BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Julian Assange should be freed from his charges

Lets get started Julian Assange has been called a lot of names like traitor and whistle blower but he did what he had to do to show the world the corruption and scandals that was going on in this world and destroying the top 1% of the top 1%. He got shamed later in his life by some powerful people and is now currently living out his life in the Ecuador embassy in London, England. Julian Assange started what was known as the technological revolution when he was 17 living in Thornbury Melbourne and went by the name Mendax, with his two friends hacked in to Milnet and saw the proof of America killing an innocent orphanage killing women and children but got arrested before he could release anything but later came back and proved his theory . https://wikileaks.org... Thank you and good luck.
Life is like a movie where the protagonist dies

I ask my opponent to define "like" and offer to what extent "like" may be applied. This is simply because anyone can draw some thin line of relevance between any two subjects and this would make the debate unfair. I also ask my opponent to state definitions for "life", "movie" and "die" to add clarity to the debate. Before I begin my agruments I would like to address the burden of proof. I claim that Pro should have the burden of proof since he is trying to affirm the resolution. If there is any dispute in this my opponent must state so in his next round, through the comments or private messaging me. I will start my agrument by stating that your life (I assume a single persons mortal existence is my opponents intended use of "life" in this debate. This agrument will hold until "life" is redefined) begins with your birth and ends with your death. In a movie where the protagonist dies the storyline does not necessarily have to begin with his birth or end with his death. The movie could begin with a scene that depicts a time period before the protagonist is born [1]. The movie could also continue after the protagonists death to show what has come to effect through his influence [2]. The main character may even come back to life [3] possibly because he/she is an immortal. These are some of few counter examples that show life and movie (a movie which the main character dies) are not alike on the basis that life starts with birth and ends with death and/or the basis that a movie has a beginning, end and a death of the protagonist somewhere between. We see this because life must begin with birth and end with a death but a movie does not necessarily have to so therefore the comparison is flawed in that respect. The counter examples I have given are where the movie starts before the protagonist is born and before the protagonist is born but I could of also shown examples of movie that start after the birth of the main character [4]. The same cannot be said for the death because a movie where the protagonist dies is part of the resolution. A movie can start with the death of the protagonist, whether he comes back to life [5] or due to a the storyline starting at its end and coming back to it. There are many examples of the few situations (counter-examples) I have presented. Life and movies where one dies have too vague of a relevance to be said to be alike and they are not alike for the reasons my opponent has stated. With all this in consideration I urge a vote Con. Sources: 1. Iron Man: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Braveheart: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., 300: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) 3. The Princess Bride: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) 4. United States of Leland: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., Pay it Forward: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) 5. Pirates of the Carribean: At World's End: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
vegetarianism/veganism is hypocrisy

Vegatarians and vegans eat carots. To eat a carrot it has to be pulled out of the ground which kills it. Vegetarians and vegans often state that meat is murder and call meat-eaters speciesist. However vegetarians are kingdomist. they discriinate and only consume foods from the plant kingdom (and the fungi sometimes). meat-eaters eat organisms that taste good and do not discrinate based on kingdom. in conclusion if meat is murder so is carrot juice (Plants are people too!). meow!
The US should abolish capital punishment

This debate is about the following resolution:Resolved: The United States should abolish all capital punishment used by the state and federal governments.Clarifications about the resolution follow --1. The actor in this resolution is "the United States," which refers to the passing of a law by the legislative and executive branches of government.2. The term "should" designates that this is a debate of policy, as opposed to a debate as to whether the United States will abolish capital punishment. This also implies a net benefits framework, where we'll be debating the merits of our respective cases.3. Capital punishment, also known as "the death penalty," is punishment by death. To clarify, it means a judicial body, as is in the system of the United States, agreeing to pass a sentence to a convicted criminal accused of a certain crime, and that sentence being execution. In other words, capital punishment is "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." Round StructureR1: Acceptance only (the Contender must simply post "I accept" or "thank you for the debate")R2: Pro provides their case, Con provides their case and responds to Pro's caseR3: Rebuttal and counter-rebuttal from both sidesR4: Rebuttal, counter-rebuttal and final focus from both sides. No new arguments may be presented here. Rules1) There is a minimum Elo restriction of 35002) BOP is shared; both sides are expected to provide offense3) My opponent accepts all definitions and waives their right to add resolutional definitions4) No trolling or abusive semantics5) No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)6) My burden is to show that capital punishment is, on balance, a net harm to the United States, while Con's burden is to show that capital punishment is, on balance, a net benefit to the United States; judges should not deviate from this BOP in analysis
The United States should decrease its military spending

Ok here goes try number two lol."The United States doesn't need a stronger military, first of all it already is"Yes, it is true that the United States has the worlds strongest military. However, just because you are already that strong does not mean you don't have to maintain it. First off the US needs a strong military. As the leading world superpower we have high interests in the going ons of the world and we can not hide in some isolationist ideal. This world is a dangerous and ever changing place and there are always threats in motion [1]. A nuclear armed North Korea. A rising Chinese influence in the eastern part of the world. A resurgence of Russian power. Never ending trouble from the Mid East and North Africa that constantly threaten the balance of the world [2]. The US needs to have not only a strong military but she needs the strongest. Not necessarily as a means to win wars and crush any enemy, that of course is just the basics. But as a deterrent for future conflicts as well. Its called show through force. Many wars in the past and even in present times have been held off or even prevented due solely to the United States flexing her arms so to speak. Some examples of this. The North/South Korean issue where NK is just sitting there waiting for a moment where the US looks we so that they can pounce on their southern neighbors. The Chine/Taiwan issue. The works that the US does in the Mid east helps bring security to much of the region which ensures that the main source of energy for much of the world keeps flowing. A well prepared and strong US military keeps conflicts such as these from erupting into full scale war. It also keep us ready in case of the unforeseen. Ever heard the phrase "better to have blank and not need it then need it and not have it"? Well lets look at history and see if this rings true. After WW1 America decided to do just what you are saying we should do now. Military cutbacks. Smaller budget, smaller force, ect.
The United States should decrease its military spending

Thanks for accepting to be part of this debate. The United States should decrease military spending for the following reasons: 1. The United States doesn't need a stronger military, first of all it already is. Secondly, the United States is part of NATO. If the United States goes into war, NATO would come in and support us. NATO in Afghanistan http://www.nato.int... NATO in Libya http://www.foreignaffairs.com... 2. The United States has some of the strongest allies. In the slideshow is shows that the United States has strong allies, which will join in case of war. http://www.businessinsider.com... 3. It is not the United States job to go into other countries because it feels the need to protect that country. The United States isn't the only ally they have. In conclusion the United states should decrease spending on military.
There should be a 'Moment of Truth: Election 08 edition'

If you don't know of the new tv show "Moment of Truth", its the game show were people are attached to a lie detector and asked extremly personal questions about their thoughts and previous actions. I think that they should challenge the presidential candidates of 08 to come and do it. If they are really a trustworth candidate, they should have no problem with it. Then the people could really see what the candidates are made off. My Reasons: after all the years of electing our president,from Washington to Bush 2, someone has always been unhappy about that person in office. There' no one to blame except the voters who put the crummy president into office. Well, now we have a method to see what we're really getting into: lie detectors. Any candidate can make their speech as pretty as they want, but when they're elected they won't do any of that stuff. You'd think people would realize this by now, but even if they did, in the past we didn't have this miracle machine. But now we do, so why tolerate the dishonesty any more? Lets actually know who the candidates are before we cast our vote. Now you say: but won't they ask all those slanderous questions conserning their sex lives? I think this could be avoided if the network is smart about it. It'dbe a real chance to make a difference, and I don't think they'd mess it up just because they think knowing what kind of langerea Hilary prefers might up their ratings. If you think about it, such an event would sky rocket the viewer ratings enough as it is. SO I say, lets avoid more mistakes, and know what we're getting into before we're already there.
There should be a 'Moment of Truth: Election 08 edition'

2. I think a lot of people would vote for someone in their party no matter what, and I also think that if a lie detector test worked, it would expose bad things about all the candidates who took it. However, even if we accept your proposal that voters would change their candidate by watching it, the lie detector test would give the advantage to whichever candidate was best at fooling the lie detector- in other words, this test would help the most dishonest candidate. For example, you said you think the only current candidate that would be likely to know how to pass the test would be McCain. I don't know whether that's true or not, but say it is- the test would show that all other candidates were lying about, say, raising taxes. And even if the one candidate who could pass the test was lying, it wouldn't show it. So people would vote for that candidate, the dishonest one. You say that you disagree with Dr. Richardson, but you don't give any statistics or expert testimony to show otherwise. You talk a lot about how polygraphs are reliable without giving any sources. If you want to see how polygraph questioning works and how easy it is to pass a lie detector test, go to this site: http://antipolygraph.org.... And as I said before, even if polygraphs were reliable, they would be useless in questioning candidates about what they would do once they were elected. You say that we should experiment with any anti-lie methods. Yes, we should experiment with them. The result of such experiments will most likely be that they are not reliable. However, testing presidential candidates is not experimenting- it's using the test in a way that could affect the fate of a nation. We should NOT let the results of an election rest on an unreliable device.
Harry Potter is a better series than the Twilight Books/Movies

I feel that Harry Potter is not as good as the Twilight Saga for several reasons: 1. Twilight has a much better plot. 2. Twilight is much closer related to the books than Harry Potter is. 3. The characters in Twilight are not all evil or all good. 4. Twilight has a graphic novel as apposed to Harry Potter. 5. Twilight is more believable in fiction aspects than Harry Potter. 6. Harry Potter only depends on his wand as opposed to the Cullens who have different powers and allies. 7. Twilight goes deeper into the story than Harry Potter. 8. Twilight takes place in a normal setting as opposed to "Hogwarts." 9. Harry Potter has poor executions of Romance as opposed to Twilight. 10. There is much less cursing in Twilight than in Harry Potter. Resource(s): http://www.fanpop.com...
Harry Potter is a better series than the Twilight Books/Movies

This is a debate for the argument that Harry Potter is better than Twilight. If you want to debate this topic with me, here are the rules:1. No insulting my personal taste. If you like Twilight, that is fine, but I will not insult you for liking Twilight. Similarly, you must not insult me for liking Harry Potter more than Twilight. 2. No being a Grammar Nazi. Poor grammar will count against you in the voting period, but that does not make it okay to point out every single typo.3. No being rude. The title basically says it all. Rules #1 and #2 could probably fit in this category, but I had to put more stress on those two. 4. No forfeitting. 5. No plagiarism. Copying and pasting an argument without at least citing your sources is annoying, and it doesn't make you seem any smarter. NOTE TO VOTERS: If my opponent breaks any of the five rules above, all points automatically go to me.With that being said, let's start!
Harry Potter is a better series than the Twilight Books/Movies

1. Similar is an understatement. Its always about trying to defeat Voldemort. if you think that a twist is just trying a different method for stopping Voldemort, you are mistaken. I think that the plot is nearly the same in every detail. 2. Why do you think that Twilight movies are not similar to the books? Do you have any examples? Again, "good' is just a perception. Your "good" could be my "bad." You have already said that Kristen Stewart had no emotion, let's not be redundant. 3. Do you understand being evil? Someone who is evil is AGAINST the protagonist. I personally NEVER remember Hermione or Ron being against Harry. Snape hit Ron in the head with a book!!! How is that good in the slightest?!? 4. Harry Potter is about as descriptive as a rock is alive. The graphic novel just a nice, insightful tool. 5. Think logically with me for a minute here. Edward is over a hundred years old. In his time people were very poetic. It is called being artistic. He is not watching her in a creepy way. They may not be dating but it is evident that they are in love, so I find it completely acceptable. 6. I didn't skip this I just found your point irrelevant. Lets be mature please. 7. Twilight teaches more than just love. If you would have even read my previous statement you would have known that. Twilight teaches that we all should except each other for who we are. Please read what has already been posted. 8. It is called "fiction." I don't suppose that you believe in magic, at least I hope not. 9. Its called infatuation, not stalking. Edward has an antique sense of taste and his only intentions of watching Bella were in romantic ways. 10. This was not "skipping." Again, I found your point irrelevant. I respect your points, but I do not agree with them. I just question something. Do you already know this information about the awards for the two movies prior or did you look it up? It is perfectly fine if you looked it up, because I looked things up myself. I am just curious that you have no resources listed. Whoever wins the debate, I just wanted to say thanks for such a great debate topic.
Harry Potter is a better series than the Twilight Books/Movies

1. In Harry Potter the plot is basically the same thing every single movie and book. Voldemort is after Harry, like always. Harry has the EXACT same enemies in every single movie, which becomes very redundant. 2. All I meant by this was that Twilight follows the book closer than Harry Potter. I feel that just because a book is similar to a movie it doesn't mean that it is being "ripped off." 3. In Harry Potter The characters ARE 100% good or 100% bad. Just because Harry defended his mother that doesn't mean he is even slightly evil. Voldemort may like his mother but he still wants to kill Harry Potter which does in fact make him very much so evil. 4. A graphic novel may not improve a series but it definitely enhances it. I feel that visualizing the story in an artistic setting can help you understand the author's ideas. 5. "And so the lion fell in love with the lamb." That is an EXPRESSION. She doesn't literally mean that a lion fell in love with a lamb. In case you didn't know Edward is a vampire, vampires don't sleep! Edward is infatuated Bella so he finds it beautiful how she sleeps. It is meant to be romantic. If some perceive that being "weird" then I don't know what to tell them. 7. In Twilight there are many lessons learned. You learn that just because people may be different you can still be with them. You learn to accept others for what and who they are. Twilight teaches that everyone can find love. 8. "Creativity" is perception and personal taste. I personally find Hogwarts irrational and confusing. It is difficult to take seriously, even in a fictional setting. 9. I understand that Harry Potter is not a romance book but I think that they do a poor job of displaying love toward each other, except for the love between parent and child. In Twilight there isn"t kissing on every page ( I assume you were exaggerating.) I agree with what you say about Kristen Stewart but Daniel Radcliffe is not much better. Radcliffe doesn't do a very good job portraying Harry and doesn't execute emotions well.
Harry Potter is a better series than the Twilight Books/Movies

However, I must object their reasons for why Twilight is better than Harry Potter.1. How so? Please give me an example.2. That's why the movies say based on the books, not ripped off of the book series.3. The characters in Harry Potter are not 100% good or 100% bad either. Take the protagonist Harry Potter, for example. He is loyal to his friends and brave. He saved the world from the worst serial killer ever. But yet Harry has a short temper. For example, when his enemy, Draco Malfoy insulted his mother, Harry attacked him in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Thus, this proveds that even the hero has flaws. Also, although Voldemort, the antagonist, is a cruel sociopathic killer, he seems to have a small warm spot in his heart for his mother, proving him almost 100% evil, but not quite.4. A graphic novel does not improve either series better than the other in terms of the story itself.5. Twilight isn't very believable in a sense of realistic action. Take the dialogue, for example. If someone said, "And so the lion fell in love with the lamb," few people would think of that as romantic. Many people would laugh at how cheesy this line is. Also, Bella seems to be cool with whatever Edward does. Even when Edward says, "I like watching you sleep. It's kind of fascinating to me," which is a very creepy thing to say that only Bella seems to find acceptable.6. Which is why Harry Potter is a stronger character than all of the Cullens!7. Harry Potter is very deep. It involves the gains and losses of loved ones, such as Dumbledore and Sirius Black. Many morals are taught in Harry Potter. One is from Dumbledore, who says "Do not pity the dead, Harry, pity the living. " This teaches readers to move on and help those who are in real need. I cannot find any morals in Twilight. 8. A made-up setting is more original, creative and interesting than a normal setting.9. Harry Potter is not a romance book. There is romance, but it is not descriptions of kissing on every other page, or how a guy's eyes look good, or anything like that. Similarly, Twilight has opposed executions of morals and friendship as opposed to Twilight.10. Although this fact is undeniable, the swear words are considered milder than others. It is still clean enough to be a childrens' book. Twilight, although not filthy, still has some innuendos and swearing. Plus, there is the undeniable fact that Kristen Stewart cannot act; she has little emotion when she portrays Bella. This makes the movies not as great as the Harry Potter movies, in which every actor can actually play with conviction.
survival=morality

Self preservation can BE moral, though in and of itself it is at most a virtue, and even that is up for debate. Like I said before, the preservation of one self is not always the right thing to do. Also, logic in and of itself is no basis for morality. Logic may be able to tell you what is true or false about a given matter, (a matter which it generally applies poorly to is morality), but it is not the basis for right and wrong. the statement: "i am going to murder a child", is not in and of itself "illogical". It obeys the rules of logic, so it is not illogical. I am not saying that what is moral is the same in every situation, but that morality is not equivalent to survival. Another illustration for when doing the right thing is not beneficial to self survival is when a man sacrifices his life to stop a bomb detonating. He did the right thing, at the cost of his own life.