BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The book is better than the movie

Hello, I will be taking the Con side of this debate, and I'll argue that the book isn't always better than the movie. The media of film demands that stories be compressed and commercialized into a two-hour motion picture, and I will admit, a lot of the time this form of adaptation doesn't work. But occasionally, it's exactly what a story needs. While Pro contends that the book is better than the movie apparently all the time, I will debate that there are several examples of films superior to the books they were adapted from. Examples:The Color Purple (1985)A Clockwork Orange (1971)Carrie (1976)Ben-Hur (1959)The Godfather (1972)Jaws (1975)The original books for these iconic movies are relatively obscure. But the films all had great directors and skilled crews; talented people who saw the big-screen potential for otherwise mediocre novels, and turned them into the excellent movies listed above. I will deliver more information as to why these specific films are superior to their books later on in the debate.
People of different age groups be allowed to date if they truly care about each other.

Refutations: 1. "Like for instance lets say a girl was dating a guy 3 and a half years older then her but as soon as he turns 18 they have to break up. " Yes, of course. If they had intercourse it is legally rape. It doesnt mean they can't see eachother.2. "Yeah I know that it's an adult and a miner but seriously people don't make a 20 yr old and a 50 yr old break up if they are dating, why should people make a 18yr old and a 14 and a half yr old break up. "The 20year old and the 50 year old are both adults. The 18 year old and the 14 year old are legally incompatible. Plus, honestly are any feelings one has as young as 14 really legitimate? Its puppy love at this age. Maybe not for the 18 year old since he can get charged with rape.3. "It's so stupid people should just stay out of it if the two people are happy. People should just let other people be happy together. " If its the parents of the 14 year old you are talking about, then yes they should be concerned. Thanks for this interesting topic.
People of different age groups be allowed to date if they truly care about each other.

People of any age group should be allowed to date, because if they truly care about each other then why should the not be able to be happy with someone. Like for instance lets say a girl was dating a guy 3 and a half years older then her but as soon as he turns 18 they have to break up. Yeah I know that it's an adult and a miner but seriously people don't make a 20 yr old and a 50 yr old break up if they are dating, why should people make a 18yr old and a 14 and a half yr old break up. It's so stupid people should just stay out of it if the two people are happy. People should just let other people be happy together.
Swag is stupid

First of all, let's define the term "stupid" using Merriam-Webster's dictionary: "given to unintelligent decisions or acts" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) The main problem with my opponent's argument is that it does not at all show that swag itself is stupid; it only shows that some of the people who use the word are stupid or that the term has been applied in a stupid manner before. This does not come even close to affirming the resolution "swag is stupid". I will go ahead and present an opening argument of my own, showing that swag itself cannot be "stupid". The presented definition of "stupid" is such that it can only be applied to beings which are capable making decisions and/or acting; a being which is incapable of decision-making or acting cannot be "stupid" because it cannot make 'unintelligent decisions or acts' in the first place. In other words, the term "stupid" can only be applied to sentient beings. Yet swag is an inanimate concept, wholly devoid of sentience, meaning that the term "stupid" cannot be applied to it. The resolution is negated.
Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism

Concluding statement: I feel that under Capitalism it is assumed that everyone is good and philanthropic, while under Socialism it is assumed that everyone is greedy. While both of these are absolute statements, and only Siths deal in absolutes, I think it's important to keep in mind that keeping an eye on everyone is safer than keeping an eye on no one. I would like to thank my opponent for a great debate, as a result of research during this debate I have learned more about economics than I did in my entire life. I will use this new found knowledge to pummel my future opponents into oblivion. I wish Con luck during the voting period.
Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism

I will start by articulating that civilization cannot exist without socialism. (http://www.dailykos.com...#). I highly recommend reading this exhaustive list. There are many aspects of a civilized society that only exist through Socialism. The sheer existence of a unifying government that collects taxes is an aspect of socialism. There are many other aspects of civilization that just can't exist under pure capitalism. For example there is the military. In most countries this is is not privatized, and it should never be. If a single man was able to control and entire military, chaos would ensue. This brings me into my next point. Pure capitalism assumes anarchy. Capitalism is a machine that feels neither compassion nor empathy. The main difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the Socialism works to ensure that nobody can get left behind, and that all are treated equally. Meanwhile Capitalism thrives on some getting ahead while others fall behind. Companies rely on people to be willing to accept low wages so that the company can get ahead and thrive. In summary I argue that socialism is superior to capitalism because A) Capitalism can't sustain an organized government with necessary things such as roads, bridges, and a military. B) Socialism works to ensure that all people are given a fair chance to succeed.
Which economic system is better: Socialism or Capitalism

Thank you very much for challenging me to this debate, I enjoyed it. I view capitalism as a system that will bring the best out of people, and I view socialism as a system that views people as the scourge of the earth, or just blind dumb animals to be hearded in the direction that the few people at the top want it to go. Thanks once again. Peace! I don't think I will win any points for civility ahaha.
atheism=a religion, like an opposing religion

Religion is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural" So by definition, a religion must contain some sort of god or supernatural being that its followers believe in and worship or are in service to in some way Atheism is defined as"a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods" by the same dictionary. Considering atheism is the lack of belief in any god, it's impossible for it to be a religion
Nintendo is dying

I was a nintendo fan all my life and I am sad to say that my faith is starting to be shaken. All nintendo games today are all mario, pokemon(I have nothing wrong with), and old zelda reboots (they recently starting to do this, and im happy with that). Nintendo releases a new mariogame every six months. And the newly released Pikmin 3 is a step up from them raping their most popular franchises. We nee games like super metroid and earthbound back. Or kirby, and even star fox. Nintendo is going to continue to fail if they continue raping their franchises. Demand something fresh and new!
Celebrities need more privacy

Looks like my adversary was kidnapped or something. I suppose this is the part where I say "I extend"? Oh well. Might as well just post a recipe for cookies. "Ingredients Serves: 72 85g best-quality cocoa powder 400g caster sugar 125ml vegetable oil 4 eggs 2 teaspoons vanilla extract 250g plain flour 2 teaspoons baking powder 1/2 teaspoon salt 60g icing sugar Method Prep:20min " Cook:12min " Ready in:32min In a medium bowl, mix together cocoa, caster sugar and vegetable oil. Beat in eggs one at a time, then stir in the vanilla. Combine the flour, baking powder and salt; stir into the cocoa mixture. Cover dough, and chill for at least 4 hours. Preheat oven to 180 C / Gas mark 4. Line baking trays with parchment. Roll dough into 2.5cm balls. Coat each ball in icing sugar before placing onto prepared trays. Bake in preheated oven for 10 to 12 minutes. Let stand on the baking tray for a minute before transferring to wire racks to cool." (1) (1) http://allrecipes.co.uk... But remember, diabetes is a thing now. Nonetheless, what Pro is affirming would logically be ineffective, and would encourage inequality... ...and she did not post a recipe for cookies! Why do celebs need privacy? When they could have cookies?
Celebrities need more privacy

Pro affirms that celebrities deserve more rights of privacy than the average human being. However, to affirm that specific people deserve more rights than others is not equality. To say that they need more rights, would imply that they are greater than everyone else. It is unfair if they had more rights than any other person, only based off what career path they chose. It is known as "human rights" for a reason... They are human - they get as many rights as any other human being. Features such as the paparazzi are known to stalk famous people - they might already be breaching privacy rights by doing this. Nonetheless, if celebrities received more privacy rights, it wouldn't just mean that the entire paparazzi would be eradicated. There is no logical way to deduce that outcome. To conclude, if celebrities received more privacy rights than any other human being it is inequality. Inequality should not be encouraged so the assertion should not be implemented. I have also stated that it would not be effective, nothing would stop the paparazzi from doing what they are doing. Pro's logic is that if they have more rights, stuff like the paparazzi would not happen. The same logic can be applied to murder, just because there are legal laws in effect, and committing the crime would be breaching human rights , does not mean that murder does not occur. Over to you, Pro.
Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," Thats not who we are...."

Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," That's not who we are...." Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," That's not who we are...." every time someone wants to kick America around, I for one American have had my fill of these Hate- America bashers, holier-than- thou, getting before an audience and pounding their chests and pontificating in righteous indignation about evil America. "That's not who we are as Americans, they say but if America is thought by them to be so evil and not who we are, aren't they addressing and attempting to cast shame on a country and its people who are beyond shaming. It would seem to me that these "better-than-thou," people are wasting their efforts in trying to shame America, if America is as bad as they claim America to be. Oh, America did this, shame on America, Oh America did that, Shame, shame on America, "That's not who we are," they shout. As Reverent J. Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, proclaimed from the pulpit, "Not God Bless America, NO,NO, but God Damn America." IT would appear that those who chastise America and never fail to point out some perceived flaw in America's conduct must be disciples of Saul D. Alinsky and are putting into practice what the radical wrote in his "Rules for Radicals" and are busily attempting to embarrass America every time they're given the opportunity to do so. If America is such a bad country, why do so many risk everything, including their very lives to come to America, these immigrants aren't fleeing America to immigrate to Russia or some other communist country, no, they risk everything to come to America, explain that, all those who Hate America, Explain that, if you can!
Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," Thats not who we are...."

The world and its different countries that its composed of have to be perceived as they are, not as we might wish that they were if America is to survive. If, as is the case,we in America allow ourselves to be fooled into believing that every nation, as well as all of America's citizens have only the best intentions towards America we're going to pay a serious price for our naivete in our dealings with them. America has been deceived for too long into believing that its the big sophisticated, most powerful nation on the block and are negotiating with lesser knowledgeable worldly governments and as such we have to be careful that we don't take advantage of their innocence when dealing with them. America, these nations leaders tell our representatives, that America is way too smart to attempt to put anything over on you all the while they are doing America with reckless abandonment laughing behind America back for having bought their hokum so easily. when we are told," That's not who we are, Its the same hokum, only its hokum coming from America's own citizens and like the foreign countries who are deceiving us, they too are laughing behind our backs at how easily we bought into their hokum. You posted, "Another bare assertion. They, I would retort, seem to understand our proud history better than you..." These Americans who go about saying such trite phrases as "That's not who we are, or we're better than that," know, from our past history, that America's leaders are easy, they'll believe anything... games on...
Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," Thats not who we are...."

"When citizens cast their stones at America for not being perfect, , which country, I might ask, would they set as an example that have been paragons of virtuous conduct which America should emulate"America. That’s the benchmark being used in the statement “that’s not who we are” is addressing - our own high standard. The virtue we are using as our model is US."..would it be Germany which under Hitler exterminated thousands of Jews, a country which had the German children spying and turning in their parents, Shouldn't America be more like Russia with its GULAGS…"Why would America be proud of just being better than these examples? The implication is, just so long as American is beating Nazi Germany, or Russia under Stalin, all is well. No, that’s preposterous. The standard for the conduct of our country is higher than that, and when we find mistakes we make, it serves us well to admit them and work to rectify them."These people who fall back on this tired old expression never took the trouble to learn of America's great past history They can't possibly know what America is or isn't, all they know is that they hate America."Another bare assertion. They, I would retort, seem to understand our proud history better than you! Just as bare, and just as personaly beleived.
Aren't we Americans getting a little tired of hearing," Thats not who we are...."

National identity, patriotism, concepts that define our collective culture and attachment to a homeland. These are important to any nation, and I argue that they are of particular importance to a country like America where concepts are our cornerstones rather than race or religion. The term at issue in this debate "That's not who we are..." begs the question, if the subject of the admonishment isn't who we are, then just exactly who are we?Let's start with some examples of where this phrase is getting used. It has been tied to a national political stage connected with the American torture program and with national programs to spying on our own people. When we say this phrase, the implied meaning is, this is not typically or historically how we have behaved, and not how we would like to behave.Examining a part of pros opening argument – "they say but if America is thought by them to be so evil and not who we are, aren't they addressing and attempting to cast shame on a country and its people who are beyond shaming." Shows both the proper intent of the phrase, and part of the problem understanding the reason for using it. Yes, in context, the phrase is meant to shame as well as excuse. It attempts to say, we don’t intend to behave like this in the future, not that we are "beyond shaming".When pro says "IT would appear that those who chastise America and never fail to point out some perceived flaw in America's conduct must be disciples of Saul D. Alinsky and are putting into practice what the radical wrote in his 'Rules for Radicals' and are busily attempting to embarrass America every time they're given the opportunity to do so." It is baseless assertion. Acknowledging national misconduct is a healthy thing. Painting the efforts to understand where we go wrong as a negative is cowardly behavior.Pro is correct that our country is a magnet for immigrants. It is a country with promise, and a desirable place to move to. Pro says – "If America is such a bad country, why do so many risk everything, including their very lives to come to America, these immigrants aren't fleeing America to immigrate to Russia or some other communist country, no, they risk everything to come to America, explain that, all those who Hate America, Explain that, if you can!". There is little really to explain. At least not for someone who thinks that America IS a great place. The only explanation needed is… well, the explanation for why we have made the mistakes we make, and what we will do about it. “That’s not who we are [we will work to make sure we don’t do it again]”Back to pro
should Donald trump become president

He should be able to decide for himself who he wants to sell homes to, and if he doesn't want to sell homes to blacks, let him choose that for himself. He will make America great again in our eyes, but I don't know about yours. And you don't have to like everyone to be president, this is America, where you decide your own thoughts. And even if you do believe that he's a liar, racist, as well as many other things, in all, he will change America for the greater good. He will deport the illegal immigrants, which is good because they should have to come in legally. He will not allow Syrian Refugees to enter the country so that ISIS can't enter at such a fast rate. He will try and make murdering a baby illegal, as well as many other things. So overall, I believe that he ill do more good than harm.
should Donald trump become president

No first of all look at your profile, of course you would agree with Donald Trump because your a racist too. Secondly,this isn't nonsense cause Donald Trump got sued Three times in the 70's refusing to sell homes to blacks, so if he can't sell homes to blacks do you really think I'm going to call him my president ?,no and Donald trump claims he will make " America great Again", how by not liking minorities and being racist ? I think not , oh and don't let me start on how ignorant this man is, he's a liar, a racist,and he's def lacking common sense, and I think you are too so next time you want to argue with me change your profile cause it looks really bad considering that we are arguing about him overall but mainly how he's going to screw up America and how racist he is . Anyway thank you for commenting hope you enjoy your day. :)
Call of Duty is the Best First Person Shooter.

Call of Duty is not the best FPS shooter ever unless you mean best selling or most played. Aside from the fact that what you're instigating is an opinion and will never be a fact, I think it's too simple minded. Guns, guns, and explosions. I truly believe that the only reason COD is such a big hit is because the MW series exploited our patriotism, in collaboration with the war on Middle East so teenagers could pretend to be some sort of American war hero. Also, each succeeding game is pretty much the same as its predecessor. Sure, there are a few tweaks and new toys but every time I've played a COD game since MW1 (WaW,MW2,BO) I felt like I had been playing the same game for years. Don't get me wrong, I thought MW1 and WaW were fun but I don't think the COD series is worth the money being pumped into it. A better game, in my opinion, is Deus Ex because it's more original, encourages more complex thought, and there is always more than one way to complete a task. The COD series is so simple minded, in my opinion. A bullet buffet with a stealth mission or two does not deserve to be called the best ever in my book. At its core, the COD series is an unimaginative attempt suck money out of real life war and is subliminally teaching our impressionable youths to believe that anyone who's not American is a terrorist, in my opinion. That being said, my main point is that your argument is based on an opinion and even if the rest of the world were to agree with you, it will never be true.
Scientific intervention is necessary to dispel false beliefs and unearth buried mysteries

We live in a world which has a vital history which i feel is important for us to know . Speculation is child's play but explaining the events with scientific reasoning is of utmost difficulty. If we didn't know about the wheel, we would have been able to create a car. The history is basically what influences the present.The scientific explanation helps us to use the past knowledge to apply and modify these bits of knowledge into something helpful for the human society
Children have the right to freedom of religion.

I do agree. I am mostly arguing for the 15+ crowd, but if someone told me not to be a Christian, I would peacefully disobey the law. Look, I want everyone to believe as I do, but I don't force the issue, because that is like sharia law from a Christian. I just present the information, and it is between individuals and the Holy Spirit. The First Amendment applies imho to anyone who understands good and evil. I could have chosen Yeshua when I was 5, but it was not my time yet.
Children have the right to freedom of religion.

The question isn't all too specific on what the word "children" means but most people would agree that it means people under 18 years of age. Although it is true that children like you at age 15 might be able exercise this right to religion responsibly, it is important to recognize that not all can do so. However, I do see your point and feel that instead of having a blanketing statement that "children have the right to freedom of religion", there should be a few conditions pre-set. For example, attaining parental approval etc. If there were such conditions in place, even if ones parents/guardians were to disagree with the children's choice of religion, then he/she can change his/her religion after the legal age of 18. Therefore, I agree that children can have a choice of religion although they should not be entirely free to do so.