BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Curling is a sport

This is a challenge to a debate over whether or not curling [ice and broom and stone] is a sport. I look forward to a rousing and interesting debate on this subject. Having played III seasons of curling in high school, ultimately lettering in it, I will be making the case that curling is in fact a sport. The burden of proof that it is not rests on my opponent. I am excited for this debate, and hope to have a good, civil, kind, and well thought out debate. Thank you in advance to whoever wishes to debate with me. First round=acceptance only.
should Christmas music be aloud after Christmas

It's too bad that pro has forfeited the most recent round. I will offer a short conclusion to this debate.As mentioned, in many different cultures the earth cools instead of warms during Christmas. Christmas music is ment to celebrate the holiday, not the weather, if it was to celebrate the weather, it would not be Christmas Music. On balance, there is no valid reasoning as to why Christmas music should not be played after Christmas.
should Christmas music be aloud after Christmas

I don't think Christmas music should continue till after Christmas because Christmas may fell warm but in reality its not its cold In many different climates it is warm during christmas.Christmas music may be great but for some people its coldWell, in these climates that are cold after Christmas, it is also cold before Christmas. So when are you supposed to play Christmas music, the summer?I want to be alone with my presents.You do not have to listen to christmas music while with your presents.
Gun Control

What you are describing is a "in a perfect world" instance and simply would not happen in our country. The countries you see with very strict gun control are a fraction of the size of America. Land and population wise. And I'm sorry, but your "by condoning gun ownership you are implying that it's ok to murder someone..." comment is quite ignorant. Do you condone stabbing another person with a hunting knife? Or do you condone excessive eating by owning silverware? "Technically," gun ownership does not correlate with murder.No I don't condone murder in most instances. We have "stand your ground" laws that I do believe is an instance where resorting to shooting an intruder is acceptable. Your family is the most important thing and if someone comes in with a gun/knife/bat or anything else, what would you want to do? Be proactive or wait 5-10 minutes before an officer shows up? Which by then could be too late. http://www.justfacts.com...
Gun Control

If guns were outlawed entirely except for police and those protecting the president, anyone other than those two groups seen owning a gun would be immediately arrested. This would reduce the amount of shootouts and make everywhere a whole lot safer. Also, technically by condoning gun ownership you are implying that it's ok to murder someone, even if they have a gun. Murder, as I'm sure, is illegal in the United States and therefore makes the homicide rate stay the same. By outlawing guns, gun ownership would be illegal and the gun homicide rate would go down dramatically.
Gun Control

Although we do seem to have a mass shooting problem as of lately, when was the last time you've heard of a mass shooting in Texas? The recent states: Colorado, Connecticut, and Oregon have had the mass shootings. They also happen to have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Criminals will be criminals. A law passing saying that there will be background checks or that guns are illegal all together won't stop them. They can easily buy them off of the black market or bring them in from another country. Also, mass shootings only happen in areas where guns aren't allowed like schools or movie theaters. We protect our president, sporting events, and government buildings with guns. How do we protect our schools? We don't. That's the answer. We call someone with a gun to come help us, and by that time, it's usually too late. Having teachers and staff trained for using a gun would make our schools much safer in the long run.
Gun Control

While the poverty rate in America may be higher, surely if guns were more tightly regulated, there would not be as many gun crimes? This would reduce the need for police and even normal citizens to carry arms. What about mass shootings? If civil gun ownership was made illegal, citizens carrying arms would immediately be breaking the law and the police would be able to make an arrest much sooner. And, while the US Constitution's 2nd amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, which is more important in the long term - a "right ", or the safety of the general public?
Gun Control

That source clearly shows "total number of gun deaths" which could mean from suicide, accident, and homicide. Not solely homicide. Also, addressing the police, the poverty rate of Ireland is 8% while the poverty rate here in America is 15%. There is a clear correlation of people in poverty committing the higher crimes compared to those that are well off. Judging by this, it seems necessary for all American police to carry a gun due to its higher crime rate (with or without guns). You're also comparing a country that has a smaller population that many single states in our country. The population of Ireland is roughly the same as the population of South Carolina. It's much easier to regulate gun control in a country that small and would be impossible to do here. US by state population - http://www.infoplease.com... Ireland population - http://countrymeters.info...
Gun Control

I was referring to homicide rates in the respective states, not both homicide and suicide. Generally, the amount of murders depends on a state/country's gun control laws. Take Ireland for example. The Irish police force does not carry arms except for a special division of the force, which only uses said arms in extreme circumstances. As a result of this and its tight gun restrictions, Ireland has an extremely low gun crime rate. In fact, owning a firearm in Ireland is illegal under the Firearms Act. Conversely, Spain has a high gun crime rate due to its ratio of firearms to population. There are 7 guns per 100 people in Spain, compared to just 3 per 100 in Ireland. As a result, there were 257 gun-related homicides in 2014 in Spain compared to just 53 in Ireland. Thus it is safe to assume that gun-related homicide rates are dependent on a country's gun control laws. Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Gun Control

Well first of all, you have to look into how many of the deaths were caused by suicide. Not all of those deaths are from homicide. Also, the murder rate is roughly around 3.59 per 100,000 as you can see in this link: http://www.factcheck.org... Texas also has one of the loosest gun laws and has the lowest crime rate in the country. This is due to a criminal knowing that there's a high chance that wherever they're trying to commit their crimes, the victim has a gun and can protect him or herself from truly becoming a victim.
Gun Control

I've limited the words to 1,000 to keep things nice and simple, not too complicated. We've heard the arguments for and against it all before, and it's constantly the same thing, "constitutional rights" this and "safety" that. Well now I've decided to settle it. I'm not a US national but I have done my research, so I have solid facts. I believe that gun control needs to be enforced. It needs to happen because of the countless mass shootings we've seen, the unnecessary violence, the psychological effects of simply owning a gun. Research has shown that 97,000+ people are sho0t in the US every day. That's a daily average of 268 people. Research has also shown that, due to strict gun control laws in Washington DC, the murder rate remains at approximately 69 per 100,000 people. Contrarily, Indianapolis' high murder rate at 1,152 per 100,000 people indicates loose or non-existent gun control laws. Evidently, violent crime rates depend on each state's gun control laws.
White People Shouldn"t Pay Black People For Slavery

Saying my argument is wrong is borderline deregulatory. Please stop, there"s really no such thing as a WRONG argument. Anyway... Slavery kept blacks from revolting? How? What is desperate money? So let me get this straight. Slaves would rather be payed to work, then work for free. I think that"s a given. Even if they asked their slave master to pay them, he wouldn"t have enough money. So... If slaves were payed then why would they boycott and have riots? There is already violence between whites and black (most of it committed by blacks). Here"s the thing Con... No whites are slave owners, and no blacks are slacks. You shouldn"t have to PAY the consequences of a few bad ancestors wrongdoings. I shouldn"t have to pay Jews, because my great grandfather was a NAZI (true fact). Same thing here. It"s backwards racism really. The government is trying to be helpful, but in the end discriminating white people. Good luck! Happy 4th of July 🇺🇸!!!
White People Shouldn"t Pay Black People For Slavery

*stretches arms*alright, this is a clearly wrong argument your making so I guess i'll say my reasons and turn this one into a right one. First off, white people need to pay for slavery because it was one of (probably the only) reason why slaves didn't revolt against their white masters. They needed desperate money, and even if they did riot for unfair slavery where they don't get anything, they would still ask to be payed, instead of doing work in the shoes of a free worker. If the white man doesn't give them money, there's no reason for them to work in the first place, without the influence of payment, their boycotts and riots would have been more frequent, giving leeway for more deaths, and violence between whites and blacks
The original film "Halloween" is a very feminist film.

The genre of last girl horror is often debated as to whether it is feminist, Sexist, Or neutral. As with most major genres, There are films within it that adhere to each of these labels. John Carpenter"s original film "Halloween" is an example of a feminist film. The main character, The "last girl", Survives by her own strength and bravery. This is a very feminist concept for cinema at the time, Especially when usually a male character would be her entire savior. Though Michael Myers"s psychiatrist does fire the bullets that knock Michael out of a window, She is still the one who must fight against Michael. As she struggles for her own life, She also bravely protects two children from any harm. A very powerful, Badass protagonist. Michael Myers isn"t an incredibly gender-focused killer. He has a central motivation of killing babysitters, But even then he is not particularly focused. He kills a trucker off the side of the road, And the boyfriend of one of his victims. Even if we are to consider the motivations of killers to reflect the motivations of writers, Myers isn"t particularly sexist. Even this behavior of killing off the sexually active is seen as being "pure evil". There is nothing ever justified about Michael Myers; he is presented as pure evil.
The original film "Halloween" is a very feminist film.

The film "Halloween" was largely built on the foundation of what could be considered an earlier slasher film, The Canadian film "Black Christmas". "Black Christmas", Released in 1974, Stands as a decently sexist film by contrast. When Carpenter decided to make "Halloween", Which truly pioneered the American slasher genre, He instead took a much more feminist approach. This can be credited to the fact that he co-wrote "Halloween", As he did a number of his other films, With producer Debra Hill. By writing the iconic film with a female writer, Carpenter creates a much more realistic portrayal of female characters. The very basis of the film is feminist, Since it was written from a perspective in defiance of older sexist films and to create a newer better film. As you pointed out, The film also laid the groundwork for later films in the franchise, Where Laurie becomes even more of a feminist icon. As Laurie stands as a central horror feminist icon in this movie and in others, Her role as the protagonist automatically makes the film more feminist. The argument over specific numbers of men vs. Women killed does not particularly work in this debate, As the numbers are so close. If Michael Myers killed twenty women and three men, This argument would be fully valid; instead, The numbers are so close that they are largely circumstantial of who he kills. Michael"s own mind, However, Does not have a massive impact on whether the film is feminist or not. This is because Myers isn"t meant to be sympathized with, For the same reason that Jordan Peele"s smash hit "Get Out" is not described as being white supremacist for its villains effectively being white supremacists. The kill of Bob being pinned to the wall is an amazingly cool kill, But this actually shows that the film could be seen as more feminist. It was "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" that was heavily criticized by some fringe feminist critics who believed that a long, Intense kill sequence was used as exploitation against women. By the standards of many critics, Giving the most intense and coolest kill to be against a male victim is actually a feminist move, Rather than letting the coolest kill be of a naked girl or something similar. In conclusion, We can agree upon the fact that "Halloween" is a brilliant classic and John Carpenter an amazing filmmaker. Though you see the film as more neutral and I see it as more feminist, I wanted to end the debate on a high note by thanking you for taking the debate and celebrating the wonderful film that is John Carpenter"s "Halloween".
The original film "Halloween" is a very feminist film.

It would appear to me at least your argument is more geared towards Laurie being a strong feminist icon rather then the film being "very feminist" which I still will go on to state it is not. The film still as mentioned in my prior argument portrays women as easy targets who can't fight but can only run away and eventually die unless you are the final girl (Laurie). Who even then she doesn't really fight Michael she just runs around screaming and hides and even when she has actually harmed Michael and has the chance to "Finish" him she runs off allowing the movie to continue with Michael getting right back up to continue the same trope. All of Laurie's friends die off and they all do so seeming helpless not to mention the film itself features more female deaths than male deaths and although it is only by one more female death than male (2 Men Died, 3 Women Died) all the female deaths have the characters terrified and frightened meanwhile the male deaths have one that is offscreen where we see the victim but with no context as to how he died and the other being Bob (Lynda's Boyfriend) who got the iconic kill which many consider to be the best and most important trade mark kill where it even seemed he tried to put up a fight grabbing at Michael's hands as where I have pointed prior all the female deaths make the characters appear weak and helpless except Laurie who even then I still believe she isn't portrayed as super strong although stronger than her friends for sure. In regards to the kill you and I have referred to the iconic kill in which Michael pins Bob's body up to the wall and citing that as one of the brutal kills and thus proves it promotes equality since Michael kills because he is evil and not on gender which in indeed correct on Michael killing because he is evil. You seem to forget Michael then proceeds to wear the ghost outfit Bob had and terrorise Lynda while wearing it creeping her out then strangling her to death and all the while having in both scenes the characters breast out for unnecessary nudity. Halloween also did not lay the foundations for slashers other notable slashers had come out YEARS before Halloween that many consider laid the foundations including The Texas Chainsaw Massacre which I do believe many would agree really kickstarted the slashers genre and vipes we see in slashers today that isn't to say however Halloween didn't have an impact especially given it was by the talented John Carpenter who would go on to write and create The Thing (1982) and other numerous horror movies.
The original film "Halloween" is a very feminist film.

The original "Halloween" was not just another formulaic slasher film; it pioneered the genre. John Carpenter"s classic brought horror to another level, With the first real rendition of the American final girl film. Laurie Strode is a powerful character, Who is powerful in a very real way. She does not fall into the often modern clich" of creating an unrealistically amazing female character to try to appear feminist. Instead, She acts as a real person does, And genuinely tries to help those around her. Her actions toward the children continuously show responsibility and care in a way that makes her a hero to those in her life, As well as letting her be her own hero. Michael"s psychiatrist does end up very much helping to save the day, But it isn"t as if he can kill Michael either. Loomis simply continues what Laurie has already set out to do, In trying to kill or get rid of Michael. And, I"m the end, Their actions have the same results. While Loomis has an easy-to-access fun, Giving him a significant advantage, Laurie is a badass who fights through altercations with Myers using only what she has on hand. There is a strength and a power to this that is not seen in the character of Michael"s psychiatrist. This is not to say that Loomis does not have an important role to play, Because he very clearly does. However, The basic notion of feminism isn"t female superiority, But male and female equality. The encounters that Laurie has with Loomis do not indicate anything else besides the idea of them being equals by their gender, With her being significantly empowered additionally. It is expected that an old distinguished doctor will have some form of power based on factors of his age, How distinguished he is, And his gender. However, Laurie is young and still must fight back for herself. Though she is assisted by a powerful man at the end, The film requires her to truly fight for herself. This idea of the genders being equal is also seen in the kills. One of the more major kills is of a man, Who is brutally pinned against a wall with a knife, And then just stared at. At the end of the day, Myers kills because he is evil, And the director is happy to show men being killed as well.
The original film "Halloween" is a very feminist film.

The movie in question "Halloween" created by John Carpenter released in 1978 is not at all a "very feminist film" the trope of the female survivor is nothing new to horror and if anything the idea that the main character is strong and such because she protects two children is merely just one example and or feeling of a feminist narrative. The reason I disagree is due to the fact the movie still happily portrays all the other female characters in the film as weak, Screamish and of course as helpless targets while the movie portrays the female survivor aka Laurie Strode as strong it really doesn't she warns the children to flee more then protect them even when the reality is Michael was not going after the children and of course Laurie was saved by Samuel Loomis after firing several shots into Michael. If the topic was more based around the fantastic new film Halloween (2018) then I would agree it is a much more feminist film however the original really wasn't it portrayed women as easy targets and weak even having the lead character being saved by a male. Although I am more then sure that when John Carpenter made Halloween he didn't have a political narrative in mind for writing it which is why it appears as a simple slasher in an age of slashers. May Moustapha Akkad one of the key figures in making the Halloween franchise rest in peace and since this debate is about Halloween I just would like to pay respect to one of the men who made Halloween, Halloween. May Donald Pleasence also rest in peace for without him I believe the Halloween franchise would not be as successful as it is since Donald was always more than willing to comeback and be Dr. Samuel Loomis over and over even when his health was declining and he died during the production of what would be his last Halloween film.
the flying spaghetti monster is at least as likely to exist as the Judeo-Christian God

When I became a man I put away childish things and while this has been fun I suggest that we try to raise the discourse here. St. Thomas Aquinas made perhaps the best argument for the existence if God in his Summa Theologica. He was the foremost proponent of natural theology. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas. He is renowned in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. Aquinas embraced several ideas put forward by Aristotle whom he referred to as "the Philosopher", and attempted to synthethise Aristotle with the principles of Christianity.[7] The works for which he is best He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of Thomism. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived in development or refutation of his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. Unlike many currents in the Church of the time he embraced several ideas put forward by Aristotle whom he referred to as "the Philosopher" and attempted to synthethise Aristotelian philosophy with the principles of Christianity. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument. All of these can be found detailed in Wikipedia but the important thing is that Aquinas like many other scholars have shown that God does exist. Your Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in your rather comical mind only. I was hoping that we might actually try to reason out this complicated subject. My opponent seems clearly driven to prove his comical satire even at the expense of reason and logic. I will admit that I can't prove that god exists physically but then I never said he physically existed. His actual existence is a matter of faith while the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a matter of lunacy.