BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

Thank you for your arguments. First of all, I agree with what you write in your paragraph about how many of the scientific errors were done for the purpose of show business. You also claim that some of the technology may not be too far from the mark; I agree with this as well. You are making a good case that the technology in Star Wars is plausible (or at least potentially plausible) within a scientific framework, as I mentioned in the previous round. However, you fail to address the second part; whether or not it is a key part of the story. This is something I will come back to. In your second paragraph, you outlined the plot of Episode IV well, describing some of the science fiction like aspects. As to my suggestion that the story would be the same if it took place in a medieval setting, you claim that the story would not be the same. This is something I will address presently. What is of relevance is the question, what is the main point of Star Wars? There is no doubt that it is a multi-layered story, a point you suggested, but what is the most important part? What is the thing which, if removed, would make the entire story crumble? The main themes of Star Wars are as follows: The Force [1][3]Nature’s Superiority over Technology [1]The Hero’s Journey [1][2][3] Clearly, these themes don’t require an alien planet or a spaceship to be explored. Also, there is probably no more well known quote from any of the movies, or other Star Wars media, than some variation of “May the Force be with you” [4], hardly scientific. Now, back to a medieval setting. None of these core themes, or many of the secondary themes (such as romance, politics, and economics) rely on the science fiction aspects of the story. If the Death Star was a large Warship, and the aliens were simply warriors from another land, these main themes could be the same. It might not be as entertaining as the actual Star Wars universe, but these themes don’t rely on the science. My final point is the opinion of George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars. He does not consider Star Wars to be Science Fiction [5][6]. He has been quoted as saying, “Star Wars is not science fiction at all,” and “…it starts out as a fairytale” [6]. [1] http://www.sparknotes.com...[2] http://www.moongadget.com...[3] http://www.folkstory.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://movie-club.net...[6] http://www.digitalspy.com...
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

I look forward to this argument as well as I used to be a huge Star Wars fan. I accept my opponent's definitions but I would like to draw attention to the social aspect of science fiction. I also realize that the social aspect of science fiction must be brought upon by a scientific change. “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” - Arthur C. Clarke Anybody who has any knowledge of physics realizes the absurdity of certain parts of the Star Wars universe. The space battles as well as the "blasters" breaks many laws of physics. However, certain laws of physics were broken for the sake of show business. Space battles would be pretty boring if they contained no explosions and if laser blasters actually went the speed of light...it just wouldn't be as exciting of a movie. But that doesn't mean all technology in the Star Wars universe is absurd. The propulsion systems of the various spaceships are now a reality [1]. As for whether or not we will ever be able to break the speed of light, many believe that we will be able to. Quantum mechanics [2] and special relativity [3] are showing that Einstein's ideas might have actually been wrong. But I digress, I still have not shown how technology makes the Star Wars trilogy science fiction. Let's look at the the first move. By first I mean "A New Hope". That movie contains a physical antagonist that's no moon but a space station. A space station that is possible [4]. This huge weapon also appears again in "Return of the Jedi" as the physical enemy of the Rebellion. My opponent says how that if the story had taken place in Medieval Europe, the basic story would still be the same. I beg to differ. Not only does that remove the fact that aliens play a part in the story, it also rids the movies of the entire space setting and the subsequent conflicts which arise there, denying an entire layer of the story. Finally, the whole deal with The Force. To this my answer is what if those in the story who we consider human (Obi-Wan, Anakin, etc.) aren’t really human? Lucas says how this happens in an universe far, far away. Convergent evolution is one theory that supports the fact that they look human. Also, perhaps the Force is actually a mutation in the DNA/genetic-building-blocks of the Jedi/Sith. The Jedi and Sith also help make Star Wars science fiction because of their social impact. There is a constant struggle not only between the Jedi and the Sith but also these Force-wielders and the rest of the life-forms. Many in the Star Wars universe, especially in the prequels, grow to distrust the Jedi. Later, in the original movies, the Jedi(s) are worshipped. [1] http://www.kickstarter.com... [2] http://www.gizmag.com... [3]http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [4] http://www.universetoday.com...
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

:)First off, since CON brought it up, the definitions I provided in Round 1 were to clarify my position. However, CON need not worry; both definitions I brought up in the previous round will be revisited here. One of the key components of Science Fiction, is that it must be plausible (or at least potentially plausible) within a scientific framework [1][2][3][4]. Another is that the science or technology must be a key aspect of the story [2][3][4]. Star Wars is an epic story that takes place in another galaxy at another time with lots of futuristic technology. However, Lucas himself notes that while he had had the Star Wars universe in mind for some time, the actual story didn’t coalesce until he added aspects from Joseph Campbell’s writings, specifically “the hero’s journey” [5] and what Campbell calls the “mythic structure" [6]. These aspects, which form the core of the story, have nothing to do with science or technology, regardless of their setting. In fact, if the setting was medieval Europe and light sabers and blasters were swapped for long swords and crossbows, the basic story would still be the same. Since scientific possibility and even scientific ideas are only used as a setting, playing only a bit part in the story, Star Wars shouldn’t be classified as Science Fiction. I would suggest that the abilities of the Jedi and the Sith, and the whole concept of the Force, which are far more central to the story than any alien planet, belong with the Fantasy genre; a genre that welcomes magic and the supernatural as core plot elements [7][1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.cde.ca.gov...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[5] . http://www.moongadget.com...[6] . http://www.moongadget.com...[7] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

I have two questions or concerns however before we begin this debate. If Pro would like to use the Oxford Dictionary's definition, then we should use the entire definition. Science Fiction- fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets. [1] Since Star Wars is already considered science fiction I request that the burden of proof be with Pro. While I am willing to share a little of the burden, I do not believe that it should be equal as Pro is debating against an established opinion [2] [1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...[2] . http://starwars.wikia.com...;
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

Science Fiction (Sci-Fi) is a form of fiction that is based on imagined scientific advances [1]. Sci-Fi will often explore the social impact of those advances, or at least they will be an essential component of the story [2]. Star Wars, while it employs a technologically advanced universe, and contains many elements of Sci-Fi, is not based on these elements. The main story revolves around the Force and the struggle between the Jedi and the Sith, along with the political/military aspects of the Republic/Empire [3]. As Star Wars uses scientific principles and advances only in passing, and not as a key component of its story, it should not be classified as Science Fiction. [1] http://oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://voices.yahoo.com...
Team Debate: Animal Rights

== Intro ==This is a team debate, with myself and Fkkize [http://www.debate.org...] pitting ourselves against whomever accepts. We're looking forward to a deep, interesting, engaging discourse. The opposing team consists of Wylted [http://www.debate.org...] and Yonko [http://www.debate.org...]. Per Wylted's request, I am challenging Yonko. == Team Dynamics ==Whoever accepts must first have a teammate. They must declare their teammate in round one. Failure to declare an active, DDO teammate in round one gives me the right to have Airmax reset the debate. Teammates should both actively contribute to the debate; team members are free to coordinate for each round or to each take turns posting rounds. If a team member is genuinely inactive, the debate may be called off.== Resolution ==Justice requires the recognition of animal rights. == Definitions ==The following definitions were influenced by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster, and Encarta:Justice - 'giving each their due' and/or 'fairness or reasonableness esp. in the way things are treated or decisions are made'Require - to demand as essential, where essential means extremely important or fundamentalAnimal - 'a non-human, vertebrate mammal'Right - 'something that one may properly claim as their due' and/or 'a moral or legal entitlement to (not) perform or have others perform certain action(s) and to (not) be in certain states'== Rules ==1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks," arguments that challenge assumptions in the resolution (e.g. moral skepticism, moral nihilism, rights don't exist) or deconstruction semantics7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP is Shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss == Structure ==Rd. 1: AcceptanceRd. 2: Cases and rebuttalsRd. 3: Rebuttals and defenseRd. 4: Rebuttals, defense and conclusionFirst round acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Thanks......to Wylted, Yonko and Fkkize, and to bsh1 for the rules and set-up!
Copyright laws are necessary in order for a society to have an effective creative industry.

Greetings to my opponent and thanks for instigating this debate which is on an interesting topic. At first glance I thought it would be quite difficult to argue against the resolution, however after reading my opponent's superbly sourced definitions, I believe it should be fairly straightforward. I point out that my opponent is not saying that a creative industry needs to be financially successful or even viable to be effective, merely that it must produce a decided, decisive or desired effect (love the alliteration of this definition.) A desired effect is not necessarily beneficial to the industry as a whole or to any individual, it is merely an effect that is desired by someone. I will therefore provide several desired effects that creative industry could have, separate effects desired by each of three groups: the public, the artists and the exploiters. By exploiters I mean the company or organisation (record company, publishers etc.) that is attempting to market and sell the creative product for financial gain. Each of these effects negates the resolution by itself but I shall present all three anyway, because it's fun. Public: The public clearly wants entertainment and art without having to pay too much for it, this is obvious because of the huge industries of bootlegging and pirating that supply this demand and is the main reason for having copyright laws in the first place. Therefore these laws are clearly not necessary for creative industries to produce a desired affect for the public. Artists: While it is true that most artists wish and are morally entitled to benefit financially from their creative product and copyright laws protect them in this respect, this is not the only desired effect. Most (all?) artists want there work to be seen/heard etc. by as many people as possible and a lack of copyright laws would actually lead to their product being available to, and therefore experienced by many more people. Therefore these laws are not absolutely necessary for the creative industries to produce A desired effect for some (if not all) artists and some would still want to be involved. Exploiters: This is simple, these company's main desired effect is profit and they could achieve more if they didn't have to pay artists for the exclusive rights to their product but could exploit any artists work without permission. Please note that I do not and am not attempting in this debate to oppose copyright laws, I am merely proving that they are not "absolutely needed" for creative industries to produce "a decided, decisive, or desired effect." Thankyou.
Copyright laws are necessary in order for a society to have an effective creative industry.

I stand in affirmation of the resolution. Copyright - the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work) (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Necessary - absolutely needed (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Effective - producing a decided, decisive, or desired effect (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Creative industry - Literature, arts, video games, motion pictures, etc. My argument is that if the author/artist/designer's work is not protected, and once they complete their work, anyone may copy them with less effort and reap an equal benefit, then nobody would want to be involved in the creative industry. I look forward to a good debate.
Humans are hollow.

http://www.youtube.com...Since you wanted video proof.Skip to 5:00 in.Also those guys are wearing lab coats so it must be true. But if you really wanted compelling evidence:If humans are hollow why doesn't the wind blow them away?Obviously they are full of something. I think must of the time they are full of crap. That's why they don't get blown away by the wind. Therefore humans are not hollow.
Humans are hollow.

My bud told me that there's stuff in humans, but I really don't believe him. If we had stuff in us, wouldn't we be "full" all the time instead of just only when we've eaten enough?Also, he says that I am "full of myself", how can this be true when all of me is on the outside? I laugh out loud at his wrong idea, however I wasn't so open about it when he told it to me. I mean I understand we have blood in us, but that's really on the outer layer instead of in us.That's why I think humans are hollow, like the typical easter egg.To prove we're not hollow to me in this debate, you'll probably have to have some video proof or something like that.Thank you.
Institutional racism

Ok no because once again institutional racism does not refer to a random person on the street's biases, this is referring to government organizations disciminating against these groups, or banks not giving loans for racial reasons. It doesn't matter if John Smith is scared of black people, it matters if the judge sentences them to longer sentences just because of their color. And the fact of the matter is that this does not happen and you have yet to prove that any institution discriminates based on the color of their skin.
Institutional racism

I agree that not everyone acts on his or her biases; however, everyone does not need to act on his or her biases in order for there to be institutional racism. As long as some people act on their biases, there will be institutional racism. Will it be significant? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but that's not the argument. As long as institutional racism is greater than 0 (no racism), even if it is insignificant, it still exists. Even if some people do not act on their biases, there is still institutional racism, although it's obviously less impactful than if everyone were to act on their biases. In other words, even if only 5% of people act on their biases (when in reality, it's more like 80%+ of people), institutional racism still exists.
Institutional racism

First off you did not copy paste and you changed the title of the debate. The exact format I wrote is copied below and can be viewed at the link at the bottom. "Burden of proof is on pro to prove that there is racism against the aforementioned minority groups in America. The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country, that is obvious. I am looking for someone to prove that there is "institutional racism" in America. Institutional racism- a pattern of social institutions " such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law " giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race. Structure R1 pro arguments R2 Con rebuttal Pro defense R3 con final rebuttal Pro sacrifices this round as I did not make arguments in R1" (1) "Everyone is a little biased" Yes this is true but this does not mean that everyone exhibits instutitional racism, people have thought all the time that they do not act on, and they do not necessarily have to let it impact their decisions. For example, if I see a really hot woman at the mall there are going to be thoughts that go through my head, but I can choose whether or not to act on them, and as long as I choose to ignore them then that is harmless. Have I driven through an inner city and been slightly intimidated? Yes but as long as it remains a thought in my head there is nothing wrong and that is not classified as institutional racism. I think you misunderstand the word institutional racism, as nobody denies that people have prejudices, everyone judges everyone that is human nature, the question is whether or not that is manifesting itself in mistreatment towards the groups I mentioned. 1. (http://www.debate.org...)
Institutional racism

I quoted the exact text from Con and reposted it into this argument; these were his exact words. The reason I did not accept his version of the debate was that I was unable to do so because of having no debates under my belt. Having said that, in the original argument (copy/pasted from his words), he never mentioned specific racial groups, rather minorities in general. So, of course, my main evidence would be #1 affirmative action. It goes without saying that affirmative action is racist against Asians. However, since he's changing the argument, we can move onto #2 #2 The reality is, practically EVERYONE is a little biased, and a significant number of people are at least a little bit racist as well. Because of these biases, of course there is institutional racism; almost everyone is a little bit racist or biased. However, the argument really should be HOW MUCH institutional racism accounts for hardships, not whether or not it exists. Personally, I believe it's rather insignificant (especially far less significant than people believe it is). Nevertheless, the argument is about whether or not it EXISTS, not how SIGNIFICANT it is.
Institutional racism

Burden of proof is on pro to prove that there is racism against the aforementioned minority groups in America. The debate is not about whether or not there are a few racist people in the country, that is obvious. I am looking for someone to prove that there is "institutional racism" in America. Institutional racism- a pattern of social institutions " such as governmental organizations, schools, banks, and courts of law " giving negative treatment to a group of people based on their race. Structure R1 con arguments R2 pro rebuttal Pro defense R3 pro final rebuttal con sacrifices this round as I did not make arguments in R1
Evolution is a theory that has no basis

I did answer your question(from time to time I have to question myself. So yes, I would like to keep an open mind). You cannot make me put an answer to your specifications. I also said that I believe in evidence, and logic. The argument with the most evidence has the right to be accepted. Also, you asked me a question on could everything that you know could be wrong. You should also ask yourself that question. I provided evidence for evolution. I provided the fossils found in Africa which showed that the ape's skull kept changing. He provided an argument on the ocean being concentrated. He has no source for that argument, therefore how can I see if what he is saying is right. That is the only bit of evidence he had. Asking me a question of could everything you know be wrong. That is also irrelevant to my case. I would like for the voter to judge these arguments objectively. He gave no sources for his critique on evolution.
Evolution is a theory that has no basis

You are avoiding my question, could you be wrong about everything you think you know. You are avoiding it because you know the answer. You do not know if you are right or wrong and if you don't know, then why did you except this debate if you're not even sure. if the earth were millions of years old the saltiness of the ocean would be thousands of time more concentrated then it currently is. There is your proof. I would like you to vote not on your religion but who debated better and who answered more questions.
Evolution is a theory that has no basis

You can say that evolution is just a theory, but most scientists accept this theory. Most scientists do not accept creation. They chose evolution over creation. The idea that God made everything in six days has became absurd. According to NaturualScience.com, we share 98% of our DNA with apes. There are also fragments that are found in Africa where they showed apes constantly evolving. The skull in Africa kept changing. This is evidence of an ever-changing, evolving race that became humans.
Fight me IRL brah

Nice argument mainly because that was your only chance to put in your comment on this. The funny part is that you agreed with me in the first paragraph. You have also stated, "checkers can take just as long if not longer, in checkers you run into a lot of stand off/stand stills causing you to sit and think about your move, of which can really stall out a game. " I don't believe that this is entirely true mainly because in checkers if you get stalled there are only four moves you can possibly do, go diagonal to the left forwards, to the right forwards, if using a king you can go backwards left and right, but in chess there are 6 different types of pieces in chess all with different move styles that requires a lot more thinking and planning because of the variety of moves. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You also were saying that chess has many moves and actions in the game that are hard to explain such as knighting. That just shows that it is not casual because if you came to someones house that has never played checkers, you could explain the moves much more quickly than explaining the fundamentals and strategies of chess. Therefor this is why I believe that chess is not as casual, enjoyable if it is you are just beginning and all around relaxing with another while enjoying a nice game of checkers. Thank You, for picking this random, yet good debate IAlwaysWinDebates, and thank you for using my resources.