a turn off

According to a zoosk study only 2% of females on the romantic social network preferred mustaches. Reasons why the mustache is unattractive: The mustache has a bad social standing. Most men with mustaches these days look like 70's porn stars, pedos, or wana-be hipsters. George "pornstache" Mendez from Orange is the New Black deals drugs in trade for sexual acts. He is over all creepy. Hitler had a mustache. Mustaches come off sleazy and unprofessional. I do not find any of those traits related the mustache's social standing attractive.
Mustaches are a turn off

Mustaches were for 80's police officers. Mustaches have always existed, and somehow, possessors of mustaches time and time again were able to acquire mates and reproduce. In the past, mustachioed people have not been considered unattractive, and perhaps were considered more attractive. Mustaches are unattractive on men. Facial symmetry has always been considered attractive. Mustaches, being symmetric facial hair, add to the attractiveness of a person while also masking asymmetry on the face. As for the last half of this statement, apparently they do because society itself is evidence of the falseness of this statement.Sources http://www.theatlantic.com...
You must obey my commands

I command you to obey me. Why would you listen you may ask? Well, because I have the orb of power and can obliterate the whole world if you don't, before you can stop me, or I can do whatever pleases me to torture you. That may sound absurd to you, but what if it weren't true? What if I caused untold human suffering to the whole world, and it was all in your hands to stop it? Would it really be worth the risk, especially if what I ask isn't all that bad? Did you consider that you are not willing to submit because of biological instinct from a time where everything was much simpler, and these kinds of threats were untold, thus making it difficult to have an instinctual motivation to submit? Furthermore, if one can argue that a being is omnipotent and can destroy the whole universe simply by saying "Be!" or creating it in the same process and from nothing, whose to say that being isn't me? Have you seen God? Have you seen me? I'd like to start by commanding you to arrange for me to marry your attractive cousin/relative who is of a suitable age for a 14-year old such as me. But this is actually not such a bad idea, because my intentions are actually to never mistreat her and be very kind to her and treat her like a princess, and you can meet me to see if that's true.
A Person's Musical Taste Is Only As Valid As His Knowledge

My belief stems directly from the fact that music is indeed a prominent study just as much as any other respected subject is, ie: Math, Science, Literature, etc... In those fields, the people with more experience and understanding are higher up in the chain of respect (and even command most of the time) than those who have less experience or knowledge. An example of this is I (college student) will undoubtedly be agreed upon as more knowledgable in calculus than a 4th grader, and again I will be agreed upon less knowledgeable in calculus than a rocket science/math professor/etc... In the same manner somebody such as I (not doing an ego boost but just using myself as an example I know well) have played piano since I was seven years old, studied music theory, the psychology behind music, taken many college level theory classes in high school, and now I produce music. Do I not have more say about what is "correct" or at least what is in good taste, despite how finite that might be, in music than somebody who has never done any of these things? Also another point I would like to make is that yes people have opinions and yes taste is composed partly of personal opinion but as psychology has proven certain genres (such as let's say classical) are more productive for our mental health and state of mind as others (let's say rap which is far more promoting towards aggression, not necessarily making it bad, just an example of differences). As well as the fact that what we as humans consider "music" is all just organized noise that we have defined certain rules for, ie: harmony, rhythm, melody, counterpoint, dynamic range, timbre, etc... "Songs" that do not have some of these traits, or at least simplified versions of these traits, are without a doubt less "human" and less "music" than ones that do all of this in proficiency. An example of what I am trying to say is, a human fart is not music by most accounts yes? Well then wouldn't it be safe to say that a song by Beethoven is considered by most/all people to be more "music" and "better" than said human fart? In the same sense, there is always going to be a song closer to the fart (as a negative ideal) and the piece by Beethoven (as a positive ideal), so even in opinion, there is always a "better" track in the comparison of two tracks just by the definitions that we as humans have created.
A Person's Musical Taste Is Only As Valid As His Knowledge

My opponenet my justify here remark: 'a person who has studied music theory and understands these concepts has more weight on his/her opinion than the former. ' Since my opponent gave no resolution here goes: A unknowing music lover can have as much musical taste than a studied theorist. We negate my statement. Rules: 1. Proper manners 2. stay on topic Rounds: 1. agreement 2. arguement 3. conclusion Thanks to my opponent for this debate.
There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days

You're right, not everyone is a dramatic art major. It's a shame. Anyway, I propose that this be over, because the title of your debate should have been "Hollywood movies are clichï¿½." not "There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days." I say this for two reasons: Scary is too subjective, and it depends on the willingness of the person to enter into a cathartic experience. Secondly, every issue I bring up, you do not seem to address, and persist on referring back to the "clichï¿½s" of hollywood and it's special effects. You are correct, the same story line does appear to be recycled over and over, but there are some few gems out there, the ones that make you think, and those are the ones I personally allow myself to be immersed in. Thank you for the debate, Person_16.
There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days

Well, buletman, not everyone is a theater major or whatever it was you said. Some of, if not most of us, expect a movie calling itself scary to scare us without us having to "immerse ourselves" in the movie. Scary movies, and I don't mean the parody, are all becoming tragically clichï¿½d. For example, there's a dude running around killing terrified teens for no apparent reason. No matter what these hapless youths do-stab him, impale him, drown him, set him on fire, run him over, or collapse a building on his head-he won't die. Instead, this seemingly immortal monster lives to kill off the last of the protagonists in a CLIFF HANGER ending. That never-ending circle of a plot line is seen far too many times for it not to be called irratating. The point of my argument is this; whatever scary movies Hollywood will dish out and waste our time with are becoming more and more unoriginal and more and more dissapointing.
There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days

I am a dramatic art major, so you're going to have to excuse me that I keep making theatre references, but part of theatre is that if you want the immersion, you must find some sort of verisimilitude, or truth-seeming qualities, in that, you must be able to identify with the reality in some way for it to seem truly scary. That is, you must imagine you are the woman running around the woods with that camcorder, not knowing what is going on. Or that you are the man brought to the island to help a woman find her daughter, only to realize you are going to be burnt alive. This emotion felt when you allow yourself to identify, as Aristotle stated in his poetics, is both pity and fear, and this is Catharsis, the purgation of emotion when you can have pity and fear. Of course, the term Catharsis now is much broader, and it is being debated if one can have a cathartic experience anymore, or if it can be applied to comedies, and not just tragedies. As for this debate, I do not know if it is as much a debate, since as you said, you agreed with me, and "scary" is completely subjective anyway. Subjective, because it requires the person to completely immerse themselves in the movie - so if you're unwilling, then yes, there are no more scary movies. But if you partake in a theatre-going contract, and forget that you are watching a production, and imagine you are the "victim," I assure you, it is scary.
There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days

Yes, while this is a debate, I'll agree that you would have to truly let go of any skepticism in order to watch a scary movie these days if you really want the scary expirience. That is also why "The Excorsim of Emily Rose," while a few find it stupid, did frighten many of its viewers with the possibilty of demons or devils possessing a human and its effects on them. However, while those movies based on true stories or storylines along those lines, many other movies of our day give you fals hopes. I'll bring forth as an example one of the worst films I've ever seen; "The Village." The previews for said film were about the only thrilling aspect of the movie. Besides, we all love a good monster movie, if such a thing could exist one day. (Actually a bunch of the old farts in the village running around in costumes). The rest showed an obvious discontinuation in the director's thought process involving the ending. Cliff hangers can be frightening, when used properly. Overall, "The Village" was a total let-down. Then there's "The Wickerman" starring Nicolaus Cage and "The Blair Witch Project." One is very similar to "The Village" and the other was a lie. (That infuriated me when I found out-I was convinced that the woods were haunted, no matter how obvious a fake the "documentary" was). About the only prospect worth considering a scary movie to be scary in their history is that such things could be, as you said, plausible. But a majority of the time it's crappy storylines, bad special effects, overkill, too much gore, cliff hangers, occasional suspense, and just plain stupidity.
There is no such thing as a decent scary movie these days

Antonin Artaud talked about theatre as a means to move a person, to jar them. He called this the Theatre of Cruelty. That is, as stated in his essay An End to Masterpieces, theatre's creation was a result of a realization that "we are not free…the sky can still fall on our heads." What he means is that we are not omniscient, and there are things that we do not know that are still out there, and theatre is the place in which humans are capable of discovering, as well as making aware, of such new things. This jarring of people, this shock that comes with the new idea, is why Artaud called it cruel, because it moves us, whether or not we wanted to be moved. He goes further in this argument, stating: "I propose that we treat the spectators like snakes that are being charmed and that we lead them by way of the organism to the subtlest notions." Because "The theatre is the only place in the world and the last collective means we still have of reaching the organism directly and, in periods of neurosis and base sensuality like the one in which we are immersed, of attacking this base sensuality by physical means which it cannot resist" Since we are talking about film, which on many levels is very different from theatre, at least is somewhat comparable in many other senses. I therefore use the movie "The Descent" to make my point. **SPOILERS BELOW IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DO NOT CONTINUE TO READ** "The Descent" is a scary movie that scared me not because of the gore effect, but the idea that it just may be plausible for these monsters could potentially have evolved and existed in this environment. The movie was well filmed, well acted, and even more so, didn't rely on many of the techniques presented in the past. This would have pleased Artaud, because it would have shown a great understanding of using this idea of a completely plausible monster to scare the audience. Of course, there is also the fact that when one enters a scary movie, they are entering into an agreement between themselves and the film maker: you must suspend disbelief. This is the essence of Theatre, and in some ways, the essence of film. If you think a concept stupid, or unreal, then yes, you will probably scoff at it than allow yourself to be immersed in the experience and allow yourself to be truly scared.