BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A movie should only be rated R only if there is nudity, extreme profanity and extreme violence

Greetings. I would like to thank my opponent for starting the debate and thank the users for reading. I shall make this debate as simple as possible (due to being in a hurry) by negating the resolution in two ways: 1) NUDITY OUGHT NOT TO BE A CONSIDERATION WHEN RATING A FILM Ladies and gentleman, our ways of life are in need of some serious change. Exactly what is the problem with nudity? What problem is there with features we all have? What is the point to hiding these features when it comes to the silver screen? Why should we be ashamed of our bodies? We seem perfectly fine with allowing mere students to explore the human body at their own whim in health and science classes, via textbook pictures. Other countries seem fine with allowing mere nudity on screen even in innocent children's cartoons. Clearly, our culture needs to progress and stop considering nudity as a factor in the film rating system. Otherwise, I challenge my opponent to point out the problems with mere nudity being presented on screen. Though be warned: If he presents any problems which have been instigated due to our mere repression of onscreen, he shall only be fueling my argument. 2) EXTREME VIOLENCE ALONE OUGHT TO BE ENOUGH TO GIVE A FILM AN R RATING On the other, extreme violence is a different matter. When I think of extreme violence, I think of small children being skewered/mutilated graphically, human beings slowly having their skin ripped off their body and all other gruesome acts that may leave an impressionable image on a weaker mind (which, typically, is the mind of a non adult); acts that a younger mind may not be prepared to handle. Additional support for my claims can be found here: http://psychcentral.com... Thus, for a brief overview of this round, I'm positing that nudity alone no longer be considered a factor based on the fact that it produces real harmful effects (not to mention that we seem to have already given our children access to it (in the form of textbooks) and that extreme violence alone should be enough for a film to earn an R rating based on the fact that it alone can leave impressionable images on those who do not have a developed mind. I now await PRO's case and shall expound of any of the claims I've made if necessary.
is halo reach better than halo 5

Let's talk about flaws with Halo: Reach. Everyone spawns on a mongoose, the Spartan four-wheeler of choice. A gray rally point pops up on the map and it becomes first come, first serve; whoever drives through the rally point first scores. The rally point moves to a new location and it is first to 15. The game quickly degrades into half the players jumping off their ATVs and shooting each other while everyone else drives around trying to catch the rally point. There is always one guy who knows the locations of the rally points and camps them to an easy victory. Dumb. Giant maps. There are several modes that promote close combat, but are played out in giant fields. Why? If you give me the magnum, I want to use it. In SWAT mode, players’ shields are stripped and it essentially becomes a CoD or MW match. The map is a great plain and everyone is forced to run around and jump like idiots so they don’t get sniped by a lucky shot. This is particularly counterintuitive in SWAT mode, where you expect close quarters tactics to reign. Someone explain this to me.
Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

I ask that my opponent, whoever that may be, be at least slightly educated in the topic I have brought up. I myself have made it a personal interest of my own to study this subject matter, therefore I desire a challenge in someone who is as knowledgeable/as knowledgeable as me. I'd like to propose a series of definitions and guidelines. More good: His overall net benefits to society and the world outweigh his negative impacts.This debate assumes that Leon Trotsky gained democratic power over the Bolsheviks, had prevented the rise of Stalin by succeeding Lenin, and through non-bureaucratic means led the people of the USSR in the means he saw fit. Rules:No trolling or forfeiting. Either of these things are immediate loss. I expect and hope this is a good debate as its something that interests me immensely. Round 1 is acceptance and definitions/rules. Adding arguments is not allowed.Round 2. Is the proposal of arguments.Round 3 is the refutation of arguments.Round 4 is final words and cannot be over 1500 characters from either side.I also ask that this debate not descend into a stereotypical pros and cons of socialism debate, as it doesn't make for a good discussion of trotsky specifically and only follows socialism in general.
Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

My opponent has PM'd me saying that he would allow me to go over the 1,500 character limit, since he did. I, however, will not take the opportunity. All the arguments and evidence has been presented and sourced. At this point, I would like to ask all readers to quickly scan over, namely to to where in R2 I stated that numerous countries were anti-communistic and would not stand for wide spread communist revolutions sponsored by the USSR. I then recommend looking to my opponent's R3 to where he addresses this (or actually, doesn't) and determine if he would actually trigger a world war or not. I also ask readers to check up on the sources, namely those that have directly quoted Trotsky and Lenin and those that are wikipeadia (namely on the reasons for the Soviet-Polish war). Finally, when it comes to his actions on war, please re-check the sources that show his military activity over a various years. I would also remind voters that this is over Trotsky as completely independent of Stalin's timeline (this was agreed in the comments section prior to the debate being accepted). With that said, I pass this on to the voters as I finish this round just over 1,200 characters. Thank you,
Leon Trotsky would've done more good than harm had he succeeded Lenin.

I accept the definitions provided and would like to re-iterate so that it stands out to readers and voters that more good is to be applied to "society and the world. " Over the course of this debate, given Trotsky's views, we will be taking a global view of good vs harm, but I want to re-state it here. I would also like to add that for the final round. I believe my opponent should be allowed up to 2,500 characters. Since I will have the final refutation round, he should be allowed some space to address the refutations. The proper conduct for this would be to only address the refutations with sources already presented in earlier rounds and any arguments must be quoted from earlier rounds. Of course, my opponent is allowed to ignore this and only do the 1,500 but I am saying that they can use that extra 1,000 if they so choose. Thank you,
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

The Bible has already been changed and revised many, many, many times. There are literally thousands of different versions of the Bible, including 'simplified' ones, so I would argue that further simplification to the core principles would not remove the authenticity -- it would still be the Bible, and would be a very good guide to life. Love a tolerance only; nobody could argue with that.I never learnt anything as such, but I did admit from the very start that the Bible as a whole is not a good guide to life, if taken word for word. I do, however, stand by my argument that simplifying the Bible does not make it any less of a Bible, and would actually improve Christianity as a whole.
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

If you say most of the Bible is riddled with outdated rules, but also has a good guide as well, are you saying just take out everything else that's not good? I agree with that, but doing would make it not the bible anymore. I agree that a lot of books and religious texts have good morals, but they also have bad. If you remove all the bad or outdated stuff, which I would argue by today's standards is more than half of the bible, then you really don't have the bible. I did learn from my opponent, or at least I was convinced, that in the right hands the bible can be used in the right way. Though I would argue it would not be the bible anymore
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

The bible isn't necessary to teach morals, but it is one of many options. There are many religious books with similar core principles, and there are indeed many fairytales with identical principles. I think it's great that we have so many different methods to teach morality; life isn't 'one size fits all' -- the Bible may work for some and the Qur'an for others. The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life; It's not the only guide to life. But as mentioned previously; as a whole, the Bible is riddled with outdated rules. The Bible has the potential to be a fantastic guide, but only in the hands of a forward thinking individual.
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

But is the bible necessary to know this, to be loving and compassionate for others? Is it not internal and instinctive to not steal and not kill? Yes there are people who do such things but I did not learn these things by church and the bible. People who choose not to do these things don't lack religion, they lack life skills and knowledge. And even if we did need a book for morality, there are many non religious children books that do just that
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

I will not attempt to insult my opponent either. There's an elephant in the room when discussing the morality of the bible. Many people will cite passages that, in today's world, are clearly negative and outdated. I believe the Bible should be taken in its very simplest form: love, compassion and tolerance. When people begin to read into the specifics of the Bible, it quickly becomes evident that it does not hold up as a good guide to life. I am an atheist and find the Bible, as a whole, to be ludicrous, but the very basic principles behind it are very valuable traits for society. The Bible should be perceived as a reminder of those essential traits and not as a piece of literature to analyse and interpret at every single line. I would suggest the ten commandments as a good moral feature of the Bible. As I mentioned above, when one begins to complicate the basic commandments, things get difficult and contradictory -- people get hurt -- moral character actually worsens. I am in favour of simplifying the Bible right down to as little as possible, which I would find a good reminder of good morals. One last point I'd like to make is that some people are inherently bad, I'm afraid to say. The majority of society have morals of their own accord, but others rely on something to keep them from 'sin'. These people may believe the Bible enough to stay away from crime, and I am all in favour of that. Other people may want to use the Bible as a placebo; their fears and worries can be diminished if they are under the belief that God is always watching and saving them a place in heaven if they commit to abide by the principle morals of the Bible.
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

Thank you for accepting. I want it to be known that I will not in any way attempt to insult my opponent. So lets get right in to it. First off, the Bible has several negative things inside of it. It has things from allowing, and specifically saying how to own slaves, who you can own, and when it's okay to beat them and kill them. The Bible also speaks of how women are to be treated, and how women are to act in a church and at home. Using the Bible as a guide, including the so called "good" parts is unnecessary. You are not a moral person if you let something guide your morality, because morality is how you feel life should be... how YOU feel life should be. Also, the bible uses scare tactics to make people be moral. Using it as a guide through life, you might as well be a Christian yourself.
The Bible, although not really true, is a good guide to life.

This is an argument for people who are atheists that believe the bible can still be used as a moral, life guiding tool, even if the stories aren't true. The first round is accepting, the second is opening arguments, the third is rebuttals, the fourth is to tell the other, and the audience, what you have learned from this debate because in every debate somebody does learn something, and the fifth round will be a simple farewell. a "handshake" if you will.
Lord of the Rings or star wars

While it's true that the rich literature of Lord of the Rings brings in more fans, it is also true that Star Wars is of a completely different genre of writing. While those fantasy readers may enjoy reading Lord of the Rings, the science fiction readers enjoy Star Wars more. Those two genres are made up of different types of elements. Science fiction is usually more realistic than fantasy, so it gives inventors new ideas to try and sparks a creative part of people. Fantasy, though it seems like a wonderful world, is purely fictional and usually has no way that it could be real. It is more of a 'back then' feeling, while science fiction is more of a 'futuristic' feeling. The "this could be real in the future" appeals to many people. They have all this idea of that humans will one day be intelligent enough to make this, while they know that humans and horses can't evolve into elves or dragons.
Lord of the Rings or star wars

Lord of the Rings is better because of the rich literature history Tolkien developed, to make middle earth, hundreds of characters, dozens of races, even more languages. Star wars is young, and lacks the individual dedication and richness Lord of the Rings has, one man dedicated his life to it, 40 + to Star Wars, the information is inconsistent and confusing, it is not linear, and lacks concrete ambition, meaning it lacks a linear singular interpreter, or interpretation, and opens the door for to many wannabes to write their own interpretation for what really did happen.
Solipsism

I did just run out of time. I debate casually. I went out and had a bite to eat. You didn't really leave that much time. 1. If a mind is incapable of doing things like moving objects by just willing it there must by definition exist a thing responsible for that fact. 2. If you were created by and controlled by another mind that would still leave the question of how to explain the limitations of that other mind, and the mechanism of control it has on your mind. And it would have limitations by definition, because there must be a set of explanations for why it has chosen to control you in one way and not another. 3. "Can we ever really be sure that this life is real? No because we have no absolute philisophical definition for what real is." This is a purely semantic argument and could be argued over any and all concepts that are represented by words. It is practical to assume some common definition of the word real, because otherwise it would be a useless word. To most people experience is real, so experiencing life makes it ipso facto real. 4. If we are "stuck" that fact will not be relevant unless and until we become "unstuck", because there are no consequences as far as human experience if we never were to find out, hence meaning for all practical purposes we can assume we are not stuck until there is significant evidence to the contrary.
Solipsism

Could it not be that there is not a mind that exists strong enough to be capable exorcise such effects like moving objects with your mind. Or in this case, since I speaking from my own point of view, I have not been able to create a mind capable of doingsuch tasks. How can I even be sure that I am not simply someone that has been created out of the mind of another and am at the complete mercy of that mind? How do I know that you have not been created by that very same mind? Can we ever really be sure that this life is real? No because we have no absolute philisophical definition for what real is. Take the film "Inception" for example. At the end we never do find out wether they made it out of the dream world they had created. Once they believed it to be the "real world" that would be them stuck. How can we be sure that we havn't got stuck?
Solipsism

The idea that there exists only the mind is preposterous. If that were the case then merely thinking something would be good enough to cause it to come into existance. Our thoughts can influence our environment through the actions they lead us to take, but you can not for example teleport yourself to Mars, move objects with your mind, or shift to an alternative dimension. Ergo, the mind is not all that there is. That there exists physical matter that can not be altered by just willing it to means there is more than mind. That people get caught up at times by things in their environment emotionally is also good evidence that there isn't just the mind as that is coming into the mind. You could call where it comes from the "spirit". Regardless of whether there is or is not a God a person has a mind, body, and spirit and trying to treat one as though it controlled the others is a recipe for insanity. Solipsism is not just a flawed argument, it is a dangerous one.
Solipsism

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind, alone, is sure to exist. http://en.wikipedia.org... I will be arguing that this is indeed the case while my opponent will be arguing that there exists a world outside your own mind. This is meant as a light hearted debate but lets try and keep it at least vaguely logical. Also please make sure you are available within the time constraints as you have 30 mins to post your argument. Thank you and I look forward to my opponents thoughts.
Copenhagen is better than Skoal

YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BOOIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!11one
Copenhagen is better than Skoal

Regardless of my opponent's intentions, I must debate what the resolution calls for. It is not my duty to infer what PRO is trying to debate. All I must do as a CON is disprove anything within the resolution. Thus, my argument still stands and you must vote CON. "And since my intentions were not to debate the health risks and what not i am not wasting my time with this debate. thanks you, liberal scum." I find that extremely rude and irrelevent. Just because he can not win a debate and I deal total pwnage on him does not mean he should forfeit this whole debate. I urge him to try to defend his beliefs and at least try to suceed rather than resorting to childish name calling. Thanks for an easy win, Chevy.
Copenhagen is better than Skoal

With that said, I will negate, "Copenhagen is better than Skoal. " While my opponent intends for me to say that Skoal is better, I will say one is not better than the other. In fact, both are very bad. I will examine some definitions from dictionary. com and tell you why neither are better than the other. 1. "of superior quality or excellence" Neither of these have better quality, and they're almost the same thing. Minor variations are in either of them, but overall, they are made, distributed, and chewed the same way. 2. "morally superior; more virtuous" Many people think it is wrong to destroy one's body through smoking or chewing tobacco. In fact, it is estimated that every cigarette one smokes takes 7 seconds off their life. Chewing tobacco can lead to cancer, as well as many other diseases. 3. "of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc. " Again, they are almost 100% similar. One can not be more suitable or more accepted than the other. As for desirability, my opponent can not prove with fact that Copenhagen is better than Skoal, and it is a matter of personal opinion. Moreover, many people would actually like the variations with flavors that he mentions. 4. "larger; greater" Copenhagen chew is not larger than Skoal; they are both the same thing: bits of glass and tobacco. 5. "improved in health; healthier than before. " This is the biggie: neither of these are good for your health. They cause cancer, bad breath, rotting teeth, heart disease, physical problems, and lost of taste and smell. (. http://www.health.gov.sk.ca...) (. http://www.mayoclinic.com...) (. http://www.headandneck.org...) Thank you, I await my opponent's R2 rebuttal.
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

It isn't China that wants to be in dimly lit rooms. The reasons that the Chinese workers are in these poor conditions are because the companies wanting to use outsourcing don't pay what is needed to work. Like what you said, " I, in the U.S. design it, patent it, and make the processes for producing it. I then send these over to a factory in China." You choose to use outsourcing, but you don't choose to provide the correct facilities for the workers. That becomes your problem for creating faulty and possibly "dangerous" products. Outsourcing isn't bad, it is who the person is that chooses outsourcing that is bad. If you choose to outsource then you must provide the correct facilities. It isn't up to the workers.
Outsourcing to countries such as China has decreased the quality of goods.

Outsourcing is a good way to produce more products for less of the price. Also how well the product is made is dependent on who makes it. It doesn't matter where the product is made. A product made in China can work and last just as long as if it is made in the United States. Back then in the 1700's the 13 colonies use things made from other countries that function just as well as the British's. This proves that outsourcing isn't a bad thing. You bring up a very interesting point. It is true that whomever actually makes the product is responsible for the quality of the product regardless of locale. There is, however, a slight flaw with this reasoning. In China particularly, there is the issue of poor government oversight of inner-factory operations. Let's say I am producing bouncy-balls. I, in the U.S. design it, patent it, and make the processes for producing it. I then send these over to a factory in China. In theory they will use my instructions, produce my product to spec's and ship it back to me. The reality, however, is that since most of the designing companies don't actually run the factories where the products are produced or don't actively oversee them, many a time protocol within the factory is altered for cost-reductive purposes. Sometimes this is harmless and results in extra-profits for the factory. Other times, however, consumers are harmed or receive inferior products. There is also an other reason for why products fabricated particularly in China have inferior quality. Let me introduce to you a multi-tool example. We are all familiar, for example, with what a Swiss-Army knife is. Pick your Chinese equivalent, there are many. Why will the Swiss Made model always be better? Because in hyper-developed nations such as Switzerland, the labor force tends to be highly skilled despite a seemingly unskilled role they might have. On top of that they are allowed to work in highly lit, clean-room like conditions with the latest equipment in the world. In China, workers are made to work in dim lighting, under excruciatingly stressful conditions in unhygienic factories. Naturally, the former will result in a better product. Do you not believe that in this scenario outsourcing Swiss-Army knifes would reduce quality? The chief source of money saving is the fact that China offers cheap unskilled labour and a near unregulated avenue for factories: both things that can reduce the quality of the final product.