BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Films are better than serials(stories/plays which is shown in regular installments).

I am sorry if you misunderstood the topic.The topic is that films are better than serials.I have not mentioned about series. The following would be my argument.If your argument is about getting bored watching films,I must say that I am against it.On my view,you can only watch serials for about half an hour.In the case of a film you can watch it for longer periods.I am telling about your case.
Films are better than serials(stories/plays which is shown in regular installments).

Again it's not serial its series and what if I like watching TV every day which I don't I usually only watch TV on Saturdays at 10:00 PM but not my point I like my anime and I don't just want to watch the movies because then I'd have noting to do when I'm board or when I'm on the internet and motives are getting worse and worse the last good movie I saw was DBZ Battle of Gods I haven't seen a good one since all they make any more is about some book or speech based movie or terrible Cartoon movies I'd even take the crime shows over most movie any more they are crap any more so there no fun anymore.
Films are better than serials(stories/plays which is shown in regular installments).

The following would be my instigation.In case of a film,it is more likely to have a finite end because the initiatives would fear that the rating would go down if it does not have a suitable ending ending.So you do not have to wait for another year.Anyway,the date of publishing the next film would not be announced the next movement.This reduces anxiety in the minds of people.My argument is that you have to sit in front of the television everyday for watching the same serial.Another point to be noted is that the story does not change very much in a short period of days.But,in the case of a film series,there is a totally different story in each film even though the characters remain same. I would like to add a suggestion.Your argument has some spelling and grammar errors.These are not recommended.Your argument will be based on spelling,grammar,cited sources and civility.
Films are better than serials(stories/plays which is shown in regular installments).

1. Series 2.why only wach someting for a few hours whn you can enjoy it for days also what happens when a movie doesn't have a defendant end then you have to wait for 3 to 4 years but with a series you can enjoy them week by week assuming that the show season hasn't ended at the time and that the line up doesn't screw up.
Films are better than serials(stories/plays which is shown in regular installments).

Hello,I am of the opinion that films are better. The following would be my instigation.Serials are very long.For watching a film,it takes less time than it takes for a serial.A serial lasts many months or even years.If a serial lasts for a year,a person watching it would be sitting in front of the television for about 100 hours.But,for watching a film it takes only about three hours. there are risks for a long program like the sudden death of a person involved in it.There is also another problem with these serials.Most of the actors are inexperienced and do not act very well.This is the reason why these people are not chosen to act in films.
Abiogenesis Is Impossible

Abiogenesis:"The supposed *spontaneous* development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation. "-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language(Emphasis on spontaneous added so as to avoid a debate on semantics. This keeps in line with the original definition since "abiogenesis" can also be called "spontaneous generation" as given by the dictionary)Rules: This debate will be about what science has already discovered. Neither side can appeal to a negative. For example:Pro can not use the argument "Science does not know how X could exist, therefore X did not exist"Likewise, Con can not use the argument "Science has discovered many things. Therefore, in the future scientists will discover how X could exist, therefore X existed"The resolution will be whether or not abiogenesis is possible based on current discoveries and scientific knowledge.
Mac is 2 simple

Why is being simple in itself a bad thing? I just got a Macbook for Christmas and I love it. I don't think it's simple so much as intuitive. You can do highly complex operations of work with an easy to use interface (especially with some of the new features in Leopard). It's not for dumb people at all. Actually a whole creative culture has developed around Macintosh including independent film (The movie Cold Mountain and the show Scrubs are both made on Macs), independent music production, and not to mention it's heavy education contributions. There are thousands of unique and complex functions that Macintosh are fulfilling take these German artists for example who are using their Mac to project artwork outside of a moving train! (http://www.engadget.com...). I can create a green screen behind me on my Mac that project movies in the background while I talk on my webcam. Can your computer do that? My main contention is that you claim it is "2" simple. 'Too' implies that it is excessively simple. It is perfectly intuitive and in no way simple too a degree that takes away from its appeal. I don't know what kind of evidence to offer because you didn't really offer any either. Please type out your words for the remainder of this debate. -connor PS I've always been a PC person but I love my new Mac. I'm here to defend its honor!
Sexual orientation

I am grateful that you respect my opinion as I do yours. Hopefully our differences won't affect that. My point is that homosexuality is not normal. My biggest problem is with the gay agenda. I don't believe it should be promoted as a normal life style. Because it clearly is not. Having said that does not mean anyone should be denied the right to love whom they want as long as it is "mutual". But there are consequences when we try to normalize something that is primarily based on an abnormal sexual preference. In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring. When it comes to marriage the argument is why can't I legally marry the one I love. I submit that the reason that the state got involved with marriage in the first place was because of offspring. It's a contract between a man and a woman that puts children first and their love secondary. And it is my opinion (but not just mine) children need a mother and a father. If you are gay maybe you cannot see that. Yes gay couples are capable of loving children too. But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument. Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary. It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are. To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal.
Sexual orientation

Ok maybe the word deformity was the wrong word. Abnormality would be a better term. As for the word illness I was only referring to those that choose it for their own sexual gratification and that is just my opinion. The word normal. If you were to ask how many arms do people have, you would undoubtedly say two. Why? Because normally people have two. Anything less would be,what? Not normal. Normal is not a vague word unless you choose to over think the meaning. Funny you admit being a superhero is not normal thus making my point. I am sure if you were honest you could find many more examples of normal versus not. Does being born gay make you a bad person? I don't think so. In my first reply to you I only wrote one short paragraph. In that statement I think I addressed how I would treat someone with any handicap. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that I hated or wanted anyone to not breath the same air as me.
Sexual orientation

Hello. I would like to begin by thanking the instigator, GMFGMD, for challenging me to this debate. Although I may disagree with your opinion, I do respect your opinion as I hope you do mine. If you are born to be gay you are an "accident of nature". Research has proven that being gay is not a disease. Research: (1) http://www.helem.net... "Homosexuality was considered as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) until 1973". This nullifies you argument calling it a deformity. Therefore, calling it a deformity is in an opinion. Of which gives you no sound proof of it being an accident of nature. Also, "On January 1, 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases." (1) WHO has removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. Thus, not making homosexuality a handicap. Now for a second lets call homosexuality an "illness". Why do gay people get kill, bullied, hurt, emotionally, and physically abused? Aren't you suppose to treat people who are ill in a kind and loving manner? When my friend is sick I don't say "Omg, you have strep throat. You should die. You don't deserve to breathe the same air as me." The way people treat homosexuality is not as a way of illness which proves people do not think of it as an illness. If people though of it as an illness they would give you soup and say "Hope the gay goes away." Being gay is not an illness the way people treat homosexuality proves my point. Normal. Funny choice of words. Could you tell me what is normal? Normal is such a vague word. Normal can mean literally anything. Nothing is normal. Technology is not normal in comparison to human's roots. Superheros are not normal but we think they are awesome. Normal is not normal. "Those that choose it are just sick." Again, as I mentioned previously , homosexuality is not an illness. For sake of argument, lets replace the word sick with "bad". Now what I do not understand is, why does my choice in who I love make any difference to another person? In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be classified as an illness. It is normal because normal is a vague word meaning anything. Who I love does not hurt anyone. Honestly, if anyone is hurting themselves it is you because of all this hate in your body. I am not the one causing your hate you are. Hate, as well, as anger is an individual emotion that can only be controlled by the person who has it. Therefore, if it is a choice, why does choosing who you love hurt anyone? Love is love.
The Bible is not God's word

"okay you compare three different bibles if we could keep it to one certain bible it would be a little bit easier to debate with you."I was comparing 2 different Bibles that contradict each other."You stated the God 1 Corinthians 14:33 that says God is not the author of confusion, but if you continue that verse it also says God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. God is not the author of confusion the author of confusion is Satan. Satan is the author of confusion because in the book of Genises 3:5 The Serpents' Deception. The Serpent(satan) told Eve that it would be okay to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. She thought at first that she shouldn't eat the fruit then satan said go ahead and try it, so she got confused. Therefore God is not the author of confusion Satan is. "I have showed clearly that the Bible has confusion, therefore Satan authored the Bible or God?And you have clearly gone off topic, Bible shows confusion that means Satan authored it, Bible is the word of Satan?"The he that the book of Isaiah is talking about is the spiritual being. in the book of Exodus the God their talking about is the creator and like all creators they get tired."I will simplfy what Con is saying:'In the Book of Isaiah it is talking about the spiritual being....'Clearly that is false, here is the full verse and it talks about God, I am going to use NIV because Con thinks that NIV is most correct one:Isaiah 40:28 "28 Do you not know? Have you not heard?The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom"Another thing I noticed Con say is the following:"in the book of Exodus the God their talking about is the creator and like all creators they get tired."There are other creators other than the Lord? isn't the Lord the only true God, as said in John 17:3 "3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."There are no other creators, I await that you rebut all of my arguments." in the begining of your debate you used two differnt bible versions the KJV and the NIV. And all the pastors i have talked to preach out of the NIV version not the KJV or NASB or the NKJV."I have compared 2 Bibles to show that the 'Word of God' contradict each other, and then procceded to use the NASB because It is better than the NIV [1] and "overall the NASB is a good deal more literal than the RSV, and thus it preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study. Also unlike the RSV, the NASB deliberately interprets the Old Testament from a Christian standpoint, in harmony with the New Testament."[2][1]http://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com...[2] http://www.bible-researcher.com...
The Bible is not God's word

okay you compare three different bibles if we could keep it to one certain bible it would be a little bit easier to debate with you. You stated the God 1 Corinthians 14:33 that says God is not the author of confusion, but if you continue that verse it also says God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. God is not the author of confusion the author of confusion is Satan. Satan is the author of confusion because in the book of Genises 3:5 The Serpents' Deception. The Serpent(satan) told Eve that it would be okay to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge. She thought at first that she shouldn't eat the fruit then satan said go ahead and try it, so she got confused. Therefore God is not the author of confusion Satan is. You used the NASB version with your contradictions and your first contradiction is the books of Isaiah and Exodus. In Exodus 31:17 "... on the seventh day he rested..." God rested. But this contradicts Isaiah 40:28 "...He does not faint or grow weary.." (weary: "Feeling or showing extreme tiredness" [1]) The he that the book of Isaiah is talking about is the spiritual being. in the book of Exodus the God their talking about is the creator and like all creators they get tired. in the begining of your debate you used two differnt bible versions the KJV and the NIV. And all the pastors i have talked to preach out of the NIV version not the KJV or NASB or the NKJV.
The Bible is not God's word

Hello, I will be taking the con side and saying that the Bible is the word of God. I agree with pro that this debate be a friendly and fun debate for both of us. Now I see that my opponent said that there's a lot contradictions in the Bible and can't truly be the word of God. Now my opponent is a Sunni-Muslim and I'm a Christian and there's a lot of contradiction between the Quran and the Bible. My belief is that when God sent his son he had a plan that Jesus was going to select 12 disciples and teach them his word which was and is Gods' word. So, therefore the Bible is the word of God.
Should Death Be Feared

Referring again to Epicurus, he said "For that which while present causes no distress causes unnecessary pain when merely anticipated... Therefore, it is relevant neither to the living nor to the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist." Again I state we should not fear because of our anticipations of what may be before, during, or even after death. If we are stirring up fear off of our anticipations of the unknown, just as it can be thought to be bad, those same arguments can be used to call death good. Death will cause us no pain in anticipation, nor do we have proof that it is painful. Therefore, I still believe death should not be feared because we won't experience it nor do we have accounts of it being bad. Death cannot harm us so we should not fear it.
Should Death Be Feared

We fear objects and things we know have the potential to harm us or that pose a threat. Fear is an emotion we have to help us recognize danger. A fear of heights comes because we know that a drop from a high place can potentially be fatal. We cannot fear death because death can do us no harm. Once we are dead we are without anything that will let us be able to identify what is happening, or has happened, as harmful. Epicurus said in his Letter to Menoeceus and The Principle Doctrines (pg 164) "he is a fool who says that he fears death not because it will be painful when present but because it is painful when it is still to come... So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist." The "fear of death" is an anticipation to something we are not sure of and can not ever determine as something to fear. It makes no sense to fear death because we won't experience it. What is felt is not a fear of the unknown death, but it is of dying, an easy mistake of distinction that can be made. If the fear is of how we will die, then wouldn't death be good since it will put one out of the misery they anticipate of their dying?
Should Death Be Feared

I believe that death should not be feared because there is nothing around that can prove that death is bad. Fearing death will not change the fact that we all have to die one day. I find no sense in fearing an unknown because we do not know for sure if what we fear is going to be bad for us in anyway. We do not experience, nor do we have accounts of other people's experience of death to say what of death should be feared. Death is nothing, simply the absence of life. There is nothing to fear in the absence of life.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

I will still rest on my assertion that there is no logical point other than conception. Firstly, The scientific definition is still relatively irrelevant to this debate. A living human being is a huge conglomerate of different biological systems, Just as any other animal is. You have to essentially decide where you want to draw the line. Where is it that those various cells become a living being in itself? Science can give the base for life, But it can't give as logical an answer to where those various living beings become one. I've already stated it's illogical to be defining it at the point where it would be self-sustaining. There is many humans who can't live by themselves, Or have biological functions that don't work, Yet we still consider them living. "A person on life support has already been classified as a living human, And life support is actually supporting the biological processes they already have. " But it persists that they cannot sustain their own life, And would have been dead if not for the life support? Yet we do not consider them a dead human being or anything similar. This is the same for people missing organs or with ones that are improperly functioning, And are supported by machines. They aren't considered dead, So why should a fetus be? "My opponent seems to think that a living human who is missing a biological process or two is the same thing as a fetus. " Okay. So a fetus who has not developed a biological process or two is not a human either? They are absolutely the same thing. They are both humans.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

I apologize for my last minute response. I've had a horrible past few days and am actually just now(within the last 30 minutes of my argument being due) able to sit down and write an argument. My argument will therefore be short, But effective nonetheless. The following will be quotes from my opponent's R2 argument, And my rebuttals in turn. "The definition of when a human's life starts is a huge factor of this debate, Thus I'm not going to simply go by your concluded definition of a human life. " My concluded definition? So I'm a scientist who spent hundreds of years studying life forms and determining what they all have in common at the most basic level of life? This isn't MY conclusion. It's a scientific factual conclusion. "There is much more to it. " There really isn't; Not when it comes to what constitutes life. "Does this give us a right to pull the plug of someone on life support whenever we'd like, For example? It's flawed logic in itself. " You're right. That is indeed flawed logic, Because that's not the same thing at all. That is consistent with the false equivalency fallacy. A person on life support has already been classified as a living human, And life support is actually supporting the biological processes they already have. A fetus, However, Does not have them, And so there's nothing to support. "There are people who live with improperly functioning hearts for example, It gives us no right to end their lives either. " Also false equivalency. There are people who survive totally reliant on machines and others, There are people who can live with certain organs missing. Thus it is not reasonable to assume that because the baby can't survive by itself we can kill it whenever we like. " Another false equivalency. My opponent seems to think that a living human who is missing a biological process or two is the same thing as a fetus. If that were the case, They would have been still born out of the womb. The very fact that machines are able to support their lives proves that they are not the same as a fetus, As these people have sufficient processes for a machine to be able to support them, Whereas a fetus does not. If a fetus does not develop into viability, No machine could ever turn it into a living human. "The problem with abortion is when you draw the line where a life begins at any point other than conception, The logic is flawed. " My opponent's entire argument rests on this assertion. As shown by my above rebuttals, My opponent fails to prove this assertion because their arguments are fallacious. They attempt to show that a fetus is a life by asserting that a living human with certain malfunctioning, Or nonexistent, Biological processes are logically synonymous with a fetus, Which is, For the reasons I specified in my above rebuttals, Incorrect. I therefore conclude that my opponent's argument here is false. My opponent has the floor.
Abortion should be made illegal in most circumstances. (Repost)

The definition of when a human's life starts is a huge factor of this debate, Thus I'm not going to simply go by your concluded definition of a human life. There is much more to it. Human life is a continuum. Under this scientific definition that life is self-sustaining, Does this give us a right to pull the plug of someone on life support whenever we'd like, For example? It's flawed logic in itself. It's true though, I can concede that my own logic was flawed. There are people who live with improperly functioning hearts for example, It gives us no right to end their lives either. The problem with abortion is when you draw the line where a life begins at any point other than conception, The logic is flawed. There are people who survive totally reliant on machines and others, There are people who can live with certain organs missing. Thus it is not reasonable to assume that because the baby can't survive by itself we can kill it whenever we like.