BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God awful T.V. characters in U.S. T.V.

Dear Mmichaen.The B.B.T.,G.O.T.,The Walking Dead.I thank you for making this so easy.(I cannot get the last one on British t.v.).In fact I will add 2 more.Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.The Big Bang Theory is one of my favourites but only up to series 6.From then onward the fact that the characters stayed exactly as they had always been began to pall.There is no growth,no lessons learned.They remain the same people with the same flaws as they have always been.The Game of Thrones.I am at a loss to understand why people would commission such a work to be serialised.I have never seen a complete episode of this dross but I have read the first 6 books and was so disgusted that I never read the next one.Mr. Martin is laughing hysterically all the way to the bank.Ned Stark noble? He has the same aims as everyone else.Self Interest.His death was a preview of what was to come.What other author would introduce a pack of Dire Wolves and then kill them off with barely a thought?Did the wife of Ned Stark get shot in the back with 2 arrows,punched,kicked and generally beaten and then have her throat cut.Was she then thrown from the battlements into an icy river?Was she then bought back later in the series with no explanation at all?She was in the book!!!!. I will not bore you with more G.O.T.howlers but will move on.T.W.D.Oh Deary me.Are you aware that 18 months ago there were 80 million legal gun licenses issued in America?The Shot To Pieces ,Non Ambulatory,Definately Dead would be a better title.Why do they use 4" sheath knives insted of machetes.A garden sprayer full of a flammable liquid would have killed dozens of those achingly slow zombies.Breaking Bad.Series 1+2 were excellent but from then onward the writers lost sight of the character.Series 3 episodes 1.2.3 were all about the marriage breakup and from then on W.White was driven by outside forces.The writers forgot the W.W. who set up his own meth lab,who out intimidated a drug boss in his own lair,who was willing to kill but apparently unwilling to use his chemistry aptitude to get rid of his enemies.(If you know any chemist ask them how many ways they could kill people).Better Call Saul.1st series excellent.2nd series should be entitled Better Call Sauls Girlfriend.You talk about "reality," well here you have it.A woman trying to make a success of her career.Oh hang on, wheres Saul?.If you take out the woman but leave in Mike you have barely 2 episodes.Where is Saul the shyster lawyer getting his guilty clients freed?It happens just once in the entire series.This is my point.There is no real plotline in any of the above because the writers would have to inject some sense of reality into the storylines.The problem of course is that when a show gains some popularity it attracts the money men and that is all she wrote.Ugly Betty,Jane the Virgin,2 Broke Girls,Brooklyn 99,The New Normal.Show me the reality in these shows.If you want realism and gritty shows I suggest you watch19-2 which is well acted and about as real as it gets.(Oddly,itis only shown at 2am even though it is a brand new series.
God awful T.V. characters in U.S. T.V.

I thank Con For your arguments which as there has been no set structure I will rebut after setting up my own case that the major characters of American Television are complex and imitate life without copying it. Looking at the top shows in America by views to see what the average American will watch, amongst the top, there are The big bang theory, Game Of Thrones, The walking dead, how to get away with murder. all of which appear before the examples you provided (1) Each of these is quite evident to most that it isn't reality or at least the world we live in but the messages they all convey are ones we can use in real life and the lessons the characters learn are usually those which the show's target audience needs to learn as well. easy example without too many spoilers is Ned Stark who dies at the end of the first season of Game Of Thrones after being the most moral character on the show showing that people can lose it all even though they do their best and do right by others a fact of life that is often hard to grasp by some. Art imitates life you said this in your opening and I fully agree it shows us the good and bad of society as it stands and challenges us to better ourselves to not be like the Geoffrey Lannister's of this world and become a john snow and American .TV does this well giving us characters who often by no fault of their own and have to work themselves into better positions in the world, which is what we are all trying to do. condemning the way in which the current TV shows do that is silly as yes they imitate life but they are hyper real so they display reality through a lens to show us what will both keep us engaged while still being believable. now where you slipped up. You Focused on a niche group of TV shows that were only watched by a specific viewer set for the purpose of entertainment. you by your blatant rhetoric questioning on where is the tension and reality don't like these shows in assuming and would be much better suited to a more "real" line of conveying the same thing. may I offer a home video of my father doing the taxes something which needs I say has far less tension and entertainment than any of the shows you mention but far far more reality. You comment on the lack of plot lines in NCIS but disregard the reason some people watch TV which isn't for Developing and evolving plot lines that you need your full mental capacity to decipher but for the escape to a universe where they can kick back relax and be entertained. So Television provides many different things for many different people you in your argument are saying that it is drivel if it doesn't conform to your structures which nullify an entire section of the audience of television. television has many examples of characters that portray life in a meaningful way to their audience and hence are not Drivel as you would assert. References 1) http://www.indiewire.com...
God awful T.V. characters in U.S. T.V.

Welcome Mmichaen.N.C.I.S (All 3)Chicago P.D.,Blue Bloods,Black Sails,C.S.I.Miami and New York,Chicago Fire,Magicians and Powers.These are just a few examples of the sheer awfulness of the scriptwriting in American T.V. shows.In N.C.I.S. series 12 the characters are exactly the same as they were in the 1st series.So much so that 1 character is wearing the same clothes. As regards Blue Bloods I do not see a morally upright family,just complete control freaks.Speaking of which what on Earth is House?.8 series about a man who is a true grotesque.His drug addiction would make him unemployable in a hospital.He is a sociopathic control freak who believes that ANYONE who comes into his orbit should do only what he demands.The characters in all of the above are risible Where is the tension?Where is the reality?Where are the characters that reflect true life.That you actually care about?Where are the plotlines that are interesting enough to engage us.Do the writers actually believe we find D Nozzo humerous in stead of sad.Do they think that we find those execrable sex scenes more entertaing than than the plot?Where is the humour?Thats easy to answer.It has given way to guilt.Every character seems to have had their Mom,Dad,Brother,Sister,Great Aunty et al killed by some bad guy and ITS ALL THEIR FAULT.(Even when they are in a different country).In the average episode you will get 10mins of plot and 30mins of utter drivel.
Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices

This debate is for the Winter Tournament. Pro should present his or her arguments in Round 1 and leave the last round blank (except to post "no round as agreed"). No new arguments in the final round of argumentation. Selected judges: Raisor, whiteflame, YYW, thett3, FT, bsh1, F-16 The debate will use the "opt-in" voting standards, outlined here. [http://www.debate.org...] "Adolescence" = "the teenage years between 13 and 19 and the transitional stage from childhood to adulthood" "Ought" = "used to indicate moral obligation" "Right" = "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something" "Autonomous" = "having the freedom to act independently" "Medical choices" = "the act of deciding between two possibilities regarding one's medical status/condition, e.g. choosing to give permission for a surgery on oneself"
Gun control is necessary.

This is an open style debate where we use our round to WRITE arguments that support our position. We're not opponents. I do not own a firearm, nor do I plan to own one. People will simply side with their favorite debater. There's no burden of proof unless you've been accused of a crime, in which case I strongly urge you DO NOT accept this debate. This isn't court. I am neither a judge nor a lawyer. Seriously! You get 7000 words to present your arguments and position, that's about 1000 words, probably your slightly above avarage lenght Wikipedia article. You don't have to use all of them, please. Voting period will be 3 days, just case. I've decided to give us up to 24 hours each to write because I like 24, the tv show. What will I be arguing? If it's not obvious by now, my arguments will hopefully be based on a brief analysis of why I don't think gun control is necessary. First round is for acceptence. The second (or first round) is for our arguments. Good day.
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

Alright, I would appreciate it if you would try to counter the points that I have made. "First of all, video games have taken the replacement of outdoor activities. Yes, I do understand that there is physical labor in the playing of video games, but outdoor exercise has a more positive effect. Studies show that fresh air stimulates the brain and increases attention, so you can learn better in class. It also regulates your blood pressure." Actually, it would be more accurate to say that video games tend to replace watching TV more than they do outdoor activities. "Second of all, video games are very addictive. We can't just look at the physical side of video games. Video games also affect our studies in school. I have met many people that are so addicted to video games that they have been doing bad in class, and I'm pretty sure many other have, too. Video games are like drugs: they can, in a way, control your mind." Well, of course video games are addictive, and some people do become obsessed. However, I don't think that this bad side can really weigh down all of the positive things that I have listed. Video games can also be educational, however; I have played Zoombinis, and it has improved my math and logic skills. I've also played The Cluefinders, and some more other random educational video games. "Human beings were not made to be trapped at home and be immersed in games that do not benefit our future in any way. I am an atheist, yes, but I still believe that human beings have a part in the world, and 'video games' are not helping that fact." On the contrary, video games only trap the minds of the weak-minded, which contributed to natural selection in a way. Video games have had many positive effects that cannot be ignored. I am going to introduce a new contention: Contention 4: Video games increase dexterity for those who play them. http://blog.peterkupfer.net... http://discovermagazine.com... Video games have been proven to help surgeons be more accurate in their surgeries. http://www.upi.com... That means that less people have died of surgical errors because of video games. Try telling the people who would otherwise be dead that video games have had a bad impact on society. One more contention, actually: Contention 5: Video games create jobs. http://www.nintendo.com... Thank you for your time.
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

I believe that video games have had a direct negative impact on our society. First of all, video games have taken the replacement of outdoor activities. Yes, I do understand that there is physical labor in the playing of video games, but outdoor exercise has a more positive effect. Studies show that fresh air stimulates the brain and increases attention, so you can learn better in class. It also regulates your blood pressure. Second of all, video games are very addictive. We can't just look at the physical side of video games. Video games also affect our studies in school. I have met many people that are so addicted to video games that they have been doing bad in class, and I'm pretty sure many other have, too. Video games are like drugs: they can, in a way, control your mind. Human beings were not made to be trapped at home and be immersed in games that do not benefit our future in any way. I am an atheist, yes, but I still believe that human beings have a part in the world, and "video games" are not helping that fact.
Video games have had an overall positive impact on society.

I affirm that the existence and introduction of video games to the world was overall a good thing. Video game - an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Contention 1: Video games encourage learning and activity. All video games require you to excersize your mind. Some video games, such as Wii Fit, Wii Sports, and other Wii games require physical activity. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Many video games use math as a key component to its structure, and as such, the people who play them end up better at math than before. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Contention 2: Video games lead to new technology. Video game companies are always looking for new technologies to give themselves a competetive edge in the gaming industry. This technology is then replicated outside of video games. Graphic cards used for video games are used to give more accurate MRI scans, X-rays, and seismic graphs. Contention 3: Video games are used for practical purposes. Many people use video games for physical therapy. (http://www.uspharmd.com...) Computer simulations are used for war training in a less costly, less deadly manner. (http://www.wired.com...) I await my opponent's counters and conentions of his own.
RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists II

I'M TIRED OF STARTING THIS SAME TOPIC AND THEN YET ANOTHER ARSEHOLE FORFEITS. Rules:This will be a three round debate, beginning in round 2. Rounds will be restricted to the following:ROUND 1: Strictly for definitions, rules and acceptance. THERE WILL BE NO ARGUMENTS MADE IN ROUND 1ROUND 2: Pro (me) will provide opening arguments. Con will provide their own arguments/counter arguments and rebuttals. ROUND 3: Pro and Con may introduce new arguments. Pro and Con will continue with counter arguments and rebuttals. ROUND 4: Strictly no new arguments. Pro and Con may make their final rebuttals and conclude their arguments. I accept the burden of proof, though it is up to each of us to reasonably prove our assertions, at the discretion of the voter. Definitions:The word 'logical' obviously pertains to the word 'logic' which for the point is this debate will be defined as[sourced from: . http://dictionary.reference.com......]:1) "The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "3) "The system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. "4) "Reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions. "The word 'God' is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" and "one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs. "This is the God of Monotheistic Abrahamic Religions, though not restricted to it. I'm speaking specifically of an omni-max and personal God, such as Yahweh or Allah, though this debate is not strictly restricted to said Gods. If there is any confusion about exactly what I'm talking about (I'm trying to avoid semantics and vague philosophical arguments and it's quite late), accept this debate, but let us discuss the specifics in the comment section before you post your acceptance. A pre-emptive good luck to my opponent.
RESOLVED: It is more logical to believe that no 'God' exists II

I forfeit this debate. I have been trying to come up with a clever way to get out of the fallacy trap I've put myself into but I can't. I have been trying to work out a good counter-argument to "it is equally logical to believe God does or doesn't exist, but I can't. I've failed.Back to the drawing board.Also, I'm stupid and I only set the debate to 3 rounds.I apologise to my opponent and realise I'm a hypocritical jerk.Full points to him.
Death Penalty

I noticed jp was in a debate with someone over this topic, but his opponent didn't respond. It's been a while since I've done this topic, and now I'd like to revisit it. Thank you in advance for accepting, assuming you do. Anyways, one clarification. I am for the death penalty in extremely specific, and likely hypothetical circumstances. If someone keeps breaking out of prison and killing people, he should be put to death (imagine the Joker as an example). Otherwise I am opposed. Additionally, we must keep our arguments centered around the current form of execution in the US. This debate is not about reform. First Round is for Acceptance. Any questions, ask me in the comments before you accept.
Death Penalty

"Death penalty does waste alot of money and the case of wrongful execution. But these criminals who have murdered others are sick and twisted. "Here my opponent admits that the death penalty kills innocents. He seems to justify this with the idea that some criminals are just really bad. This is not good enough, because killing them allows for the death of innocents. Given that we can just hold these criminals as the alternative, we should just do that. ". .. I think a lethal injection would be a safe way to bring justice to families"I think my opponent is trying to say that lethal injection would be a better method than the electric chair and gas chamber. I don't see how. All require lengthy and expensive judicial processes and all have risk of improper administration, which leads to what is constitutionally defined as cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is illegal. Also, the concept of justice to families. This is derived from the thought that the death of their family member's killer will bring them retribution. First, I'd like to say that this concept will not hold true with all families. Some may not feel any better afterwards. All people are different and react differently. Secondly, what is more important, retribution for a select few, or important funding for the entire state, possibly the police force, to help prevent further crime? Thanks for reading.
Death Penalty

It seems that my opponent's main argument is Charles Manson, and that he is annoying in courtrooms. For the reasons I have already outlined, I think we can all see that the disadvantages of having a Death Penalty in place. All of those reasons should not be overturned for Charles Manson, who is not still killing people or anything, he's just being annoying in courtrooms. If you really don't like Charles Manson, don't dignify him by putting 134 million dollars of attention towards him. Be above Charles Manson.
Death Penalty

One who causes death shall expierence actions taken against them. See, the death penalty should only be used on the worst criminal, such as Charles Manson. These men have torn families apart, and it would be nice to have a solution. The Death penalty is not the solution to everything, but Charles Manson's erratic behavior is quite annoying and he has been imprisoned for over 40 or more years. Charles Manson purposley goes to parole hearings just so he can show how crazy he is, it would be nice to have this problem dissapere.
Israel does not Belong to the Palestinians

I will be arguing that the nation of Israel does in fact not belong to the Palestinians, who discounting Israeli Arabs, largely reside in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Con will be arguing the opposite, that the land of Israel does belong to the Palestinians and that they technically should have rightful ownership of it. Shared BoP. In order to determine who indeed has a stronger claim (Israel or Palestine), a historical basis is required for both of our arguments. Definitions: Belong1. to be owned by, be the property of, be the possession of, be in the ownership of, to be held by.2. to be bound to (a person, place, or club) by ties of affection, dependence,allegiance, or membership. I will also highlight that we are discussing "belonging" in the exclusive sense, in that Palestinians have a full historical connection to the land and that they should have full political sovereignty over it.
Humanity V. Zombies World Outbreak

Once again, a huge thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. I'm glad that we both agree that fast zombies are indeed zombies. Now, to your arguments:Zombies: Can we wait them out?Pro argues that we can. After all, they die within about a month. However, there are a few problems with Pro's argument: His argument requires that a majority or significant amount of earth's population has access to fast-zombie proof shelter. His argument requires fast-zombies not being intelligent enough to find uninfected. His argument requires that the Rage virus will die with the organism it infects. The first problem we see is that in situations of infection, the uninfected are going to have to find adequate shelter. At this point, I'd like to point to the youtube video provided above in which a man, under the influence of PCP, literally punches through a fence. This is from a man who is *not* literally hellbent on infecting you with the rage virus. If we take into account martial artists who are capable of breaking multiple bricks, we find that the idea of common shelters being capable of holding off the infected is inherently flawed.Take, for example, a common home. Most houses have doors, windows, and air vents. Even if you barricade an opening, the sheer strength and resolve of the adrenaline-enforced infected will overcome most if not all such openings. Similarly with gates and walls, it's inexplicable why fast zombies with the ability to pick out short routes and dodge obstacles [1] would be incapable of climbing a fence. Also keep in mind that barbed wire fencing isn't going to do much good, since the infected aren't interested in preserving their body. In situations of high walls, if the infected gather in large enough numbers it's inexplicable why a sort of dog-piling effect wouldn't occur.Dead Infected=End of Virus?Let's suppose that LA goes down, but, the rest of the world hides in their closets until all of the infected die. There are two factors that would still perpetuate the spread of the disease: A) Carriers and B) Infected material.Carriers are people who are immune to the Rage Virus yet still carry it in their blood. These people as survivors of outbreaks will inevitably infect others through contact with bodily fluids.It's also important to realize virus's can live for a long time. The Anthrax virus can live in soil for decades, and sometimes, centuries. [2] If the rage virus lives off of human tissue, why should the virus die as the organism dies? For this reason, people can become infected after the infected have died, thus spawning new epidemics.ConclusionEven if initial outbreaks are quarantined, mechanisms still exist that would allow for the further infection, spread, and total annihilation of the human species. It is entirely more probable that mankind would perish rather then survive. http://www.youtube.com... [1] http://28dayslater.wikia.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...