BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fantasy is Better than Science Fiction

My opponent first claims that fantasy can be more imaginative and creative. Let us examine this. First it is necessary to define what each genre encompasses. ========== Definitions ========== D1: Fantasy: a genre of imaginative fiction involving magic and adventure. (1) D2: Science Fiction: fiction based on imagined future worlds portraying scientific or technological changes. (2) (1) http://www.askoxford.com... (2) http://www.askoxford.com... I have one amendment to make to the definition of Science Fiction before we go on. Rather than being required to be set in the future, it just requires a futuristic setting. This is obvious if we look at Star Wars, which is definitely Science Fiction, but is set "A long, long time ago." Speaking of Star Wars, it is also Fantasy, at least if we count Jedi powers as a brand of magic. Not that that's a very relevant point, so let's move on. Just based on the definitions, both Genres seem as restrictive. Therefore, I cannot agree that fantasy "is more flexible, so it can be more imaginative and creative," as my opponent claims. I ask my opponent to show why or how Fantasy is more flexible if she wishes for this point to remain valid. My opponent also argues that Fantasy takes the reader on a further, more fun trip. I have to disagree. I will agree that the trip is generally further - since magic is a lot further from reality than scientific or technological advances. However, this only works to distance the readers from the story, and works against the kind of immersion that really makes a story enjoyable. That'll be it for round 1. Hopefully this will be a good debate, thanks for the interesting topic.
Fantasy is Better than Science Fiction

Sci-fi does not have to be set in a high-tech society. For example, one could go through an interdimensional gate, be abducted by aliens to a low tech world, find some strange technology in ancient ruins, etc. These are just a few of the ways Scifi is not setting-restrictive. My opponent argues that Sci-fi is not any more believable than Fantasy. However, let us look at words she herself typed: "FANTASY is more immersing because it breaks the bonds of real-life, carrying you further from this world than that which is closely related to it." Fantasy does indeed break the bonds of real life. This only makes it harder for us to feel immersed in the story. Stories should indeed carry us away from real life, but in the sense of the action and adventure, not by employing concepts that are far-fetched. There is absolutely nothing inherent in Fantasy that makes it better than science fiction. The existence of magic as a possible plot device is no point here, since A> something can be in both Genres, and B> Sci-fi alone gives the ability for magic-like abilities [see CON R2, this point was dropped by PRO]. Fantasy and Sci-fi both employ the imagination, just in different ways. Fantasy takes the easy route; rather than explaining why something ridiculous is able to happen [Sci-Fi], Fantasy just says "It's magic!" My opponent also says that Fantasy does not require magic. Look at the point D1, in CON R1, and see otherwise. This definition was never argued, and no other definition was put forth. Fantasy and Sci-fi are jsut two ways to tell the same type of story. One requires one thing, one requires another. And magic probably alienates people more from the story than futuristic technology. The important point of a story is the emotion conveyed through the characters, the change in the characters, what we learn from these characters. Just as some people might like the use of magic in a story, others like the use of technology. Neither Sci-Fi nor fantasy are likely superior, thus I negate the resolution. Thanks for the debate.
Fantasy is Better than Science Fiction

In 'The One', I do admit that it includes other Universes- but it isn't set in one. That is the point I was trying to get across. Your claim that Sci Fi is more believable than Fantasy is laughable. Do they provide any explanation in most Sci Fi publications for the, ahem, Fantastic technology? Not so, in many cases. In both genres, the reader must employ suspension of disbelief. And while even you concede that Sci Fi must be futuristic, Fantasy is not nearly as confined by magic as you make it out to be. Vampire books only contain it in the slightest, as well as many mythical tales of other creatures. Some fantasy occurs in other worlds, but has no magic at all. Even if it does contain magic, though, it can be explained in many cases. One of my favorites, the Young Wizard series (you should read it) contains very detailed reasons as to why the magic works- indeed, sometimes the magic in that story malfunctions in ways. And while this is, really, a mater of opinion, I still hold with my side. FANTASY is more immersing because it breaks the bonds of real-life, carrying you further from this world than that which is closely related to it. Fantasy and Sci Fi are branches of the same tree- Fantasy, though, stretches further- Employing the imagination, carrying us far away from mundane thoughts, and enfolding us in worlds far beyond our own. Thanks for debating.
Fantasy is Better than Science Fiction

You have, in your argument, only aided me in mine. You have said that Science Fiction must be placed in a futuristic setting, but not necessarily in the future. Science Fiction must also be placed in this universe or world, with scientific laws in place. Contrary to this rigid format, Fantasy may be placed in our world, our universe, other worlds, other universes, or all of them together, interacting. It may include futuristic technology, or be placed in a medieval period. It can be placed in a completely different society, or be a modern tale with magic included. It can be contemporary, a classic, a fake history... with Fantasy, the sky isn't even the limit, and we are taken on tremendously varied trips along with the stories. They are particularly enjoyable as well because they can indulge our wildest dreams and make us think in ways otherwise thought impossible.
The bible is not against Womens rights:

My opponent doesn't know how to debate apparently, because LITERALY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT SHE MADE in this last round I already adressed each round for 4 consecutive rounds and she still has ignored LITERALY EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I MADE! If my opponent would like to begin another debate, and respond to my arguments rather than ignoring them I would be more than happy to participate. But unfortunately, that is not the case with her, and just to demonstrate this, I will show for example Exodus 21:7, which my opponent cites every round, in round 2 I responded to it, and shew how it was a mistranslation and it actualy says that a female slave shall go free after 7 years just as the male slaves would, she ignores this and continues LYING. Another example is Judges 19, my opponent claims in round 1 that it advocates for rape, while I responded to this, and it really was simple, it was never advocated for, it was rcorded, and the men responsiblew were slaughtered according to G-d';s command in Judges 20. There are many more examples that I could bring up, but my oponent wouldn't respond to them anyway, so I'm only going to post my google doc for round 2 and my opponent can respond to that for the first time in the whole debate: https://docs.google.com...
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

Hello everyone, thanks for reading this far! To refer back to the most conventional understanding of how we define continental boundaries: man-made diversions and canals are generally not accepted on their own accord as continent-defining boundaries. PRO himself applies this line of thinking himself when stating: "But there are land bridges (natural land bridges with soil, not concrete bridges or anything) which connect both sides, therefore North America remains one continent. " This statement implies that man-made bridges shouldn't count, yet PRO suggests that man-made canals should. This line of thinking also suggests that if I drove a truck down to the Panama canal and dumped a few hundred pounds of dirt at it's shallowest, we would become a single continent. Pro states: ". .. if the panama and suez canals were land and not water, then I could say that the land connection is too small to be considered a land connection. " To which I would agree. This would mean that the Isthmus of Panama and Suez (which are 61 and 75 kilometers wide at their narrowest) would be water, and the canals which are only meters wide at their widest would be land. PRO also states: "Therefore a water body (even if small) is possible in this non ideal world. " However, wishes to discount the Parting of Waters on the basis of being too small. In Conclusion If the most common standards apply, man-made canals wouldn't be considered in continental boundaries. Giving us 4 continents. If PRO's standards apply, than ANY divide of land, man-made or no, regardless of how deep, should be considered a legitimate divide. Giving us 7 continents.
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

Before we get started on anything else, Con's change of his stance must be addressed. Con has conceded that Greenland is not a continent whilst Antartica is. While this does not violate the rule I have set (as con pointed out) since he still argues for a 4 continent world, readers should keep in mind that this concession still undermines con's credibility. Just something I wanted to put out there. Panama and Suez CanalsNow Con's arguments for his 4 continent world lay on the premise that the Panama and Suez canals must not be counted as a water border since they are too small to be considered continental borders:A small canal or river would not merit the descriptive "expanse" like oceans and seas do and the landmasses of America and Afro-Eurasia have no noticeable distinction of separation from these canals other than sheer technicality. Well I could turn the argument around and say that if the panama and suez canals were land and not water, then I could say that the land connection is too small to be considered a land connection (which would mean that my 6 continent world is correct), therefore we must consider this argument invalid. Con defines continent as: "large, continuous, distinct masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water"I take issue with the world ideally, this means that ideally large water expanses are needed. But we do not live in an ideal world, not everthing necessarily is ideal. Therefore a water body (even if small) is possible in this non ideal world. Therefore the Panama and Suez canal do seperate Africa from Eurasia and the Americas into north and south. Parting of watersCon argues that there is a conection between the pacific and atlantic oceans in the Eastern united states which means that North America is split into 2. I would like to congratulate Con for bringing this up, I never knew about this. But there are land bridges (natural land bridges with soil, not concrete bridges or anything) which connect both sides, therefore North America remains one continent. [1]Besides, a tiny creek is nothing like the Panama and Suez canals. There is soil literally a few centimeters if not milimeters below the water level (less than an inch). ConclusionPanama and Suez canals must be considered dividers since they are as big as the would be land connection between North/South America and Africa/Eurasia. A creek that is less than a centimeter (0.01meter) deep is uncomparable to the panama and suez canals which are 12.5 meters[2] and 24 meters [3]respectively. Also, there are land bridges[1]. Therefore, under reasonable defenitions of the word continent, there are 6 on this planet - North America, South America, Eurasia, Africa, Australia and Antartica. Sources:[1] . http://lh3.ggpht.com...;[2] . http://www.infoplease.com...[3] . http://www.eoearth.org...
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

The Suez and Panama Canals PRO suggests that because there are small man-made canals in Panama and Egypt, technically the continents in question are divided. I subscribe to the most conventional understanding that man-made diversions and canals are generally not accepted on their own accord as continent-defining boundaries. The Isthmus' of Panama and Suez should not be discounted due to the man-made canals that reside within them. I offered the most common definition of continents as "large, continuous, distinct masses of land, ideally separated by expanses of water" A small canal or river would not merit the descriptive "expanse" like oceans and seas do and the landmasses of America and Afro-Eurasia have no noticeable distinction of separation from these canals other than sheer technicality. And by conventional standards, this still wouldn't apply, being discounted for being man-made. If we ARE forced to operate by sheer technicality and shallow, narrow, canals apply to PRO's division of continents, than so must shallow, narrow rivers. A single river specifically. The Parting of the Waters http://www.nature.nps.gov... The "Parting of Waters" runs from the Pacific and Atlantic and separates the north western and southeastern United States. If we are to follow the same principle PRO applies to canals, this river MUST divide PRO's North American continent into two parts, making his world seven continents large as opposed to six. I would not count this little known river, nor would I count the canals as divisive. This river creates no discernible separation of the United States, and even by the most liberal description would not be considered "expansive" as we would consider the oceans or seas. Under PRO's line of thinking, the US must be divided in two by this body of water, creating an extra North American continent, leaving 7 total. Greenland and Iceland As I am operating by size and separation alone, I must reconsider Eastern Antarctica as a continent, and demote Greenland back to the largest non-continental island on Earth. I have not violated the conditions of the debate, as I still maintain only 4 continents exist: The Americas, Afro-Eurasia, Australia, and Antarctica (amended) And I wish to continue. While under most circumstances this shift wouldn't be appropriate, the malleability of our definitions of islands, continents, and boundaries of each allow for it, as well as a final round to counter this concept fairly. Thanks for reading, and I now give the floor back to PRO.
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

Greenland:Greenland has an area of 2,128,970.23 sq km (rounded to 2 million square kilometers). Interestingly Con said that "Greenland is the largest, non continental island on the planet". In doing so, con has said that Greenland is not a continent. But I assume con meant to say that in the context of a 7 continent view of the world and basically argues that Greenland is large enough to be a continent, so do not read that argument as a concession on the part of con.Antartica: Seeing the picture of the so called 'Antartic archipelago' that con provided, it can be seen that the largest landmass is about 1/2 the size of what we call today as antartica, lets even say 1/3 for the most conservative lowest estimate.What we call Antartica today is about 14 million square kilometers[1]The largest landmass is about 1/3 the size of antartica meaning that this 'island' is about 4.6666 million square kilometers at its lowest estimate. This means that this landmass is MORE than twice as big as greenland and MORE than 1/2 the size of Australia.Therefore Antartica remains a continent (albeit it is much smaller), whereas greenland does not necessarily have to be a continent since Antartica is more than twice as big as greenland.Americas and Afro Eurasia:I do not understand how North and South America are conected, same with Eurasia and Africa.There are the Panama and Suez canals that seperate these continents, if a land bridge existed then how could these 2 canals send large container ships through them? The answer is that there is no land bridge[2][3], which enables the ships to go through (international trade greatly impacted by this). If there is no land bridge, then they are not part of the same continent. Which brings us back to my 6 continent view of the world. Over to con.Sources:(check my 2nd and 3rd sources if you really want to find a land bridge across the canals)[1] http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com...[2] http://www.worldatlas.com...[3] http://4.bp.blogspot.com...
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

With this in mind, let's begin our breakdown 1. The Americas North and South America are connected by the Isthmus of Darien, those reading more likely recognize this strip of land as the Isthmus of Panama. This strip of land connects both North and South America, and by definition, make them a single continent. 2. Australia The island is typically considered by all to be it's own continent. The 2,900,000 square mile landmass filled with everything everything deadly. 3. Greenland Greenland is the largest, non continental island on the planet and nearly a third the size of Australia at 822,000 square miles. . http://islands.unep.ch... It is certainly a large landmass, and as an island, separated by water the same way Australia is. 4. Afro Eurasia The monster continent of Afro Eurasia. Europe and Asia are most obviously connected, with the Ural Mountains serving as a natural boundary between the two. Regardless, they are a single continent by a VERY large connection of land. Africa is connected to Asia via the Isthmus of Suez, a 75 mile wide strip of land lying between the Mediterranean and Red Sea located in the country of Egypt. . http://www.britannica.com... 5. Antarctica This is in no way an attack on PRO's position in my opening round, but I imagine many might be wondering why I didn't include Antarctica: Although many consider Antarctica to be a continent, under all the ice, it's actually an archipelago. . http://drjah.files.wordpress.com... We don't consider the Philippines or Indonesia as a continent, so it seems silly to consider Antarctica a continent due to a layer of ice. After all, we wouldn't consider an island of ice in the Arctic Rim a continent, or even a landmass! With all this in mind, we should consider the Americas, Greenland, Australia, and Afro Eurasia continents. Making a total of 4. Thanks for reading, and I give the floor back to PRO.
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

Con accidentally said that I am arguing about 7 continents rather than 6 (read comments for clarification). I want to make it very clear that I am arguing that the Earth has exactly 6 continents.The 6 continents are listed below:1) Antartica2) Australia3) North America4) South America5) Africa6) EurasiaThe reason why I have merged Europe and Asia together into one continent is because Europe and Asia have a land conection and therefore are part of the same landmass. My defenition of Continent is - A large area of land (landmass). It is a pretty reasonable defenition to work with.Since Europe and Asia have a land connection (A huge one I must say), they must be part of the same landmass i.e. Eurasia.The other 5 continents share no land connection with any other continent and therefore cannot be merged with another (Africa is seperated from Eurasia due to the Suez Canal and the Americas are seperated by the Panama canal).With that, I hand the debate to Con.
Planet Earth has 6 continents.

BoP is on me to show that planet Earth has six continents.There shall be no strict defenition on the word continent since this is likely to be what determines the number of continents in the world and the defenition is likely to be primary issue that will be addressed and debated. Rules Con must either leave the First Round or Last round Blank so as to keep the number of rounds equal.Con must say the number of continents that planet earth has and must argue that number only. For example, Con cannot argue that there are 3 continents but then later argue for a 7 continent world. The same rule applies to Pro. I can only argue that the Earth has six continents.Failiure to adhere to these rules will lead to forfeiture of debate.
Conversion Therapy is Wrong

Instead, It's meant to be a discussion on whether or not conversion therapy is right or wrong, Arguing on a medical and/or moral front. My opponent has failed to satisfy this question as he has instead elected to discuss the completely irrelevant topic of whether or not the procedure should be legal. Unlike what my opponent claims, I have not agreed to change the topic of debate, And the rebuttals I have made in the third round were made simply for the sake of debate. My opponent also claims "My opponent. . . Is arguing for an arbitrary law that bans all therapy conducted on those under 18, " which is completely untrue. As I have laid out in my thesis statement in the second round, My objective has been to "convince my readers and hopefully even my opponent that homosexuality is not a choice and that conversion therapy is flawed, Not only showing little of what it deems as 'success, ' but also by how it damages its subjects to the point of inducing suicidal thoughts and actions. "As this debate comes to a conclusion, I want to remind everyone that this isn't an issue of conversion therapy's legality, But whether or not it is a moral and medically proven institution. Therefore, The burden of proof falls on both mine and my opponent's shoulders: myself to prove why conversion therapy is wrong, And my opponent to prove why it is right. I have argued against conversion therapy on the grounds that 1. Homosexuality is completely normal and is not some sort of behavioral trait that can be reversed despite what conversion therapy preaches, 2. Conversion therapy's practices are dangerous and put the patient into harm both mentally and physically, With procedures like aversion and electroshock therapy, And 3. The very few "successes" tend to lead a life of celibacy, And most if not all tend to keep same-sex attractions, Even if the aversion therapy they underwent associates this attraction with fear and pain. I have cited several credible sources, From a handful of scientific studies to even the words of the former leader of EXODUS International, Alan Chambers, Who underwent conversion therapy himself and personally claimed that the therapy is both dangerous and unsuccessful. Alternatively, My opponent claims that homosexuals are "disadvantaged inextricably" because same-sex couples cannot reproduce (despite there being alternative methods to having a child such as adoption), And that to make conversion therapy illegal would completely deny the LGBT community the "liberty" to willingly undergo what I have proven to be a dangerous and fruitless therapy because of a completely fanciful idea of a nonexistant therapy in the future that could miraculously make a homosexual straight. Not once does my opponent attempt to satisfy the topic of debate: the medical validity and morality of conversion therapy. With the irrelevant points he does make, He fails to substantiate them with any statistics or credible sources, Making his argument completely unreliable and built purely on personal bias and opinion.