BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That Donnie Darko is the best movie of its genre

In this round, I'll subsume my opponent's contentions, retaining his implied links that they constitute grounds for choosing one movie over the other, and present one of my own. Contention 1: Suspense Donnie Darko clearly wins on this ground, with the warrant that its many disparate ideas and their eventual unification resist clarity until the very end of the movie. Throughout the movie, certain details (the bubble that comes out of people's torsos, the bunny suit guy) pop seemingly out of nowhere with only the briefest of foreshadowing or introduction. This creates a sense of apprehension; while watching, especially during repeat viewings, the viewer finds himself concentrating intensely on seemingly unimportant aspects of the plot, trying to divulge more continuities that may lead to further understanding of the intricate subtext. This is the thinking man's suspense; instead of "always being kept guessing" over who will murder whom, tantalizing plot points are held out like bait, keeping the willing viewer on the edge of his seat, trying to figure out the meaning of it all. Repeat value is also retained through the sheer elegance of the last plot twist, when we see Donnie laying on the ground in exactly the same place we picked up the movie on. Contention 2: Multi-Genre This, I believe, is Donnie Darko's main strength, and my opponent's blatant statement that it "fails to. .. mix a whole bunch of genres together" is blatantly false. Elements of thriller and horror resound with the violent intentions of many characters (even culminating with people getting shot), mystery (with the obfuscation of Donnie's destiny), romance (with Donnie's beau leading him on), sci-fi and paranormal (with the time-travel theme) and even comedy (with some of the best one-liners I've ever heard: " 'You'll flush Ariel down the garbage disposal. ' 'Damn right, I will. ' " Or "I'll tell you what he said! He told me to forcibly insert the life-line in my ANUS! ") Clue, on the other hand, never feels completely serious: its components of comedy preclude the framework of mystery it resides on. Clearly, Donnie beats out Clue in the genre straddling debate. Contention 3: Originality For a movie's quality to be evaluated, one must consider the freshness of its ideas and their execution. Clue was based on a board game. I ask of you, ladies and gentlemen, how can a movie spun off of a family board game ever hope to match the cinematic genius that is Donnie Darko--a movie based off of nothing but the ever-present precedence of its influences? Truly, Donnie achieves higher pinnacles of creativity than Clue can ever hope to match. In conclusion, Donnie trumps Clue in both the points my opponent brings up and the ideal of creativity.
Resolved: That Donnie Darko is the best movie of its genre

I would like to choose the movie Clue. This is an acceptable movie as it fits in the mystery genre. When I stated that Donnie Darko was Drama, I forgot that drama was too broad. I would like to apologize. Now, my contentions of how Clue is better. Contention One: Suspense Clue leaves you always guessing. In one scene when the cook is found dead, you always think its Professor Plume, since he was the last one in the kitchen. However, it never is. No matter how many times you have seen Clue, it was directed so well that it still gives you the suspense. Now, that may seem like a weak argument, but think about this, a good mystery movie always keeps you guessing, no matter how many times you have seen the movie. Contention two: Mixed genre What Donnie Darko fails to do is mix a whole bunch of genres together. Clue, on the other hand, has Mystery, a hint of thriller, and comedy. For those of you who have seen Clue, then you know how they throw in comedy, in the end. For those of you who have not seen Clue is definitely get that movie and watch it. It is a well rounded movie and is so much better then Donnie Darko. Again, I would like to apologize to my opponent for being too broad with the genre.
Resolved: That Donnie Darko is the best movie of its genre

I cannot start my debate without a contending movie to prove Donnie Darko is better than. I can, however, contest my opponent's choice of genre. My intent in framing this resolution in terms of genre was to determine the best way Donnie Darko can be labeled, considering its often incongruous but nonetheless spectacular elements. The simple designation of Drama, I feel, does not respect this consideration. As you've stated, the movie has elements of Mystery and Sci-fi (among others); in fact, I feel the movie resists any sort of pigeon-holing. Your task is to find a movie that's comparable to it and prove that it's better.
Resolved: That Donnie Darko is the best movie of its genre

I accept your challenge. Thank you. To start the first round, I would like to put Donnie Darko in the Drama genre. I have read the Biography of Donnie Darko. My source is the IMDB website. The IMDB stands for Internet Movie Database. Darko is in Drama, Mystery, and Sci-fi. But the instigator did not specify the genre he would like to debate, so I'm assuming that I get to choose. And I choose Drama. I will allow my opponent to start the debate.
Democracy is better than absolute monarchy

Absolute monarchy is the one of, if not, the oldest form of government. It is also the most evil form of government around. Reason being that in an absolute monarchy, the monarchs doesn't have to answer to anyone but God. Also an absolute monarchy involved the classic notion of claiming to know what's best for the people. In an absolute monarchy, it is also elitist as well. Anyone who disagrees with the religion in a country that has one of these monarchs, gets killed. People who live in this type of countries have to live in terror day and night. Charles I is a good example of absolute monarchy at its worst. It got so bad that the English finally rose up and executed him. And there is no term limit either, which means that the monarch is there for life. Also slavery was very common in absolute monarchies. While America had slavery for a long time, where did they inherit it from? The English who colonized Americas, when it was an absolute monarchy. Denmark and Sweden were also absolute monarchies when they had slavery. In a democracy, there is fairness for all, especially in a republican form of government. People have a say in their government. People are voted, not appointed as in a absolute monarchy. Just look at Saudi Arabia, and ask the people who live there if they're happy with their absolute monarchy, who causes the people who disagree to live in terror day and night.
Democracy is better than absolute monarchy

It depends on what type of democracy, and who is in power in the absolute monarchy. A true democracy works only in a small population that is comfortable with the idea of democracy. An absolute monarchy is better for countries with a larger population. Hence why Athens used true democracy due to its limited and controlled population. Democracy's success depends if the people want it to succeed. The same with a monarchy. For instance when english nobles created the Magna Carta they through out their king and replaced him with. .. . another king. Why? Because people felt a monarchy meant success. The success of a democracy also depends with the intelligence of citizens and their human nature/culture. In an absolute monarchy on the other hand success depends on the compassion and intelligence of a ruler. There are examples of bad monarchies (which i believe will be a tool you will use) like the roman emperor Nero. But lets look at some democracies failure, south Vietnam, Athens, are some of the few States that fell to the unsteadiness of the people. A pro- of Absolute monarchy is that eventually the bad ruler will die. A con- for democracy is that the people will endlessly be stupid if their is no change, no new ideas, and no reasonable votes. Either way corruption with exist we can not forget this factor.
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

Vi for the sake of making your arguments easier to understand I would politely request you type in full sentences rather than extremely cryptic fragments. Now for your claim on "there is no know without physical experience" this is some rather flawed logic here. Humans know many things that we may not have actually experienced ourselves. For instance we know that the Sun is too hot for humans to get near let alone touch. We know these things because of evidence and testing, which brings me to your other claim of "there is no shared knowledge.. i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it". Well from a sort of pragmatic philosophical standpoint all knowledge is shared knowledge simple because one did not come up with it originally. You did not figure out algebra, geometry, or calculus all on your own. No, rather you learned it from someone who had learned it from someone else and so on and so forth. All knowledge would technically be shared knowledge to all those except for the person to originally come up with the idea. You also don't have to imagine what people teach you. so long as it is backed up with empirical evidence. Evidence is the line drawn between what is real and not real, or "true" and "false" as you like to say. Your next claim confused me quite a bit as I had absolutely no idea where this could have even come from. "now=reality loop 1 second or less" is a statement that is not only false but also makes no apparent sense. The present is a concept just as time is. The present is simply a point in time at the time we perceive it. It's hard to really describe what the present is as our brains have a hard time even comprehending such abstract concepts. One way to NOT describe the present is to call it a "reality loop" to say that it is a loop would be to suggest that it infinitely repeats itself. If the present were to infinitely repeat itself and if this loop WERE only 1 second long as you suggest then the world would be something like a much shorter version of the movie Groundhog Day. Nothing would ever change, no new discoveries would be made, no progress would happen. The last sentence is again inherently untrue as I have explained before. "imagination is false" straight out of the gate and you rely on a false premise. Imagination is not inherently false. Imagination is simply ideas that have not been proven yet. If you were back in the ancient ages and imagined that the Earth orbited the Sun you most likely would be considered false. However that example of imagination would be absolutely correct as it was proven later on that the Earth does in fact orbit the Sun.
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

Ok? Well seeing as Vi didn't actual rebut any of my previous arguments I suppose I'll just rebut his again. Well, Vi, you answer is extremely hard to understand as you don't write in full sentences but rather cryptic fragments, but I'll do my best. I'm glad you defined your terms of "know" and "knowledge" however your definitions themselves are very flawed and lacking a greater sense of collective knowledge. "know= physical experience of now" This actually isn't true. To know is simply to realize and understand beyond the shadow of a doubt. As I said before just because I have never experienced being shot does not mean that I know that it doesn't hurt. I know this not through physical experience but through indirect learning and shared knowledge which I'll get to later. See I learn and come to "know" things by using, for example, a doctors knowledge of the body. I know that if I get shot tissues in my body will suffer severe trauma and I will start to bleed profusely. I know that when this happens my pain receptors will start firing off like crazy. I know this not because I have actually been shot but because others have not "now" but in the past and others that are smarter than I have made discoveries because of them. "knowledge=memory of now" This in itself is not possible as you cannot have a memory of what is happening right at that moment. That would be called physical experience and once that passes it would be converted to a memory by your brain. This definition in itself doesn't even hold up "only know is true" This I agree with you, however you are stating that you only know that which you physically experience which simply is not true. Please refer to 2 paragraphs up as I do not wish to be redundant. "belief is false as i have to imagine it, and imagination is false" While I still wonder what you mean by "false" this statement still isn't inherently true. See beliefs aren't necessarily false. Beliefs in themselves are a precursor to knowledge and beliefs, or hypothesis, form and once tested become knowledge. Imagination is false is essentially, in the context you're putting it in, the same thing as saying "belief is false" which is inherently untrue.
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

"false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now" is a sort of vague philosophical statement which can be a bit tough to respond to. The topic brings into question the nature of truth and what defines true and false. True: Something that is known, proven, and explainable by natural means and empirical evidence. Things such as gravity, the speed of light, and our own existence would fall under this category. False: Something that is not true, that is to say anything that is not proven, falsifiable, or able to be explained through natural means. Astrology, psychics, and supernatural beings would fall under this if I understand the instigators topic sentence correctly. Now, knowledge is quite simply that which is known. So by that definition anything that is not known is not knowledge. However there are such things that are called known unknowns, things that we know we do not know (it's gonna get a tad tricky here try to stay with me), there are also things such as unknown knowns, things we think we know but that we do not (however we do not know that we do not know), and finally there are unknown, unknowns, thing's undiscovered that are inconceivable to us. Using this model of knowledge we can argue that knowledge in itself is a human construct as anything that we do not know already is not knowledge, at least until we can talk to animals or meet extraterrestrials. Now this being said now we can actually delve into the instigators topic and discuss. Using the model of knowledge we previously discussed the instigator argues that anything outside of what he has experienced physically up until now is false. This simply does not make any sense whatsoever. See whereas you may have not experienced something yet does not make it "false" or unproven. It only makes it unproven within your limited view of what you have experienced thus far. Even though I as a person have not seen a panda physically does not mean that pandas are "false" or do not exist and are unproven to exist. If I claimed that simply because I haven't seen Guardians of The Galaxy yet then that means that the movie is "false" or not proven to exist, I would be justifiably declared crazy! This argument the instigator has proposed simply does not hold up under basic logical scrutiny.
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

life is physical experience, so there is no know without physical experience as im dead without my senses, i cant know imagination, unless its absolute i can get information from tv, books, online and call it scientific evidence, so accepting information is allowing myself to be programmed, while my experience of now is real and true there is no shared knowledge, you cant share your memories with me, i have to imagine it imagination is false, and now is matter, 0 and 1 concepts are imaginary, not real, like the universe is an imaginary concept. to me a star is a light in the night sky and nothing beyond that, and the earth i know beneath me has no necessary shape only the time of now is true, i am born now, today, as matter only happens now matter is eternal, no beginning and no end, only now, just try make an apple nothing changes can happen in a loop ideas are imaginary, not real, show me 1 i can hold in my hand imagination is a dead nation, there is no life in my imagination, just me and ghosts
September 11 Was a Hoax

Some Responses: >> "I'm afraid here my opponent has set a debate topic that the neg is sure to win (his choice and I took the aff side on my choice) There is no conclusive proof that the US government had anything to do with 9/11." I suppose this counts as a concession of the debate, but I will admit that I had intended the debate to be more about things like the melting point of steel, silly notions of explosive shear in the girders of the TT1 & 2, and the collapse of WTC7... >>"Reports from the Whitehouse blatantly contradicting those from other official government sources. Fingers being pointed." Be as that may, Pro has not fleshed this point out enough to provide a compelling argument... >> "And I think the very fact that the idea is so widely held that our government may have secretly been involved with an attack on it's own people and the horrible crime that was 9/11 is reason to at least inspect this topic closer." Again - the use of the attack after the fact in no way indicates that the government was involved. >> "I have presented a motive, and a plausible story to back it up based on the evidence I have found. I agree with my opponent it is somewhat of a logical leap to say that the government ignoring warnings like they did means they were involved. But I see some points that go beyond the people who are really "conspiracy theorists" and believe that "the government is out to get us"" I believe I've done a sufficient job of debunking the notion that the invasion of Iraq was the result of a hoax about 9-11. The invasion of Iraq's purpose and motives may have had certain aspects of a hoax, but this does not indicate that SEPTEMBER 11 was a hoax. ************************************* Once again, I was hoping for a debate more on the actual events of 9-11-01, but this is provided an interesting topic concerning the war in Iraq and the perceived and realized bureaucratic failures concerning the events of 9-11. I'd like to remind PRO to please forfeit the last round... simply posting something in the field will do fine and get it into the voting period sooner... NEGATED.
September 11 Was a Hoax

I'm afraid here my opponent has set a debate topic that the neg is sure to win (his choice and I took the aff side on my choice) There is no conclusive proof that the US government had anything to do with 9/11. Only whispers and suspicions. It is your opinion whether you decide to believe them or not. I have set forth a motive. I have laid out the plan. As my opponent said I cannot prove that the US government lack of caution and attention to the warnings received was because they were the ones planning the attack. I can only call this to your attention and hope that you will take in all the evidence and it will convince you. I have taken a no win situation here as I cannot "prove" to you that 9/11 was a hoax. I can say however it was extremely messy after 9/11. Reports from the Whitehouse blatantly contradicting those from other official government sources. Fingers being pointed. And I think the very fact that the idea is so widely held that our government may have secretly been involved with an attack on it's own people and the horrible crime that was 9/11 is reason to at least inspect this topic closer. I have presented a motive, and a plausible story to back it up based on the evidence I have found. I agree with my opponent it is somewhat of a logical leap to say that the government ignoring warnings like they did means they were involved. But I see some points that go beyond the people who are really "conspiracy theorists" and believe that "the government is out to get us" It is your choice if you see these and interpret them in this way. I can but produce what evidence I have and await your judgment.
The United States ought to set a solid Age of Consent.

The age at which one is considered a legal adult in the US is 18. What defines a legal adult is the ability to legally work, participate in contracts, vote, marry, give sexual content, and join the military. The state's right to setting the Age of Consent for that state is hereby revoked and is now a decision of the federal government for the entire US. If you're not a legal adult, you shouldn't be able to do adult things. They set an appropriate age for a reason.
The United States ought to set a solid Age of Consent.

Age is an arbitrary and over-simplistic way of determining whether one should have rights. I will use shoe size as an example. One shoe size does not fit everyone of the same age, neither should the law. Laws should be flexible, allowing competent persons to make decisions. The definition of competent is someone who has reached 13 years old and adequate mental capacity to manage their affairs. Before the industrial revolution it was common for people to marry at 13. People were considered adults after puberty. Adolescence was invented in the 20th century as compulsory schooling laws strengthened, marketers targeted that age group and government was interested in controlling that age group.
Evolution is fact

Evolution has been proven in many instances. for example, e coli in a long term experiment were seen to have evolved to a small extent. not to mention Darwin finches (Galapagos finches), which although not directly seen over the course of their adaptation, have been seen on different islands with beaks best suited to their islands food supply. Now I want you to think of a generic caveman. you are most likely thinking of a stupid hairy man waving a stick around, which, although wrong in many ways, is quite similar to the real thing. now think of a caveman from a century or two later, less hairy, more complex tools, maybe some clothes. this is also similar to what happened. as we depended on natural hair less and less we began to lose more and more. Now, I must point out the obvious, there is no proof that creationism is fact. Despite that fact I will restrict this to the topic at hand rather than say there is no god, it must be stated that by many accounts the bible is pure fiction & propaganda. I mean, when you put it all in to perspective you are saying a magic invisible man is controlling the world and building species. but if there was a "great designer" then why would he leave so many imperfections. we have a long tube (effectively) running to be 3 feet long running around our organs when the designer could have just taken a direct route.Objectively our species, as well as all others, are flawed. what designer would do such an odd thing? But despite all that, lets say there is a designer, and he intentionally created those imperfections, then why would that say evolution is false? the fact is that continuing to deny evolution is simply detrimental to our society. As Darwin himself stated "It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change"