BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
European films are better than american movies

"European films are better because they have plots more interesting"Opinion. "Of course, american can make great drama movies, but they are often too slow, like a little boring, they have too much explicit violence/sexuality or are not an original story"Opinion"Thomas Vineberg made a movie named "Festen" for the Dogma 95 project and it was a great job"Opinion....Look a large majority of pro's argument is just his own opinion.... Allow me to show evidence for why American films are better then European onesHere is a list of the top grossing movies of all time and where they were produced/edited/written:Avatar: USTitanic: USAvengers: USDeathly Hallows Part 2: USIron Man 3: USDark of the moon: USLOTR Return of the King: USSkyfall: US. Yes the US actually makes the best James Bond films since it is owned and filmed by MGM, an American film companyDark Knight Rises: USPirates of the Caribbean, Dead Mans Chest: USLiterally all of the top movies of all time are American made, The same is true of the top 10, top 25, top 50, and the top 100 too. Even the Da Vinci Code, a thriller that encompasses all of Europe, is actually based off of a book written by AMERICAN author Dan Brown. US movies are so good that US movies of Europe are even better then European films about Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org...Lets look at Academy Award Winners for Best Picture:Argo - AmericanThe Artist - EuropeanThe Kings Speech - EuropeanThe Hurt Licker - AmericanSlumdog Millionaire - EuropeanNo Country for Old Men - AmericanThe Departed - AmericanCrash - AmericanMillion Dollar Baby - AmericanLOTR Return of the King - AmericanChicago - AmericanA Beautiful Mind - AmericanGladiator - Americanhttp://en.wikipedia.org...History literally shows that the best films have always been American, and that only recently have European films gained any competency.... The most critically acclaimed films have almost always been American ones, and the most successful films have almost always been American ones. Therefore European films are most certainly not better then American ones.
European films are better than american movies

This debate pretends to determine which cinema is better: European or American. _____________________________________________________________________ Rules The opponent must prove that american movies are better in four criterias: Round 1: Plots Round 2: People (directors, actors, writers, producers...) Round 3: Language (why english is an advantage) In any round, the opponets can choose to defend their point of view, attack the opponent's preview argument or both. In any round, should be presented, at least, two arguments with two examples concretes by each opponent. _____________________________________________________________________ European films are better because they have plots more interesting. While american movies concentrate in big scenes with great affects, european prefer to get emotional. Thomas Vineberg made a movie named "Festen" for the Dogma 95 project and it was a great job, even if he couldn't edit the pictures and sounds or use the best ilumination (the rules of the project didn't allow it). It was a good film, without any effects and very cheap, who had an superb plot. Other example of the better use of emotion is the comparison of the original/swedish version of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" with the american. While David Fincher (american and one of my all-time favorite directors) chooses to use scenes with great adrenaline, Niels Arden Oplev prefers the drama, which is by far the better option to a movie based on trilogy of books. Of course, american can make great drama movies, but they are often too slow, like a little boring, they have too much explicit violence/sexuality or are not an original story (based on true events, a book, remake), and even then they modify the original story a little bit, so you end getting a false impression about the people they characterize (John Nash in A Beautiful Mind).
YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.

Here we go, final round. Unfortunately, I believe there have been a few mis-communications throughout the debate. I will clear these up during this round. As my opponent is so eager to tell you, I will not make new attacks on his arguments, but re-emphasize my own. Lets begin. An important factor in the debate is the wording of the resolution. To uphold his position, PRO must prove problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs AS WELL AS science. If I can show that just one of these has no problems, then I will have fulfilled my duty. == Religious Problems == I believe this has been addressed by both sides adequately. Please read the previous rounds for more information. This matter can be sealed quickly though. Please realize here that YEC was founded from Christianity/Judaism. The reason that there are no problems is because they are the same thing! Christianity supports YEC. == Problems to science == Even if you want absence of contradiction in religion and science, I can reinforce this point as well. My opponent ignores the extensive list I have provided. He continues to bring up entropy. Although he claims I have poor conduct, I was only stating that I think there was a misunderstanding. THIS STILL SEEMS TO BE AN ISSUE. Here is the definition of entropy from dictionary.com:a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information" My opponent brings up examples such as Adam and Eve being able to digest food. This is completely irrelevant to YEC. As I have stated, YEC SUPPORTS my opponent's "problem," therefore making it an affirmation. There is no contradiction here, and no problems posed. He goes on to challenge the verse I have provided. Go ahead, look at other translations, in fact I encourage you too. All translations should relay the same information. In conclusion, I have reversed all "problems" raised by my opponent. It is rather obvious that there are no religious problems, given that YEC was founded by them. Further, all scientific "problems" raised have been disproved. Thank you for your time and patience. YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science. Negated.
YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.

Thank you for your confidence PRO. This round will be brief, but focused. I look to clear up some of the more vague points. I will present arguments in the next round. ==YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement== Forgive me, but I fail to see how this furthers the claim that YEC is a problem to Judeo-Christian beliefs or science. So a political group wants ID in schools, does that show any problems in ID? Please show why this presents problems. ==Problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs== 1- God in falsified terms Once again, I do not see a real problem here. A man believes the Earth is 6,000 years old. Has this theory ever been proven false? No, and it never will be in the foreseeable future. Were any of us there to watch? I think not. You assume too much when you say these are false claims. Further, doesn't this actually help the negative side? The fact that a Christian believes in a young Earth clearly supports YEC. 2- YEC ignores the history of the Hebrew people and the foundation of scripture. Although my opponent is not extremely clear on what part(s) of the Bible he is referring too, I will assume that he is referencing Genesis, the first book of the Bible? Please clarify this. ==Problems to science== 1- YEC requires scientific ignorance I follow what you are saying here. I will argue this in the next round. After hearing back from my opponent, I will present the wholeness of my arguments as well as my rebuttals in the next round. Until then, I wish him luck. Thanks again for sticking with me. School is now out and I should not miss another round.
YEC arguments pose problems to Judeo-Christian beliefs as well as science.

YEC is a political, cultural, religious movement that places the belief in a Judeo-Christian God in falsifiable terms and supports the position using pseudoscience mixed with selective biblical interpretations as a basis for support. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This article will suffice, as a rough form, with the above statement from me. I define Judeo-Christian belief as a religion, maintaining many sub-groups, supporting the omnipotent God of Abraham as depicted in the writings, and oral histories, of the Hebrews. I will accept other definitions (hence the five rounds). I will be using the NIV of the Holy Bible and some texts by Jewish scholars to support my position, in respect to Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scientific texts I use will vary depending on my opponent's points of contention. Stipulations: 1) I am not arguing the existence of the God of Abraham, or any supernatural being, just that the YEC position poses problems in reference to a belief in the God of Abraham and the understanding of science. 2) The importance of a belief in the God of Abraham as opposed to an understanding of science is not the topic of this debate. 3) InfraRedEd and Sadolite, please do not accept, as I have debated both of you and wish to face a different opponent. 4) I understand that I am biting off more than I can chew. I am allowing 5 rounds due to definition arguments and stipulations from my opponent. My opponent can simply accept, leave the argument blank, and I will start the pro position in full in the second round allowing for 4 full rounds of debate.
Something

From your same source-- adverb adverb: please 1. used in polite requests or questions. "please address letters to the Editor" synonyms:if you please, if you wouldn't mind, if you would be so good; More used to add urgency and emotion to a request. "please, please come home!" used to agree politely to a request. ""May I ring you at home?" "Please do."" used in polite or emphatic acceptance of an offer. ""Would you like a drink?" "Yes, please."" used to ask someone to stop doing something of which the speaker disapproves. "Rita, please"people are looking" used to express incredulity or irritation. "Oh please, is that meant to be a serious argument?"
Something

You said please do not accept without my permission Definition Please - take only one's own wishes into consideration in deciding how to act or proceed. That is from a reliable source in case you are wondering and I'll provide it at the end. Since the definition states that I should take it into consideration and I did and I decided that I should accept. If you didn't want anybody to accept you really should have been more specific. I will leave this round without arguments to ensure that my opponent and I have an equal number of rounds. https://www.google.co.uk...
Something

Please do not accept without permission. Write a topic in the comments and your preferred position. Inspiration: I can, if the world be forgot in the vastness of space, and if the legend of our voids in our hearts be true, and if the market man does be greedy with our money, spending it unwisely and wastefully throwing it away; through the sadness and joyous moods spreading in our dear planet earth; with a desire that burns like fire, melting the whole of the ice of doubt, without any inconsistency with my persistence along with perspiration, nothing which without much of those virtues that were uphold and will be uphold throughout the age, as contributed to within our classes that teach us our morals and beliefs that influence our decision and ultimately our life, and which will never be belonging to which of those that are not forever set in stone and hardly ever reaching our paragons of philosophy—yet furthermore lest be our souls be blessed or in the worst case be doomed to die, nevermore shall humankind inspire, any more than monkeys will evolve to overtake our form, any more than a drunk man drinks the drops of what causes him to lose his sobriety, any more than the Egyptians’ incredible Sphinx which outsmarted all except the mighty Oedipus, and finally our weaknesses that are spun out and stressed upon on Fate’s needle-and-thread, piercing through our bodies, without any doubt, so let us be like a team that works, churning out products similar to the factory of time and space itself, all four dimensions crossing and turning, perpendicular to each other and paradoxically, simultaneously parallel, which are altogether strong and shielded with no turn away from those which taunt us and entice us to move differently, and hunt down that of which haunts the malice in our souls and, being the captain on the ship that stays even when it sinks, being the ferocious lion that claws down against even hundreds of prey, being the long mop that wipes off any big stain, never lose hope, never draw short, and never lie down; those who go without following our footsteps being cowardly, running in fear, in selfish vain, so as God's will be punished accordingly; and so let the rest become one with my body, so that as one, accomplish anything!
Awesome debate!!!

I understand your feelings completely. I recently joined an MMORPG. Unfortunately, i was careless enough to show my "slightly" obsessive friend. He eventually surpassed me in strategy and time played. This has happened to me quite a lot. (Of course, this situation is opposite the of the exact context of yours, it's the same concept.) Even more recently, I stopped playing the online game because there were even more obsessive people than my friend who were basically taking over the entire game/system.
Awesome debate!!!

May it be fun for both of us! I feel a relatively large amount of hatred for particular members of my contemporary student body, as they have elected to play a certain exclusive game and yet neglected to include both me and my beautiful beloved girlfriend. This game, Assassins, is supposed to be as large as possible to maximize the potential earnings of the winner. However, the hideously unattractive wench who organized the aforementioned game felt that it was her unalienable right to contort the true meaning of this game into a joyless menagerie of exclusion. My anger is compounded by a major douche-lord who called the police on me for trespassing a few days ago. Such anger therefore leaks from my pores into special collection bags that I have soldered to my skin. I have been selling this secretion under the label "liquid LSD" at my school for the past couple days. My profits are enormous. Good luck to my opponent, I hope that you understand the topic as well as I do. :)
Awesome debate!!!

hmmmm... i remember that I had to salvage the broken soul fragmentsof my friend because he had a World of Warcraft obsession. Presently, however, said friend spends his time playing risk with his band friends and drinking alone. I remember last time I picked him up, with my girlfriend and he friend in the car. He just jumped in the backseat with fake dreadlocks on, and proclaimed, "YO I'M DRUNK AS HELL!" as he pulled out bottles of homemade liquor. Seeing as how I had a bong, weed, and a small bag of ketamine on me, it's not like I was mad about having alcohol in my car. It was merely the principle of the matter. However, a nice night of hookah, schnapps, and weed assuaged my annoyance. This "debate" has degenerated into a 2-member complaint forum lol
Abortion should be legal.

I am sorry that I forgot to say in round 2 that I am trying abortion as murder. I proved that it is murder because it ceases a life's existence. Lets provide a definition for kill. To be a cause of the death of a person,animal, or living thing. So let us put the example of Steve Jobs. His dad wanted an abortion, but the his mother did not do it. If she did it, we would not have iPhones. If she aborted the child this would have caused a death of a person. It is reality. My opponent cannot argue with that. Rape Argument-My opponent poses the statement that proposes the end of a child before his brain develops because his life will not have hope. Are we going to let him be the supreme judge of what people's lives are going to be like. If we let my opponent judge the Jobs family, my opponent would have said let jobs be aborted because we might not know what would happen to him under the system. Africa Argument-I never made the claim that your argument implied killing people in Africa. My argument simply stated that if you use the argument(the child is not going to have a good life), I simply mentioned that there are tons of people in Aftica who are living terrible lives and instead of moving to a better solution like charity we would instead go by the argument that if someone does not live a good life, we should kill him to save him from his misery.
Abortion should be legal.

Before I start my round, I would like to clarify something: This debate is not over the morality of aborting a baby, but rather over the legality. I would also like to say that I did not mean to imply you were a Christian, but rather an if. Now that we have that dine, let's move on to the actual debate. I would first like to argue the rebuttal to the rape argument. I think it would be better to abort than to let them live a life without hope. I am not saying this is true for all rape cases: only some. What if they were to live in suffering all their life because of some disease that would shorten their lifespan drastically. I'm no medical expert, but couldn't something like HIV/AIDS be genetically transferred? 2. The Africa argument. First of all, I was a little offended by that (then again, I'm not exactly "thick-skinned"). I don't want to kill everyone starving in Africa. First, that's cruel. Second, it's just plain implausible. Dropping a nuke on 240 million people is just impossible, if not unethical. 2a. I also would like to say that by gaining of consciousness I meant before formation of the mind. I'm pretty sure that African's brains are formed. 2b. Since Roe vs. Wade, the number of abortions order year is 1,120,775 per year, rendering a total of 56,662,169, substantially less than starving Africans (or people) Thank you.
Abortion should be legal.

Sorry for the late response. 1.My opponent has admitted the reality of abortion being the killing of the child. My opponent has also admitted he has moral problems with. Well that is the heart of the debate. Morality. You are aborting a life that will not be able to live. If I was aborted I would not be here. If my opponent was aborted he would not be here. If the pro-choice crowd were aborted they would not be here. That is reality. 2. What if she was raped? I'd agree to an abortion only if she was going to die. Let me give a story of Steve Jobs's parents. They both were going to have child. They thought they couldn't take care of it. They gave it up for adoption. Jf they aborted the child than we would not have the iPhone. 3. Kill baby before conscience begins- For the people that have been bought by the downplay of absolute death of a child before conscience begins, than all I can say is this 1.Africa- According to world hunger.org, 239 million Africans are starving. We should go and kill them if they are unconscious. That is the logic you would bought by. 4. Animal argument- I am an atheist so the Christian argument does not value any importance to me. Animals can do it. They are not human. If they want to naturally murder their own offspring, they can do it. But, humans are different. We don't eat food off the ground. Conclusion-As I say to all my right wing friends I think every prochoicer means good. I am interested in hearing my opponents defence
Abortion should be legal.

Hello Ariesx. I would first like to put out my stance on abortion. While I do believe that, after a certain time, abortion is a killing of a baby, and I have moral problems with that, I also believe in a woman's right to an abortion. First, who said the woman or the man wanted the child. Perhaps she was raped. Perhaps she was drunk. Perhaps a condom broke. In any of following cases, she could simply take an emergency contraception pill (aka morning after pill) and only kill the zygote, which won't necessarily become a baby. After all, according to pro-lifers own numbers, 2 zygotes of 100 women on birth control will die, compared to 6 out of 100 women's not on birth control. Source: http://www.patheos.com... 2. Killing a baby BEFORE its gaining of consciousness could be better than letting it live. For example, if it is apparent that the baby has a serious (and incurable) heart disease that will kill it within hours of its birth, why do we let it live? So it can die a painful death? 3. Some animals, such as geladas (a horrifying monkey species) have built in abortion systems. There is something known as a Bruce Effect observed in geladas. The Bruce Effect is when a new male takes over a gelada tribe, femalea bearing the old alpha's children will abort. Voluntarily. Now, I am not saying you are a theist (note the space and use of a not an), but if you are a theist and Christian, God wouldn't have created aborting animals if He didn't like abortion. If you were to analyze it non-theistically, why would abortion be so wrong if other species abort naturally, but it is WRONG for HUMANS to abort? Sources: http://io9.com... Thank you and good luck.
Abortion should be legal.

Hello to my opponent. I would like to set some ground rules and regulations for this debat, then explain my stance. I DO NOT want this to be a debat about the MORALITY of abortion, but rather, whether it should be legal in the US. I am fine with morality used as an argument, but not as a debate topoc. Beyond that, sources are not the primarily most important thing, but should be used, nevertheless, and also NO BASHING (ie you are pro-choice, you moraless b@$!ard!). This round is for acceptance of the debate. Definitions pro-choice: the mindset that a woman has the right to abortion. This does not mean a pro-choicer thinks abortion is moral, just that a woman has the right to one. pro-life: The mindset that abortion should be illegal. abortion: The act of aborting a baby VOLUNTARILY. Not a miscarriage. Thank you
Las Vegas is a better city then Chicago

Let me start of by saying that Las Vegas there are also many crimes that happened on the past few years. Ever heard of Tupac Shakur, the most famous and talented rapper in the world, well he got shot in Vegas. You may read about it, on this site ( . http://www.franksreelreviews.com...). Another reason why Chicago has more crimes then Vegas is since Chicago is the 3rth most populated city in the whole US and Vegas is the ranked 30. Chicago has approximately 2,695,598 people , while Las Vegas has 583,756 (. http://www.nlc.org...). Lets be honest, if Las Vegas had that many people, there might be allot of crime. There are also lots of casinos and bras there in Las Vegas, more then Chicago, so that may cause lots of people ending up drunk which will lead them to do some crazy things. Las Vegas might have a better weather then Chicago, but you just know that Chicago has a very powerful economy. Chicago is part and is the largest of the three Great Lake cities. The other two are Detroit and Toronto, from Canada. In fact, lots of people from other cities in the North America come to Chicago to get a better job. Chicago also always had a good history of trades . http://en.wikipedia.org.... If you are a fan of sports, you will like Chicago allot since in Chicago there are many teams in different sports such as the NBA Chicago Bulls, the NHL Chicago Blackhawks, the NFL Chicago Bears, the MLB Chicago White Sox and Cubs, and many more (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I cant really name any sport teams from Las Vegas. So that ends round one.
Las Vegas is a better city then Chicago

Imagine you are in a pool on a nice hot sunny day and then it was all gone in a blink of an eye. Now you are in a frozen pool and it is snowing hard. Las Vegas is a way better city than Chicago.The weather is really cold in Chicago and it is really hot in las Vegas. The crime in Chicago is 8 out of 100 and in las Vegas there crime is 18 out of 100. The total crimes in Chicago is 146,834 and in las Vegas it is 21,735. There for las Vegas it better.I got this information from http://www.neighborhoodscout.com... andhttp://www.neighborhoodscout.com...