BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Quentin Tarantino Is A Terrible Filmmaker

A filmmaker is a storyteller. A storyteller is a communicator. The foundation of excellent communication is knowing, and respecting, your audience. I put forward that Quentin Tarantino does not respect his audience and is, therefore, a terrible filmmaker. Tell my why I am wrong. Round 1: Accept. Broadly and briefly explain your position (as I have done above). Round 2: Detailed argument (NO rebuttals allowed) Round 3: Rebuttal
Quentin Tarantino Is A Terrible Filmmaker

Thank you for your argument. I will now give mine. My main argument for Quentin Tarantino not being a terrible filmmaker stems from his countless achievements as a filmmaker. (1) Pulp Fiction won the Palme d'Or at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for seven Oscars, winning one for Best Original Screenplay. (2) In 2005, Quentin Tarantino won the Icon of the Decade Award at the 10th Empire Awards. (3) Reservoir Dogs was given the Critic's Award at the 4th Yubari International Fantastic Film Festival in 1993 (4) In 2008, Quentin Tarantino was honored with the Filmmaker on the Edge Award at the Provincetown International Film Festival. (5) In 2009, his film Inglourious Basterds was nominated for eight Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, winning one for Best Supporting Actor. I could go on but your 1000 character limit is killing me. Anyway I argue that a filmmaker who recieves all these achievements cannot possibly be terrible a one.
Quentin Tarantino Is A Terrible Filmmaker

Thank you for accepting! I'm not arguing that Tarantino's films don't make money but that his movies are well-scipted garbage. A good storyteller draws the audience into a world they've created and tells an entertaining & relevent tale. They're able to do this because they know their audience and respect ("to show regard or consideration for") them. Tarantino does no such thing, he makes movies to showcase his talents for scripting and violence, but with no themes to connect the two. His movies are "just a bunch of stuff happening". Furthermore, there is evidence that Tarantino himself agrees with me because his movies invariably come packaged with excuses: PULP FICTION is non-chronological for no reason except to mask it's going nowhere-ness. KILL BILL & DEATH PROOF were a bad movies "on purpose". DJANGO UNCHAINED uses the glossy historical setting to make the excuse. Tarantino may have a talent for scripting and making excuses, but he is a terrible storyteller and filmmaker.
Solipsism is entailed by logical extension of Idealism

Case Specific Definitions:To demonstrate internal validity, symbolic renditions of syllogisms are provided. Here I define key symbols:S(M) = Mind of self~S(M) = Mind separate to self~S(E) = Entities (percieved as) separate to self E(M) = External epistemological mechanismI = IdealismA) Epistemological necessity of solipsism in mental reality1. Minds separate to self exist if and only if entities perceived as separate to self express like properties to minds separate to self.~S(M) ⇔ [∃(E): ~S(E) ∧ {~S(E):⇔~S(E)[S(M) ∧ ~S(M)]}2. If both Mind of self and Minds separate to self exists, there must exist an external epistemeological mechanism that causes entities perceived as serparate to self to express like properties to minds separate to self[S(M) ∧ ~S(M)] → E(M) 3. An external epistemological mechanism defeats IdealismE(M) → ¬I4. There is no external epistemological mechanism.I ∴ ¬E(M)C: Minds separate to self do not exist.¬[~S(M)]Fig 1. Minds separate to self reductio ad absurdum B) Modal argument against Idealism without Solipsism1. There exists a possible world in which Idealism (I) is instantiated◊I2. There exists a subset Solipsism (S), contained in the set of all I.S ⊃ I 3. I minus S exists if and only if there exists a essense P who is both a property of S(M) and it's own discrete entity.(I - S) ⇔ P: P{S(M)} ∧ ¬P{S(M)}4. In no world I, can P exist simultaneously as an entity and a property.¬◊[P: P{S(M)} ∧ ¬P{S(M)}]C: The subset I minus S does not exist.¬ (I - S)Fig 2. I minus S subset infers identity violation in P Summary Remarks:In a world where all reality evolves from the mind, we are forced to accept that other minds similarly evolved from the mind of self. This is necessitated given that other minds are a part of the reality in our mind. Thus there are no minds outside our own mind unless they are not within the reality of our mind. The contradiction is in suggesting that there is a reality not within our mind, as this defeats Idealism.A solution I posited in my second argument and subsequently refuted was the model whereby a god mind was invoked as the solution to somehow make a reality possible where Idealism was true but Solipsism was false. Under Idealism, the only entities are minds, and minds cannot be properties as there is no higher order entity than the mind. Thus a god mind, which would either be a property of S(M) or vice verse presupposses that inherent contradiction.My opponent is faced with the philosophically daunting task of demonstrating a reality where Idealism can exist while solipsism is false. I have demonstrated why this necessarily infers logically incoherent statements via reductio ad absurdum and identity violation.Heil Smithis.
Solipsism is entailed by logical extension of Idealism

Definitions1) Solipsism: The self is the only existing entity.2) Idealism: The only reality that exists is a mental reality, ie. no physical reality.3) Entailed by logical extension: followed to it's natural consequence. I've chosen these definitions to reflect common usage of the terms, technicalities will not be entertained. In this debate I will show why an extension of Idealism's premises entails Solipsism. Con will argue the opposite. FormatAsian Parliamentary style: Affirmative case begins, Negative opens with rebuttal then positive material, Affirmative rebuts and presents more arguments, negative rebuts and presents further arguments, Affirmative rebuts and summarises, Negative rebuts and summarises. Rebuttals come before material. VotingSources (2 points) is being substituted for a custom criteria, 'Method. ' Award these two points to the debater who had better responsiveness to opponent's arguments. Responsiveness describes argument styles that accurately adapts to material presented by the opponent. High responsiveness is accurately identifying the central point of the opponent's arguments. Poor responsiveness involves straw manning during a rebuttal or ignoring positive material from the opponent. Responsiveness is more focussed around rebuttal performance than positive material. RulesStandard Etiquette applies.
Batman wins against Iron Man

While Bruce Wayne's suit is equipped for fighting people beyond his abilty, Tony Stark is a multimillionaire with the intellegence that, if needed, he could easily come up with more technology to fight said Bruce Wayne. He found a way to keep shrapnels from entering his heart while he was instructed by terrorists to build a weapon of mass destruction. I think Tony Stark could find a way to beat some guy running around in a Bat suit throwing Batarangs...my personal opinion.
Batman wins against Iron Man

In a fight between Iron man and Batman, Batman would win. Based on the fact that his level of intelligence is greater than Tony Starks. Bruce Wayne is a tactition so obsessed with the safety of the people that he had a contingency plan for every super hero should they turn villain. Able to translate unknown alien languages, hack other technology in seconds, and a very significant list of feats following his hero career. He's countered super-man a number of times as well making suits designed to fight people far beyond his ability.
Gravity doesn't exist

My opponent has claimed that the moon has no velocity because "I don't see it move". However he has produced no evidence to support this claim. The moon moves at 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour) around the Earth http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...- By my opponents same logic of "sight" the Earth Does't Spin because he cant feel it move. Vote Con on logical presumption. Good luck to Pro
Gravity doesn't exist

I would like to point out the fact that the Pro never clarified "Our Definition of Gravity" is false. He is simply avoided my argument by making an unjustified statement. In his first speech he specifically said that gravity is not real, not one but three times. Voters please ignore Pro's attempt at becoming a moving target. I extend all of my points. He has not refuted my argument about orbitals. I extend all my points Good luck to Pro
Gravity doesn't exist

Gravity pulls things towards the centre of the Earth" "The moon is affected by Earth's gravity" Starting off I would like to point out that Pro has already conceded the fact that gravity exists. He said the above statements without any contradictory words such as "Supposedly" or "The theory of gravity states...". Since he said these as statements, he implied that they are facts. I accept the above listed statements and point out that Pro has already lost the round. Next I would like to go ever the basics of orbits. True gravity pulls things towards the center of the Earth but if an object has a certain velocity it can avoid falling into the Earth and lock into a stable orbit. In order to explain this further would like to introduce a scenario. Suppose you have a baseball that you can throw 200 feet. The baseball leaves your hand and immediately is affected by gravity. The baseball travels as far as it can before gravity draws it back to the ground. Now lets say that you were able to throw the baseball at 9.4k/s (the orbital velocity of Earth). Lets assume for this model that the ball maintains this speed indefinably. Now 9.4k/s is extraordinarily fast, in fact so fast that as you throw it gravity draws it back to the Earth at a rate directly proportional to the curvature of the planet. What that means is that while gravity is still drawing the ball to the Earth, the direction it is pulling it at is constantly changing meaning that gravity cannot bring it to it's center. That's the best I can explain it, if you wish to now more specifics I encourage you to read http://www.braeunig.us... I know it's a little scientific, but that should be no problem to a person with an IQ as high as you claim Good luck to Pro
Gravity doesn't exist

To preface: my IQ is 164 and I verify this daily. This puts me on par with the likes of Bill Gates, Stepehen Hawking and Albert Einstein so weary debaters beware! Fact 1: Gravity pulls things towards the centre of the Earth Fact 2: The moon is affected by Earth's gravity Fact 3: The moon is not at the centre of the Earth. Therefore, by the current definition, gravity is false.
Gravity doesn't exist

My opponent claims that the moon is "Billions of miles away" yet has produced no evidence to support this. It is common knowledge that the moon is 238,900 miles (384,400 km) away from Earth. An opponent with an IQ as high as he claims would know this. We know the velocity of the moon because we've LANDED there before! Even if you do not believe in the moon landings, it is common knowledge that the Soviets landed a probe there,and that US has crashed a rocket into it before. The moons orbit is proved by an actual see able affect! The moons phases (Crescent, waning, act.) is observable proof of this! So that means that I have proved the moon's movement by his own standard. I extend all of my previous points on the subject. Pro has still not answered my orbit argument. I extend all of my points. Pro still has not refuted my Moving Target argument. I extend all of my points. Good luck to pro
Bartenders should be able to deny pregnant women of alcohol.

Thank you for continuing this debate. Alcohol is harmful to any fetus. Just like children they are developing in many different ways and alcohol can hurt this. Would you serve alcohol to a 4 year old child? Then why would you sell it to a fetus? Whatever the woman has to eat or drink so does the fetus, which is why they usually avoid drugs like nicotine, coffee and alcohol. It can seriously hurt a fetus's health. "When you drink, the alcohol quickly travels through your bloodstream, crosses the placenta, and reaches your baby. Your baby breaks down alcohol more slowly than you do, so she may end up with higher levels of blood alcohol than you have." (http://www.babycenter.com... ). Alcohol consumption while pregnant can cause miscarriages. I think bartenders should go under assumptions as they do with any other law which gives them grounds not to serve a customer, such as heavy intoxication, underage children and people who have bee previously kicked out. The people who come under this category are told they cannot drink and are sometimes thrown out, now i don't think a pregnant mother should be thrown out of a bar, but they should be not served an alcoholic beverage because of the dangers. Also 90% of the time you can tell if a woman is pregnant (if you can't you can easily have some pointers on how to) so there can almost be no mistake between a pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman. A good point to put this in contrast is flying. Past a certain point a woman is not allowed to fly if they are pregnant, this is because it presents dangers to the baby. This is not left up to the woman's choice and neither should drinking alcohol while pregnant or smoking for that matter. If it is the case of that it was a mistake to get pregnant then either get an abortion or face the responsibility of having a child because you will only get more responsibilities once the child is born. Giving up alcohol is not easy, but neither is raising and taking good care of a child, which one is more worth it?
Bartenders should be able to deny pregnant women of alcohol.

If a pregnant woman wishes to drink, it should be under her own discretion, not that of the bartender. Should we stop allowing them to drink coffee and dye their hair as well? http://www.nydailynews.com... With more studies being done, it seems that maybe a little bit of alcohol during pregnancy in fact causes no harm. Also, what if a woman is just overweight? It is impolite to assume that a woman is pregnant, how would the bartender prove that she is?
Bartenders should be able to deny pregnant women of alcohol.

Regardless of if the women is hurting her baby in choosing to drink alcohol, it is her body and she should be able to make the decision herself. Also, who is the bartender to say that what she is drinking is actually harming her baby? There are people I know of whose doctors said it was okay to drink a glass of wine each night while pregnant. Ultimately, it should be the women's choice.
The Great Quote Race

This will be a challenge to see who will find the best quotes in these categories: Age Alone Anger Attitude Beauty Courage Death Design Dreams Experience Failure Faith Family Fear Forgiveness Freedom Friendship Future God Good Government Humor Imagination Intelligence Jealousy Knowledge Leadership Life Love Money Patience Patriotism Peace Politics Relationship Respect Romantic Sad Smile Society Sports Strength Sympathy Teen Time Trust Truth War Wisdom Work First round is for excepting.
Society Has A Right To Intervene When People Engage In Self-Destructive Behavior

1. Actually, I saw a local newspaper article once about a cop talking a man out of jumping off a bridge. The cop didn't lose his job or anything. In fact, he was probably sent there by the police for that very reason, to convince the man not to jump off the bridge. 2. As for what you said about rehab, I apologize for any misinformation. Perhaps the government doesn't force people to attend rehab when their behavior doesn't hurt others. HOWEVER, my question is, should they? 3. Okay then, I should've specified. What if the man was jumping off the railing in contrast to accidentally falling? Should the cop simply stand by and do nothing? Now, allow me to add that many "harmless" behaviors actually do harm society. For instance, (and I know I have no sources here) did you know that countless work hours are wasted by workers who use their work computers for porn instead of doing the job they're paid to be doing? If a man commits suicide, he leaves people behind. Death leaves behind grieving people, and destructive behaviors may cause a person to die. Excessive drinking leads to health problems, which lead to increasing hospital bills. for him and for his family. Also, if you allow people to drink excessively, chances are one day they'll go out driving under the influences. Same applies to drugs, especially heavier drugs, such as heroin, crack, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Binge eating causes health problems, and it helps depletes food resources. There's only so much food in the world. So to some extent, these "harmless" behaviors can hurt society and/or friends and family of the person involved in the destructive habit. Therefore, it is society's business. I await your final rebuttal and the conclusion of this debate.
Society Has A Right To Intervene When People Engage In Self-Destructive Behavior

Hello, Chloe McIver Floyd. Ignoring the strange font and excessive underlining used in your argument, I'll answer your argument. You say that government has no right to intervene in people's lives. However, to an extent we already do this. For instance, the government tries to prevent people from committing suicide, though this is their private business. The judges can order people to go to rehab. Of course, the above reasons don't mean we should, so I'll cut to the chase. When they are addicted, they cannot help themselves. They need outside help. Government is providing that help. Like for instance, if a person is about to fall off the railing in a zoo, it would not be unconstitutional for a cop to pull him back. When you're addicted, you cannot make rational choices on the matter of whatever you're addicted to, just like a child tends at times to be irrational. It is not wrong to prevent a three year old from sticking his hand in the campfire. It would not be wrong for the parent to slap the three year old's hands to teach him not to do it. So my point is, if the government is doing it to save their life, and they're not in the right state of mind to make their own decisions on this matter, then the government should be able to intervene to put an end to that self-destructive habit.
Society Has A Right To Intervene When People Engage In Self-Destructive Behavior

Before I begin I would like to give the definitions of some of the words I will be using later on in my argument. I will define the words, self- destructive, behavior, intervene, and constitutional right, I will also supply links to the sites I get my definitions from. Definitions Self-destructive- acting or tending to harm or destroy oneself. Link to the defintion I used for self-destructive.- http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Behavior- 1 a : the manner of conducting oneself b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment 2 : the way in which someone behaves; also : an instance of such behavior 3 : the way in which something functions or operates Link to rhe definiton I used for behavior, (I went down on the page to the full defintion.)- http://www.merriam-webster.com...; Intervene- come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events. Link to the definition I used for intervene.- http://www.google.com...; 17.17.0.0.0.0.298.3484.4j2j11.17.0....0...1c.1.32.hp..4.13.2504.uoYrhjmbGdA Constitutional right- a constitutional right is a legal right of its citizens protected by a sovereignty's constitution. United States Link to the definition I used for constitutional right.- http://www.google.com... 30j0i8i30l6.5306.6560.0.6965.7.7.0.0.0.0.180.793.3j4.7.0....0...1c.1.32.serp..0.7.787.JqWlE2rfMeU My First Argument I do not believe that society has the right to intervene when they think people are engaging in what they consider to be self-destructive behavior. In my first argument I will explain one of the reasons why I feel this way. Then in my next arguments I will explain my other reasons, because I don't want to say everything in my first argument. If I did, I wouldn't have anything to talk about later. Firstly, if society intervened every time someone engaged in what they considered self- destructive behavior, then society would be taking away peoples constitutional rights. This is only if this self-destructive person is doing things that are legal, such as the examples my opponent has stated, which are, cutting, excessive drinking, binge eating, drug abuse, ( in some states, certain drugs are legal,) pornografic addictions, ext. Yes, everyone has the same constitutional rights, so society has the right to be concerned about peoples self- destructive behavior without harming their constitional rights. Where if society intervened, they would be taking away peoples constitutional rights, which is illegal. So for society to intervene when they believe someone is engaging in self-destructive activities society would be breaking the law. In conclusion for my first argument, society would be technically engaging in a self- destructive activity by intervening in others self-destructive behavior. I will be talking about my other reasons as to why I feel society should not intervene when they think people are engaging in self-destructive behavior. I am looking forward to hearing my opponent's arguments, until then bubbaththeclown.
Society Has A Right To Intervene When People Engage In Self-Destructive Behavior

Subject we are Debating: Does society have a right to intervene when individuals engage in self-destructive behavior, such as cutting, excessive drinking, binge eating, drug abuse, pornographic addiction, etcetera, even when his or her habit/addiction doesn't harm society? If you disagree with one of the things that I listed as self-destructive, feel free to say so, but don't get distracted from the topic at hand. I await a response.