BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Men and women have equal rights

Men and women don't have equal rights. In history, Women have been treated badly and they are slowly coming up. However, That still doesn't mean that they all have the same rights. Boys don't think that women are good at sports and people are being very sexist lately in our world. We have neglected people from other races such as racism and there have been many cases and the difference between men and women is a part of it. Who cares about the differences. It's only about how many rights they have. Women that are muscular are being teased and treated badly and this should be solved.
'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'.

--- but in The Illusionist the rivalry is between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince. --- I will concede there is a rivalry in both films. I would argue the rivalry in 'The Prestige' is more engaging. The rivalry between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince in 'The Illusionist' is centred around their love for Sophie, and can be reduced to a simple love triangle. In 'The Prestige' the rivalry has to do with conjuring skill, Angier's desire to revenge his wife's death, and who holds sway over Olivia's loyalties (the assistant who is employed by both magicians at various points). I would therefore suggest this is a more complex, original rivalry which is more gripping than the one you describe. --- The movie is based on their sole infatuation with that trick. --- Not true. The 'one trick' you are discussing appears over half-way into the film. It is unfair to reduce a description of 'The Prestige' to this, when its narrative also has many other aspects (Borden on death row / Cutter (Angier's trick engineer) confused about his loyalties / the troubles Borden's wife experiences living with a man who has so many secrets). --- In The Illusionist, however, it actually tells you about Eisenhiem and Sophie's past and how they would stop at nothing to be together once again. --- I don't understand how this point follows from anything. Anyhow, the characters in 'The Prestige' also have pasts that are well-detailed through the use of flashback. --- Also, there is way more suspense when it comes to the "murder" and the "resurrection" which is why I love it. --- Please justify this. --- Plus at the end you realize how everything fits together. --- As in 'The Prestige'. --- romance + jealousy + magic + murder = classic... and that's why people love it. --- All the words mentioned before 'classic' can also apply to 'The Prestige', so this does not strengthen your argument. Please provide more evidence for your case.
'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'.

Really interesting topic, lets have fun shall we?? You argue that The Prestige is a better movie because it focuses on the tricks themselves and the constant rivalry between Angier and Borden (both magicians), but in The Illusionist the rivalry is between Eisenhiem and the Crown Prince. In The Prestige, Angier and Borden spend their lives trying to outdo each other and then one little trick consumes all of their being. The movie is based on their sole infatuation with that trick. In The Illusionist, however, it actually tells you about Eisenhiem and Sophie's past and how they would stop at nothing to be together once again. Also, there is way more suspense when it comes to the "murder" and the "resurrection" which is why I love it. Plus at the end you realize how everything fits together. They are both outstanding movies, but I'm sorry The Illusionist is just better. romance + jealousy + magic + murder = classic... and that's why people love it.
'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist'.

'The Prestige' is a better film than 'The Illusionist' for the following reasons: Firstly, it's a more structually ambitious film, unravelling the mystery of the narrative piece by piece in multi-layered flashback. Secondly, the two lead roles played by Bale and Jackman are more engaging characters than those in 'The Illusionist', because their growing rivalry (and one character's desire for revenge) give their roles better character 'hooks'. Thirdly, there is more sense of mystery surrounding the nature of the magic tricks themselves; not only are more tricks shown in 'The Prestige' than in 'The Illusionist', but there is an interesting balance between those we are 'in on' and those which have secrets we don't know about. Please respond if you would like to argue 'The Illusionist' (the Edward Norton movie) is a superior.
Abortion is Murder

So, let's begin. Here are some of the reasons, statements, and facts that I believe prove that abortion truly is murder. To prove that abortion is murder, I will need to first prove that the organism is in fact alive. Thus, I am going to prove that the organism inside of the mother is a living human baby from the moment fertilization occurs. First off, the organism inside of the womb is undeniably and unarguably a human. From a scientific viewpoint, as I assume you take if you are an advocate for abortion, from the moment when the sperm from the male reaches the egg, a new living entity is formed, referred to as a human zygote. Now let's go through the characteristics that define if something is alive or not and see if a human zygote fulfills these requirements: 1. Composed of a cell or cells(obviously, yes) 2. Able to grow, metabolize, and respond to the environment(yes, it grows, metabolizes, and responds to the womb) 3. Able to move(yes) 4. Able to respire(yes) 5. Able to reproduce(this is listed as a characteristic. In different stages in the womb, it does not have the needed reproductive organs. However, the ability to reproduce does not have to qualify as a requirement. Many humans have been born without reproductive organs or have had mutilations and, obviously, still have survived. Thus, reproduction is obviously not a solid requirement to determine that something is alive). So, the human zygote is alive. Now let's go through a few other common arguments used for abortion. Many argue that the human zygote is not a sentient being and use that as a driving cause for their arguments. This can easily be determined invalid, unless you would also like to argue that we can kill people in comas(who have the same exact level of sentience, if not less than, a human zygote. Many others will go off on a completely different path, claiming that the zygote isn't even a human zygote! Once again, this can easily be disproved. The zygote is composed of human DNA and other molecules specifically known to humans, so the nature of the zygote is undeniably human. I'm interested in hearing your views, and in the following two rounds we will begin countering each other's statements.
The feminist movement does not champion gender equality

It's important to note that to win, I have to demonstrate one way in which feminism causes gender inequality, and the opponent needs to refute every example I provide as his/her burden. Opponent may not use true scottsman fallacy to claim that such and such activities by feminists are not true feminism. Finally, the definition of feminism is "organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests" (. https://www.merriam-webster.com...). I think this is better than the lay definition of feminism because 1) I will expose that feminism is not working towards gender equality and 2) the lay definition of promoting gender equality would be unfair to Pro since the Con would just claim that actions taken by feminists to enhance gender inequality do not count as feminism.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day may be a day for celebration but for some it is a day for mourning, why should we come together as a nation on a day where we mourn? In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to the Indigenous people who were forcibly removed as children from their homes and parents' care and placed in Church missions or adoptive white family. At the time, the government saw it as a protective measure for future mixed race Aboriginal children, whereby their Aboriginal hertitage would be bred-out in a couple of generations time. For decades, the Indigenous community asked for the Australian government to apologise. Now that's it has finally happened, it's worthy of celebrating every year. Australia Day is the day filled with little more than flag waving and mass consumption of alcohol, to distract us from the fact that we aren"t as great a country as some would otherwise like to think. Keeping Australia Day the same means that we have more respect for the awful past and not enough care to fix this situation up. Would you want our ansectors to mourn a day that should be a happy day for our country?
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia Day is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet from Great Britain. Australia Day isn't a day to celebrate the the suffering of Aboriginal people but the beginning of our nation"s story. Why should we change the day were we became a nation? changing the day won't fix anything. White people still hurt many aboriginals and nothing will change. No amount of apologies will ever change that. Changing Australia Day won't change the past. This day is very important to many Australians especially to the new citizens, which officially are now Australian. This day has been in Australian history for over 200 years. Do we really want to change it?
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

I strongly believe that the date of Australia Day should changed from the 26th of January to a different day as this is a day that the Aboriginals mourn for the loss of their rights to their land, loss of family and the loss of the right to practice their culture. While many people celebrate Australia Day with a Barbeque or a nice day out at the beach to celebrate our wonderful country, the Aborigines are mourning the loss of their loved ones who passed away in their fight for freedom and human rights. The 26th pf January is the day which marks the anniversary of the 1788 arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson, New South Wales, and the raising of the Flag of Great Britain at Sydney Cove by Governor Arthur Phillips. Changing the date would show that we have aspirations for this country to become greater than it is. There are better dates to change Australia day that is important for Australia as a country, especially the 13th of February which is the day the Kevin Rudd apologised to the aboriginals for the past.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia Day is a day to celebrate because if it wasn't for white people we wouldn't have the things we have now such as shops, cars, buildings, all of us would not be here today. We introduced animals such as cows and horses. Australia wouldn't of been developed the way it is today if it wasn't for white people. We should celebrate Australia day on the 26th of January because we are celebrating the good. Even though Australia did wrong, positives came out of this as well. January 26th is the the day to celebrate Australia day.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia Day has lost it respect towards the date, by choosing a new date, we will not only refresh our country but also show that we have aspirations for it to become greater than it already is. 46.3% of Australian's believe that Australia Day is not worth celebrating as it is "a day that represents loss and injustice and just an excuse to drink" 1 in 10 Australians don"t even know the real reason behind commemorating Australia Day on the 26th of January. How would you like it if the day that your ancestors were harmed was celebrated? That is bad enough, why not change it to a day where Australia is proud of their actions and not ashamed of them? All Aboriginal people have drastically changed the way Australia is, the least we can do is commemorate a date to them. Would you celebrate the date on which your ancestors were impoverished, executed and had their love ones stolen? Australia Day should be changed from the 26th of January to another date just simply because even though it is a date that we should remember when the first fleet came to Australia, it is a sad day and a day to mourn and not a day to celebrate
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia Day should be a celebration of the bringing together of Indigenous, white people and those who come from other countries around the world who now live in Australia. If it wasn't for all our different cultures, Australia wouldn't be the way it is now. We should also have a indigenous day so that we can celebrate the indigenous community and what they have done for this country. They were the first land owners who deserve to have there own day, without changing Australia day. We both can have individual days but celebrate as 1, as Australians.
First Amendment

Before I begin, I have to tell you: because this will be my first debate on the site (debate.org), I ask that my theoretical antagonist refrain from using any of the site's formalities, its procedural norms and practices, as a site of argument or debate. Put simply, I do not know the norms, and even if I did know them and still chose to establish my own procedural system, it would not change the substantive claims of the arguments I made. My Position: That First Amendment mechanisms do not, as is often claimed, neutralize power by giving everyone an equal chance to speak. On the contrary, First Amendment law is always politically inflected, and often used to maintain the status quo and to disempower those already marginalized and silenced. Finally, I argue that current First Amendment doctrine is logically incoherent, a doctrine that regulates in the name of nonregulation, and recognizes so many exceptions to the rule that it finally is, as a set of universal principles, anything but.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Threat

Definitions Anthropogenic an"thro"po"gen"ic/ˌanTHrəpōˈjenik/ Adjective: (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) Originating in human activity. Global warming an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution 3 days to post 4 rounds 8000 Characters No insulting Start argument against GW in the first round
An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

I will now refute my opponent's arguments. (Good arguments by the way) Of course citizens have rights to private property such as houses. If a citizen doesn't want to allow people with guns into his house, that's his own business, and there's nothing wrong with it. However, I am mainly referring to business property and other places where a great majority of people will be allowed into. In such situations, it is no longer the property owner's life at risk; it's everyone's. The property owner should not be allowed to make decisions that potentially put others' lives in danger just because he owns the property. Because people other than himself are in the situation, he no longer has a right to make whatever rules he wants. Also, your right to simply choose not to go in is irrelevant. Your decision to go elsewhere doesn't change the fact that people are going to get killed in gun free zones. The fact that you personally did not enter might save your life, but not anyone else's. The hiring of a security guard would still prevent the loss of lives in the event of a crime. I should also note that the government has already infringed on our "right to private property." Can we build a second story to our house? Not without a permit. Can own a tiger? No. Can we kill someone if they're on our property? Nope, muder us murder, whether on your property or not. Just because you own property doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it. You still must abide by the local laws. In my opponent's second point, he claims that the government can't afford to hire security guards for places like schools. Aside from the fact that he gives no real evidence that they can't, this entire point is irrelevant. I never said that government property would have to have security guards on it. Although I personally think this would be a good idea, this isn't what we are arguing about. It's a separate issue. Your logic isn't consistent; one point doesn't bring you to the next. Regardless, your first and second points fail because the government can make rules for what you can do on property. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

I'd like to start my argument by saying that I do not agree with the fact that the government has placed "required" gun free zones such as schools, airports, etc. However, there are several reasons that I believe that making armed guards "required" in these zones is not logical, and in some cases unconstitutional. All citizens have the right to their private property, such as houses, restaurants, etc. And if these citizens do not want guns on their property, that is their right. Even though for the most part I don't agree with gun free zones, I will NEVER agree with the government infringing upon our right to private property. When push comes to shove, the owner of a restaurant, bar, or anything of the sort has the sole decision as to whether or not people can bring a gun onto his/her property. Also, if citizens truly are in fear for their lives upon entering a restaurant that is a gun free zone, they can simply not enter. Just as it is the owners right to prohibit weapons, it is the citizens' right to not enter that area. This brings me to my next point, in some cases citizens must enter a "governmental gun free zone" (area that the government requires by law to be a gun free zone) in order to continue their daily lives. Forcing armed guards to be posted outside of these gun free zones, such as schools, is what my opponent is proposing. Having armed guards at our schools is something that sounds quite logical, in a perfect world. The simple fact is that the amount of money it would cost to achieve this goal is impractical for our nations already fragile economy. President Obama has recently enacted a heavily scrutinized plan that will "provide $25 billion to prevent layoffs and support hundreds of thousands of teacher and other education jobs." [1] The amount of taxpayer dollars that this new plan will require is substantial to say the least, and any additional money added to the education budget unfortunately is unrealistic at this time. A Cleveland State University Economics professor claims that "having enough officers to fully protect schools would cost $23 billion", which is "half of what the federal government spends on K-12 education" [2] . Imagine that, wiping out half of the United States' education budget to fulfill this plan. I cannot argue that it would substantially increase our children"s security, but it is simply too expensive. The logic for my argument is as follows: -in situations where citizens choose to prohibit weapons on their property, that is entirely their right -the government cannot constitutionally force private property owners to hire security. - no one is forced to enter gun free restaurants or bars, so don't go in if you don't feel safe. -in government forced gun free zones (schools, airports, etc.) hiring security is logical until the money situation is brought into play. - hiring armed guards at all gun free zones would be immensely expensive [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov... [2] http://www.newsnet5.com...
An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

Thank you handywandy for accepting. I will be proving my points mainly through logic (as a result of this, you may not see me using very many sources). I would like to note that I am actually against gun free zones, but as long as they exist, this would be a good compromise. Gun free zones result in innocent people being defenseless in the event that an armed criminal decides to bring a gun into the gun free zone (for the purpose of either robbery or just to start shooting people). Studies have shown that most shootings occur in gun free zones [1]. This shouldn't be a surprise since the criminal can expect no one to be armed as he commits the crime. The chances of the gunman being immediately shot are almost zero, since this would require a law-abiding citizen to have illegally carried a gun into the area (my [1] source notes a situation where this happened, as the conceal carrier was unaware of the gun free zone). My point so far is that any person with a gun can easily kill people in a gun free zone, as these people are completely defenseless. Gun free zones are also likely attract criminals due to the unlikeliness of being stopped in a reasonable amount of time. But imagine a situation where an armed security guard was in the area. The criminal might then think twice about committing a crime in that zone in the first place, and if they did attempt a gun-related crime there, the criminal would quickly be stopped by the security guard. Therefpre, to increase the safety of gun free zones, I believe an armed security guard should be required in such zones. Thus, my logic goes something like this: -Law abiding citizens will not knowingly bring guns into gun-free zones. -Criminals are not law abiding citizens, and do not obey the law. -Therefore, a criminal can have a gun in a gun free zone (while law abiding citizens can not). -If the above is true, a criminal can expect to not be stopped in a gun free zone. -Therefore, gun free zones are an easy target for criminals. -If an armed security guard was placed in a gun free zone, a criminal would not be the only one with a gun. -Due to the known presence of another person with a gun, gun free zones would no longer be a favorable target for criminals due to fear of being shot. -If an insane serial killer decides to shoot people in a gun free zone despite the presence of a guard, he would quickly be stopped by that guard. -Therefore, the presence of an armed guard in a gun free zone greatly increases the safety of that zone. I would also like to note that if a law was made requiring gun free zones to have security guards, it would give millions of people jobs as security guards, decreasing the unemployment. That's my argument so far. I would like to see what my opponent has to say. Good luck. [1] http://www.cabinet.com...
An armed security guard should be required in gun free zones.

Complete resolution: If a property owner (such as the owner of a restaurant or office building) wants to make their property a gun free zone, they should be required to hire one or more armed security guards. The purpose of the hiring of security guards would be for the safety of the innocent unarmed people in the area against potential criminals, who might carry weapons into the area illegally. Con will be arguing that armed security guards should not be required.