BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
musicals are better than normal movies

That's probably because those action movies were not made to be musicals. I'm not saying that normal movies are bad. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer musicals over non musicals. If say frozen was turned into a non musical, it would be boring. Any musical turned into a normal movie would be boring. If les miserables was turned into a non musical, it would be terrible. The music in musicals enhances the scene, not takes away from it. It's like when in some movies the theme music is playing in the background, it enhances the scene. I think that the music in musicals portrays a message that can't be given in spoken word. You can't replace a good song in a musical. I mean, why do you think everybody wants to go to Broadway a one point in their lives? Is it because they want to see a violent action movie? No! They want to see the best kind of play. (A musical obviously)
musicals are better than normal movies

That is my point. There are some scenes that need to be ugly and gut wrenching. With a musical it glosses over that aspect. In most cases I have seen the musical aspect takes away from the plot greatly. Also as I said it makes it all less serious. If someone tried to make a musical out of great movies like Fight Club or Pulp Fiction you wouldn't be able to take all of the darker aspects as serious as you would if it were not a musical.
musicals are better than normal movies

I disagree with that statement. I think musicals can enhance the scene rather than take away from it. For example, in les miserables, when Fantine sings I dreamed a dream, so much passion goes into that song that she makes the something terrible that happened to her and twists it into something beautiful and emotional. Sure you can say that non-musicals can make you emotional, but can they make something ugly into something beautiful?
Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

Pro said a lot of things. I just want to make it clear what this debate is about. The ResolutionAtheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot. This is the resolution. I in no way have to provide irrefutable evidence to show Jesus is worthy of worship. How the resolution is worded, me and my opponent share the BOP. I have to substantiate the worship of Jesus better then he substantiates atheism. DefinitionAccording to my opponent's definition of the word substantiate and the resolution, he must provide more evidence to support Atheism then I give to support Christianity. Unerlying QuestionMy opponent asks for 2 things to be considered when judging arguments.1. Which side is more justifiable using historical evidence.2. Which is most probably correct when philosophical and rational analysis is taken into account? I accept my opponents terms and understand them in the way I have described. My ArgumentsMy opponent has given a brief description of what he will try to do. I will do the same. I will be leaning heavily on historical evidence of Jesus's existence and divinity. I will do my best to provide more actual evidence for my side then my opponent can use for his. I will also do my best to discredit any philosophical arguments he attempts to use. Good luck to my opponent.
Atheism (Disbelief) can be Substantiated, Where The Worship of Jesus Christ Cannot.

Second Round: ArgumentsThird Round: Rebuttals. Definition: Substantiated: "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of. "they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations"synonyms: prove, give proof of, show to be true, give substance to, support, uphold, back up, bear out, justify, vindicate, validate, corroborate, verify, authenticate, confirm, endorse, give credence to, lend weight to, establish, demonstrate; From Google. "To substantiate is to give support to a claim. We’d really like to believe in the Tooth Fairy; however, more evidence is needed to substantiate her existence (besides that quarter in your pocket). " From Vocabulary. com. In other words: The Topic is about verification/justification of the substance within the belief or disbelief. Underlying Question: Does Atheism or Disbelief in God have more justification for it's position than belief in the 1st century prophet/messiah/God, Jesus Christ. This is to be taken on proper Historical and Rational considerations, such as:1: Which is more justifiable using Historical Evidence.2: Which is most probably Correct when philosophical and rational analysis is taken into account. My case will be for the Justification of Disbelief. In simple terms it means that I cannot possibly believe strongly in what cannot be verified to my physical senses and empirical rational analysis. To believe in something so strongly that I actually worship it, there must be some very amazing, irrefutable evidence substantiating it as worthy of worship. This is why most Atheists are Atheists, because they have never found enough evidence to make them believe Jesus/God is worthy of their worship. Most Atheists require Substantiation for what they believe in, failing that, they prefer to simply disbelieve. Problem for Con is that in order for Jesus Christ (God) to be worthy of worship, they must be able to provide some pretty amazing irrefutable evidence that Jesus is indeed worthy of worship. Tough ask! So I don't expect many takers!
RESOLUTION: "Atheists do not have a basis for their logic and reasoning"

Almost nothing in your response was on topic and certainly nothing which directly rebuts any of the points I made. Just because you format your answer in such a way does not mean what you wrote ACTUALLY rebuts what I wrote. And, again, even if your god were real and DID author the laws of logic... that does not mean he would be exempt from them: That would be equivalent to a politician claiming immunity from a law because they just so happened to be the one who wrote it. It is irrelevant. If you're going to say that god is in an abyss where no logic applies.... by definition, he is in a place that is not real, just like Superman or Bilbo Baggins. Again, logic is the baseline requirements for "reality". Your god does not transcend logic, he FAILS to be logical. //"no, it does not. This is a complete lie. The god is not retreating to an alternate reality, God is in an abyss that is neither real nor unreal. "// Definitely sounds like abandoning reality in order to escape my argument, to me!
RESOLUTION: "Atheists do not have a basis for their logic and reasoning"

//"The concept that there is something can be 'objectively true' is assumed, by atheists, to be axiomatic. This assumption has has no basis at all."// Incorrect. The fact that objective truth exists is based upon the assumption that reality has inherent properties , an assumption made by atheist and theist alike. //"Even if truth itself is axiomatic, logic and reasoning presume that words, constructed by fallible animals, specifically humans, can determine truth from lie."// If truth ("that which reflects reality") is axiomatic ("self evidently true") then I don't understand your objection here. Words are symbols which indicate particular concepts, sometimes these concepts are tied down to orientations of matter found in reality. //"When atheists use arguments like 'could god create a square circle?' what they forget is that these shapes, and the visualisation of them are all based on the logic and reasoning that a god may have created."// It is irrelevent whether or not the fundamental nature of reality (as described by the laws of logic) was authored by a god. An ultimate authority, by definition, does not appeal to anything else. If even the god who you believe created the universe would have to appeal to the laws of logic in order to create something real, then the laws of logic are the ultimate authority, not the creator, and somebody who does not believe in that creator would still have that ultimate authority available to them. //"Thus, god can create a square circle if he/she/it rewrote the code of logic and physical laws of our universe whilst keeping the terms 'square' and 'circle' in tact that alternate reality."// The fact that, in order to get around the laws of logic, you believe your god would have to either: A) unravel the fabric of reality; or B) retreat to an alternate reality, proves the sub-point I made above -- that you actually agree with my characterization of THIS reality.
RESOLUTION: "Atheists do not have a basis for their logic and reasoning"

This is what both Con and I believe in: Atheists have a basis for their beliefs.This is what only Con believes: Atheists have a basis for their logic and reasoning.The concept that there is something can be 'objectively true' is assumed, by atheists, to be axiomatic. This assumption has has no basis at all. Even if truth itself is axiomatic, logic and reasoning presume that words, constructed by fallible animals, specifically humans, can determine truth from lie (when both the concept of truth and of a lie were invented by humans too).When atheists use arguments like 'could god create a square circle?' what they forget is that these shapes, and the visualisation of them are all based on the logic and reasoning that a god may have created. Thus, god can create a square circle if he/she/it rewrote the code of logic and physical laws of our universe whilst keeping the terms 'square' and 'circle' in tact that alternate reality.When they ask for physical proof of god, they are assuming that the five senses and anything we presume to be the limitation of physical proof at present are the only kinds. Whilst it is true that we have neither sight, sound, smell, taste nor touch of a god, there can still be a god, or multiple gods. It is absolutely possible and we must not use our limitations of comprehending the physical world to assume that no such entity exists. We must also remember that it is this gods, or these gods, that invented the laws and concept of physics and a physical plane of existence to begin with. Thus, they/he/she/it transcend(s) it.I await my opponent's response.Relevant sourceProof that truth is axiomatic - http://plato.stanford.edu...Relevant Definitions to the ResolutionBasis - justification for or reasoning behind something.Atheist - a person who disbelieves the existence of God or godsLogic - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validityReasoning - the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. Relevant Definitions to this Round's Pro-side DebateAxiomatic - self-evident or unquestionable.Objective Truth - a conclusion reached by one or more human being(s) that is considered to not be dependent on the mind or on an individual’s perception for its existence.Proof - evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statementPhysical - relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind.(lowercase) 'god' - A limitless entity, responsible for the the origin of physical reality.Fallible - capable of making mistakes or being wrong.
RESOLUTION: "Atheists do not have a basis for their logic and reasoning"

I will be arguing AGAINST the notion that one can not account for their use of logic and their claims of knowledge without appealing to a god of some kind. If you subscribe to presuppositional apologetics, please accept my challenge. { ARGUMENT } The basis for logic is the assumption that reality itself has inherent properties. In the same sense that the laws of physics are not prescriptions but DESCRIPTIONS of how our universe functions, the Laws of Logic -- The Law of Non-Contradiction, The Law of Identity and The Law of Excluded Middle -- do not prescribe but DESCRIBE the inherent properties of reality. "IF YOU AREN'T ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since I am essentially arguing that the laws of logic provide the lower threshold, the bare-minimum requirements for "reality". (You can not use them to determine ALL of what is real but when something violates these laws you can know that it is NOT real) Since knowledge is often defined as "justified, true belief", and justified means "based upon sensory input", and true means "comports with reality". Knowledge is really defined as "Logically reached conclusions based upon empirically verified premises". Since one's senses are inherently fallible, the "justified" part always carries with it an inherent level of uncertainty. Therefore, one necessary trademark of knowledge is uncertainty. Absolute certainty PRECLUDES knowledge. All one needs to be justified in their use of logic and reason is access to reality. COULD GOD CREATE A SQUARE CIRCLE? --------------------------------------------------------- It is typically stated by presuppositionalists that in order to have a basis for our reasoning, we need an ultimate authority: a god to give us our sound footing. However, upon closer inspection, this so-called ultimate authority is revealed to be not-so-ultimate. When asked the question, "Could God create a square circle (or some other such violation of the laws of logic)?", the theist is forced to choose between: YES: Admitting that their God does not provide a sound footing and joining the atheist in what they have already claimed to be absurdity, or NO: Admitting that -- given our definition of knowledge -- their God is indistinguishable from a God who does not exist AND that they believe in a god who makes the same assumption regarding the fundamental nature of reality that atheists do. It is so important to them that they continue to disagree with atheists that they have resorted to believing a God who is an atheist in order to continue doing so. QED.
World Peace Could Possibly Be Achieved

Currently, our world we live in is one of the most peaceful times in the history of our existence. For years in Feudal Europe, lords constantly fought each other for more control over land. Soon after the dark ages, many countries in Europe saw themselves as rivals put against each other. The Napoleonic Wars, The Thirties years war, The Hundred years war are just a few of their major conflicts they had together. Well, now in our Modern Age, we have very few conflicts CURRENTLY going on now compared to other times in history. Also many countries' industries are powered by other countries' resources. Risking a war between major powers would be disastrous, thus making war much less inevitable. A bunch of the conflicts are listed on this Wikipedia page. I'm a lazy person and Wikipedia was the easiest source to find https://en.wikipedia.org...
World Peace Could Possibly Be Achieved

So (as we all know) humanity has now filled the earth with conflicts, arguments, wars etc. and there have been so many lives lost to all this violence in history. And due to this, there is a big question that stands: Will world peace ever possibly be achieved? In this debate I shall be arguing that world peace is impossible to achieve whereas my opponent will be arguing that world peace can be achieved. (It is up to my opponent if I will go first or if they go first.
Xenotransplantation

The other issue of Xenotransplantation is the ethics of pigs. A lot of people would say that animals are not here to be used by humans. There is the issue of animal rights and the breeding of animals simply for human use and medical benefit. Xenotransplantation goal is to use the least amount of pigs for humans. Instead Xenotransplantation is killing one animal to serve one human. Basically the pigs are nothing more than spare parts for humans. This is ethically unacceptable for pigs, it puts them in a completely different category from any other living animal. The problem of little organ donors is supply and demand. Normal donors would work and would be much safer. We just need more people to donate their organs Do you think pigs have any rights?
Abortion Is A Choice Not A Right

"In my statement, i was not declaring that abortion is not a right. By stating that it is a choice makes it a right does it not?" Well, my dear friend, the confines of this debate are held by the resolution, which states it. So no matter if you say it or not, it remains. No, it doesn't make it a right. I have the choice to go into the kitchen, take a knife, and slash my grandmother (I would never do this) into tiny pieces and eat them with the chili she made me for dinner. Just because I may choose to do this doesn't make it a right. "However in my statement, i was merely trying to state the fact that if a woman wants to have an abortion, even if one is not medically needed, it should still be her choice." Indeed, it is, and will be, her choice to have one. However, the government sanctions this as a right, and a choice. People can choose to do anything, but the term "Right" makes this a legal debate, and it is legal to have an abortion. This makes it BOTH choice and a right. "The fact that the government is trying to make all abortions illegal is wrong. It should not be up to a government or a society to decide what is right or wrong for one single person." With the first sentence, the government isn't trying to illegalize abortion (at least, not that I'm aware of), so I'm not sure where you get that point. Even if they are, that doesn't neccisarilly make it wrong if you can't prove that it is wrong. That statment is one of opinion, and holds no ground in this debate. The second sentence implies that you support anarchy. For if we did not have a government or society to decide right or wrong, I could kill my grandmother and not recieve punishment. "Abortion should always remain a personal choice and that is what i mean when i say abortion is a choice not a right." Abortion is a personal choice and always will be. However, it is CURRENTLY a right. Thus, this debate, in my belief, I have won. I understand well what you mean, that the government should not inhibit the mother's desire for abortion if it is legal/illegal. However, the resolution (which you should have worded slightly better if you wanted that type of debate), states that abortion is not a right, which, as I've proven, it is. (Thank you for the compliement, Pro, and I appreciate it. Perhaps you can challange me to the one I believe you ment: "Abortions of mother's should not be illegalized by government.")
Abortion Is A Choice Not A Right

In my statement, i was not declaring that abortion is not a right. By stating that it is a choice makes it a right does it not? It is true that the goverment does a play a large part in abortions and this is what makes them legal or illegal. You make very good points. However in my statement, i was merely trying to state the fact that if a woman wants to have an abortion, even if one is not medically needed, it should still be her choice. The fact that the government is trying to make all abortions illegal is wrong. It should not be up to a government or a society to decide what is right or wrong for one single person. Abortion should always remain a personal choice and that is what i mean when i say abortion is a choice not a right. Your case was very well presented. Well done and thank you for this debate
Abortion Is A Choice Not A Right

Abortion is a personal choice and should not be limited by any person or any government. It is the personal choice of the mother; it's not a decision for anyone else to decide. Sometimes abortions are medically needed. There are many women who are not able to give birth to a child in a healthy or safe way and those certain kinds of situations may call for aborting the pregnancy. Laws against abortion also violate a woman's right to choice and right to privacy. Only the woman who is pregnant knows whether or not she is able enough to have and properly care for the child. Illegal abortion forces women who want to abide by the law to have a child even if they are not capable of doing so. No government can have a role in influencing a woman's decision in any way.
Gun Rights in the USA

To begin with, I never said that tighter gun control won't lower mass shooting, only that it won't stop them. I'm sure gun control has worked pristinely in other countries, I don't think it will work in a culture that is embedded with the right to bear arms, as stated in the U.S. Constitution. People don't want to let their culture be dismantled by fear. While you may be right that gun control may lower gun violence, the biggest factor in gun violence is suicide. As Garrett Jennings said in his article, Why Common Sense Gun Reform Fails, on Huffpost.com, "Discussions of gun violence are often centered on homicide but in reality the leading cause of gun death, according to the Center for Disease Control, is death by suicide." He also said that, "Although I believe requiring background checks for purchasing items designed to kill with great efficiency is common sense," which I agree with, he went on to say, "it should be understood that passing universal background check legislation will NOT decrease gun violence to the levels seen across European countries and other advanced nations." I'm not too sure how a mandatory waiting would change gun violence, other than that it will only happen later. Gun control may lower mass killings, but it will never end them. If somebody want to commit a mass killing and there is a gun, they use a gun. If there is no gun, they will find the next best thing, a vehicle, a knife, or even explosives.
Gun Rights in the USA

Gun control is an important and divisive issue and I hope we can discuss it reasonably and intelligently. I stand in contradiction to the belief that gun control is ineffective at reducing mass shootings. There are countless examples of gun control being enacted effectively by numerous countries around the world. What is often referred to as "common sense" gun reform such as a mandatory waiting period,universal background checks and bump stock bans have been to be very effective at reducing gun violence.
Gun Rights in the USA

Firstly I want to note that your claim about Australia's gun culture is completely unsubstantiated. I would like to submit an image from an Atlantic article that shows the size of the gun protests in Australia. Again your opening statement did not say (as you seem to believe) that gun control won't stop mass shootings. You actually said " People think gun control will help stop mass shootings" you said help stop mass shootings. "Help stop" does not imply totally eliminate as you seem to think, it implies that gun control will in NO way contribute to stopping mass shootings. Since I have proven that gun control reduces the odds of mass shootings I will address this point as conceded. You say "Any crazy person with a strong enough motive, and the will find a way to level a building." While, yes terrorists do blow up buildings sometimes, guns are by far the more effective method of killing. To respond to Mark Perry, police presence also increased at the same time as gun ownership rose. This also occurred during a period of relative prosperity, so one would expect the crime rates to decrease. I don't think all guns need to be banned. I just think that it's completely unnecessary for anyone to posses a semiautomatic weapon to defend themselves. Britain's handgun ban failed because it was unenforceable. It was quite easy to keep your guns if you had criminal intent. Australia's ban was effective because it was more moderate. It eliminated semi-automatic weapons as well as added new restrictions on who could own guns. This was effective because it was enforceable. Finally the states with the least restrictive gun laws also are the states with the highest violent crime rates. Louisiana, the state with the least restrictive gun laws is also the state with the 6th highest violent crime rate. In the end, the numerous school shootings and gun massacres serve as obvious evidence that America's gun obsession has to be dealt with. This senseless killings has to be curbed. Guns are a serious danger to society. In order to end the cycle of gun violence I urge a con vote. Image https://images.duckduckgo.com... https://www.deseretnews.com...