BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Movies based on Books should follow the plot line completely.

PRO's position is that movies based on books should follow the same plot line as the books on which they are based. I will be taking the position that there should be no requirement. PRO's arguments are that not doing so is unfair to the author and that this is what the fans want. I will address these two assertions and then make my own case. Is it Fair to the Author? Right off the bat, this assertion is absurd as authors are paid by the producers [1]. If you don't want to take the chance that your work will be adapted by the producers and directors, don't take the deal. Also, authors are often consulted when adapting their book to the screen [2]. How can it be unfair if they have input on how the material is transitioned to the different artistic medium? What the Fans Want I would like to thank PRO for instigating this debate. PRO's position is that movies based on books should follow the same plot line as the books on which they are based. I will be taking the position that there should be no requirement. PRO's arguments are that not doing so is unfair to the author and that this is what the fans want. I will address these two assertions and then make my own case. Is it Fair to the Author? Right off the bat, this assertion is absurd as authors are paid by the producers [1]. If you don't want to take the chance that your work will be adapted by the producers and directors, don't take the deal. Also, authors are often consulted when adapting their book to the screen [2]. How can it be unfair if they have input on how the material is transitioned to the different artistic medium? What the Fans Want PRO also makes the case that since the fans want the movies to stay true to the books, this is what should be done. Who cares what the fans want? Producers are in business to make money, and if changing the story a bit will bring in more money, then they are doing their job. Also, PRO is ignoring the numerous times movies turned out better than the books on which they were based [3]. That the fans want it, does not mean it should be so. Movies are Art Like painting, music, and writing, film-making is an art form. PRO suggests that we stifle the creativity of the artist by forcing them to express another artist's vision. This is an absurd suggestion. Aside from the fact that many things that occur in books do not work on the big screen (such as narration and discussions about a character's feelings), tying the hands of film-makers would prevent them from actually practicing their craft which would stunt them as artists. , and hurt film-making as a whole. Conclusion PRO's assertion that film-makers should be required to follow their script material religiously is absurd. I have shown why fairness to the author and what the fans want are not arguments that lead to requiring this to be, and I have also explained that since film-making is an art form, doing so would be harmful to the medium. I look forward to PRO's comments in the next round. References: [1] . https://savvybookwriters.wordpress.com... [2] . http://www.seacoastonline.com... [3] . http://www.gamesradar.com...
Movies based on Books should follow the plot line completely.

Movies which were based on books, such as Percy Jackson, should follow the plot line completely, otherwise it should not be called the same title. By "movies based on books," I mean a movie made after the book is published and has the same title. The movie should follow the plot line because that is what the book fans are looking for, and it is unfair to the author if the plot is changed. He or she spent all that time writing the book only for the entire plot to be changed in the movie is just plain unfair.
Women don't need men

Hello, Do you think any of these 'methods' are natural? These ways of reproduction go against the way of nature and the way that every species has done. You and your demonish methods go against God in every way. God made it that way, and you dirty (most likely black) scum think that you can defy His ways? I didn't even know black people could use computers, as their average IQ is a 3.2 The other hand is that your a woman. Why aren't you in the kitchen? Women these days should be beat by their husbands more often, that is one of the few things that I agree with the suicide bombing mooslims with. Otherwise you are a feminist and you should just make bread out of your vag yeast. Arnold Benjaman
Women don't need men

Women can actually reproduce without males. This process involves an artificial sperm to trick an egg into forming an embryo. All babies born this way will be female, so the world will not have or have need of males, since most of the wars, battles, or major conflicts that were ever started were because of men. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... There is also another way; using bone marrow to create a female offspring. https://science.slashdot.org...
Is the New Iphone 5 really revolutionary

Primarily, I would like to agree with the definition of revolutionary. Revolutionary does indeed involve a complete dramatic change. This debate does not doubt that the Iphone 5 is probably the best smart phone on the market at the moment but rather that apple have failed to produce the expected innovative product, which they have failed to produce. There is no doubt that yet again the product is superbly built, however with the Iphone 4S there was the introduction of Siri, with the Iphone 3g, 3g was introduced for the first time, revolutionising the smartphone you and I know. These are quite substantional revolutionary steps into the future of electronics. Rival companies like Samsung, Lg and Nokia, will be able to sleep at night. If you want one more example of a revolutionary item, is the original Iphone itself, it changed the smartphone of this generation. What my opposition has failed to realise is that these 3 new specs to the iphone 5 are slight improvements on the old iphone, this is what we expected. The Iphone 5 still failed to make the world say wow. http://www.forbes.com...
Is the New Iphone 5 really revolutionary

My opponent has not actually defined revolutionary which is a key word in today's discussion. I define revolutionary as "involving or causing a complete or dramatic change". Now, I will be arguing how the iPhone 5 is really revolutionary. Now, my opponent's argument is that there were only four changes that he believes are not special. He talks about the A6 chip, the changing of the software which is available for iPhone 4S, the phone being taller, and the 18% thinner phone. Now, I would like to say that my opponent has no sources and only to his opinion does he believe that Apple releases revolutionary products. Now, I will be explaining the newest changes. There are several changes instead of only 4. A) The New Design. The phone is 18% thinner, 20% lighter, and 12% less overall volume. The iPhone 5 is also slighty taller/longer than the iPhone 4S. It is also entirely made out of glass and aluminum. This new design is revolutionary because it is the thinnest and lightest iPhone ever made. It went through a complete and dramatic change which is the very definition of revolutionary. B) The New Screen and Display. The smartphone features a extra four-inch screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio. It also has total resolution of 1136 x 640 pixels. This has allowed a 5th row of app icons on the screen. Not only that, but the touch sensors have had an entire layer removed allowing touch input to be much sharper and more responsive in this screen. The screen color's saturation is 44% greater than iPhone 4S. The screen and display is revolutionary because it is an absolute new change to the iPhone 5. C) The A6 Chip. The A6 chip achieves twice the iPhone 4S's CPU and graphics performance and is 22% smaller than the A5 chip. It has better "low light" performance and is 40% faster than the A5 chip. The front camera has a higher resolution at 1.2 megapixels. Its battery (the rechargeable lithium-ion polymer battery) , is rated at 225 hours of standby time, 40 hours of music, 10 hours of video, and nearly 8 hours of talk time before requiring a charge. The operating memory was doubled and the phone takes a nano-SIM which is smaller than all predecessors. This is revolutionary because it is twice as good as before in all areas and is very special. These are three sections of updates and I have not even talked about wireless connections, the actual software change, and the new Lightning Connector. All of these are revolutionary updates as I've proven and your arguments are full of biased opinion without facts. Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://www.ign.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.autoomobile.com... [5] http://www.iol.co.za... [6] http://www.engadget.com... [7] http://www.macobserver.com... [8] http://www.engadget.com... [9] http://touchscreen-mobile.com...
Is the New Iphone 5 really revolutionary

So about a week ago, Apple released a new Iphone, known as the Iphone 5. Apple has always been known for releasing revolutionary products, however i would argue that that they havent lived up to their reputation with this new installment of the Iphone. The only adjustments which they have made include the changing of the software, which available for Iphone 4S, and also the addition of A6 chip, which isn't all that special. This is the only mildly decent addition. Other than these two changes, there has only been the change which made the phone taller, and making it 18% thinner.
Is the New Iphone 5 really revolutionary

Conceded Arguments: 1) The new design of iPhone 5 being revolutionary. 2) The new screen and display of iPhone 5 being revolutionary. 3) The A6 chip for the iPhone 5 being revolutionary. 4) That my opponent lied about the updates being only his listed updates. 5) That the iPhone 5 is probably the best smart phone in the world. My opponent agrees with my definition of revolutionary. However, he states that "Apple has failed to produce the expected innovative product. " My opponent does not give any commentary on what expectations were for the iPhone 5 and who expected it. Also we are not arguing on that issue. We are arguing on whether it was revolutionary. My opponent admits a high probability of it being the best smart phone in the world. He also concedes that it is superbly built. He also states three examples of revolutionary changes which are the iPhone, the iPhone 3G, and the iPhone 4S. However, this does not change the fact that the iPhone 5 undergoed a dramatic change which means that it is revolutionary. These are not three changes/improvements. These are three different sections of changes/improvements. My opponent states that the iPhone 5 failed to make the world say "Wow" but he has no evidence or data to back that up nor does he state why it is not revolutionary. He does have one sources but fails to talk about that source's information. In the end, I ask for your vote on 1) Sources. (My sources compared to his were on a 9:1 ratio) 2) Arguments. 3) Spelling & Grammar (Capitalization, punctuation, etc. )
Transgender Bathroom Rights

This perverts sympathizer is as full of emotions as any spoils brat, but still ignores reality. There is no biological evidence that says there are more than two genders and it is the mentally ill that want society to base law on mental illness and not reality. And since the mentally ill do not have the right to use my property contrary to my consent and since the rights to property, assembly and contract are real and this "right" is imaginary, the pervert sympathizer loses the debate. And since the public owns the bathrooms in question, the public decides this issue and the sexual perverts lose the debate. The pervert sympathizer loses the debate because she has not proven her case or shown why real rights do not exist. I win.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

My opponent insists that there are only 2 genders, which completely ignores both the sociological and scientific (biological) evidence I provided to the contrary which explains variations in both gender and biological sex. Please extend.Con claims that trans people don't have the "right" to use the bathroom. Even if we accepted this to be true (which the audience should not), the resolution states that trans people SHOULD be able to use the bathroom of their choice - not necessarily that they have the right to do so. However trans people should have this right in public bathrooms, which is the R1 stipulation. Private business owners may discriminate, but public (non-private) institutions that are funded by tax payers - some of them trans - ought to consider the moral and legal implications of bathroom politics.Con repeatedly calls trans people "perverted" and "delusional" which is not only bad conduct, but obnoxiously ignorant.Con should lose conduct points for calling me a "pervert sympathizer." It's sad when someone resorts to name-calling because they have no intelligent argument to make whatsoever. Con also makes an irrelevant comment about clothing in the last round. This debate is about bathroom politics. The audience should disregard all of my opponent's childish and anti-intellectual commentary. ConclusionMy hateful, fearful opponent hasn't explained why trans people - with proven discrimination and violence against them (especially when it comes to bathroom politics) should be subject to laws that put them in danger. He also hasn't proven that trans people using the bathroom of their choice causes any harm at all. On the other hand, I have explained why trans people fear for their safety and are often attacked over bathroom politics. By letting them choose their bathroom, it doesn't put anyone in danger (studies show) while protecting them from danger, and also respecting their integrity. There is no good reason to force them to be humiliated and subject to great danger, just because it makes ignorant and close-minded people uncomfortable.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

Actually, the fact that there are only two genders is the only issue, for it exposes the sexual pervert and their sympathizers are rebelling against reality, making any claim to have a right to do so a laughable joke. Indeed, his delusions do not and should not influence law. And this dude still has run from the other only relevant point that his notion of "rights", being inaginary, must deny real rights. Sorry, no, your view is not only deluded but unconstitutional. No, gender is not a social construct save in the minds of the mentally ill. It is a very simple biological reality. You are either make by biology or female by biology. The existence of some genetic abnormalities do not change this fact. Indeed. We use genetic defects as a basis for discrimination all of the time. Try getting a person with Down syndrome a driver's license. To deny biology is to be mentally ill. No, the science community does not deny that gender confusion is a mental illness, at least not the objective scientific community. The fact is that this type of deluded individual does not have rights to use my bathroom as he or she pleases. Indeed, this pervert sympathizer has not even made a case for the existence of such and has only demonstrated he does not know what rights are. Only a mentally ill person would deny that you choose what clothes to wear. And here we see the real agenda of the sexual perverts: they want to escape personal accountability for their chooses. They want to do wrong without conseqncdc. It is the philosophy of the emotionally immature, spoind-brat child. It should not made law. Until this pervert sympathizer can explain to my why my real rights to property, assembly and contract should be overridden by his imaginary rights, he loses the debate.
Transgender Bathroom Rights

My opponent claims that it is an "indisputable fact" that there are only two genders: male and female. 1. This is irrelevant to the resolution 2. It is wrong which I've explained in the last round Please extend my arguments on the difference between sex and gender. Con has dropped them. Since gender is a social construct, it is fluid with many variations. Some argue that there are up to 63 ways to identify one's gender [1] "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between and from masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity" [2]. My opponent has dropped my points on the state of being intersex as well. Nevertheless, EVEN IF one was mentally ill (in identifying as other than cis male or cis female) it doesn't prove that trans bathroom rights should not exist, as I've argued in the last round. Con insists that trans people suffer additional scrutiny and suffering with more punishment for their condition. He ignores all of my points about why trans bathroom rights are important (trans people's safety) from the last round. Please extend. Con insists that trans people are mentally ill, though many in the science community deny that it is a mental disorder [3]. Again this would be irrelevant to the resolution anyway - we don't discriminate against people with all mental disorders when it comes to bathrooms. Being trans is not a choice and it is an unfortunate condition of gender dysphoria. "Evidence suggests that people who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics, the makeup of their brains, or prenatal exposure to hormones" [4]. My opponent made some (poor conduct) remark about the "sodomite lobby" and an irrelevant comment on rights. He completely failed to respond to my contentions. Con hasn't explained why trans people - with proven discrimination and violence against them (especially when it comes to bathroom politics) should be subject to laws that put them in danger. He also hasn't proven that trans people using the bathroom of their choices causes any harm at all. [1] http://www.apath.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://psmag.com... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Transgender Bathroom Rights

It is an indisputable fact of reality that there only two genders: male and female. When one denies reality, one is mentally ill. This is not complicated, but it is incredibly simple. And we should apply maximal social disapprobation to the who choose to deny reality with the hope and intent they seek help and healing. It is why we discriminate against those who have other serious mental illnesses, even to the point of locking them up and forcing them to get help. The delusional deserve this help. And no, the mentally normal who accept reality do not need to get over it. Those who enable and hate the mentally ill need to repent of that hate and embrace reality. Ironically, it is they who rebel again facts and base their position on feelings, which they need to get over. Indeed, by making women use women's bathrooms and men use men's bathrooms, we are treating everyone equally. The sodomite lobby just does not understand equality. And naturally, my opponent dodged the real issue, which is the non-existence of rights for these mentally ill people and his opposition to real rights.
There Is an External Cause of the Universe

Here's the challenge you requested. If you have any questions, please feel free to PM me about them.Full ResolutionThere is an external cause to the universe. BoP is on pro. DefinitionsExternal Cause: A cause that exists outside of, or transcends the universe. Universe: The totality of all states of the universeRules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.3. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: Presentation all arguments by proRound 2: Presentation of arguments by con and rebuttal by proRound 3: Rebuttal by con and defense of original arguments by proRound 4: Defense of original argument by con and a bye round by pro (to make for even rounds; only use one line for your final post)
It is reasonable to believe that God exists

Ontological Argument A perfect being cannot exist, because characteristics of a perfect being would contradict with one another. For example, an omnipotent being would be able to create beings from free will but an omniscient being would be able to know what this person will do, therefore contradictory to free will. Cosmological Argument I do not agree entirely agree with premise 3. The knowledge that humans have in the scope of the universe is so limited, that the wisest conclusion here is one of ignorance. We are not capable of demonstrably proving in an absolute manner that the universe does in fact have a cause. However, if it were the case that the universe did indeed have a cause, you cannot equate "cause" to a "creator". 1.The creator is immaterial It is impossible in the physical realm for anything immaterial to create something material, therefore it would be reasonable that the cause of the universe can be of material. 2.A conscious it is not necessary that a cause needs to be conscious in order for an event to happen. An apple falls off a tree because of high winds; notice, that there is not a conscious present but a cause and an event occur, therefore it can be the case that the cause of this universe is not conscious. 3.Non-physical mind You note mind as a single object, but would it be logically wrong if I said the universe could have been caused by the agreement of multiple non-physical minds? How are you so certain that the cause of this universe is a single, conscious, immaterial object? Morality Morals are subjective. Morality is subject to the environment and circumstance that is presented. If morals are objective, then it would be that in every single case killing is wrong, when I can easily concoct a scenario in which killing would be justified.
If a person wants to live in a good world, he should ACTIVELY do things to make the world better.

I accept. Let us debate!Seeing as you haven't made an argument yet, I will now.It is a quaint notion, 'tisn't it? The idea that justice and morality exists because we exist. However, this notion is sadly inaccurate at describing the ethics by which we live.There is one moral, one rule, one thing that drives us all. That moral, that rule, that driving force, is called "Survival". This rule, ingrained in our very being, is clearly demonstrated every day. Whether this rule was implanted by a divine creation, or if it was passed down, or rather up, the genetic ladder is yet to be seen. Regardless, however, survival is at the root of most interactions, human or otherwise.All things, being a means of survival, then demonstrate a lack of real "justice" or "fairness", "purpose" or "meaning". These things are merely constructs of a feeble human mind that is barely able to grasp its own being.Now, it is important to understand: just because these concepts are believed in by humans does not mean that these things' existences are dependent on human existence; a minotaur fails to exist even if we believe that it exists, and still fails to exist even if there are no humans._________________________________________________________________________On to proactivity.Even if "justice", "fairness", etc. were existant in the ways you claim they are, then you still have not brought forth a reason why it is the responsibility for each utopia-desiring individual to work towards that utopia.