BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

I had argued that the movie does not reflect the poverty in slums realistically. I feel that you have not answered this objection at all. You have accepted that India is not all slums. But that is not what I said at all. My contention was - the movie does not reflect the life in slums well. It exaggerates crime - rather than focus on real problems faced by most people. You have written in great detail about the lessons we can learn from the movie. Assuming that the movie is a fairy tale - I agree. On other hand at least a part of movie's appeal lies in the assumption that it reflects the conditions in Indian slums. Problem is - this part is complete fiction - feeding on stereotypes. I am glad to hear you enjoyed it. I found it dull. Other people have made better and more realistic movie on poverty (and crime) in India. Salaam Bombay is a case in point. However that is not the issue of this debate.
Slumdog Millionaire Portrays Poverty and Affluence Well

This movie shows it is possible to succeed in a world where money dominates while respecting rights and caring for morals. Slumdog Millionaire is reminiscent of Forrest Gump both in sequence of the movie and the morals. Forrest Gump does not originate from a wealthy family and he had been severely crippled by his learning ability. His mother exchanged sex for his acceptance to a public school. It shows that wherever you come from, you will always be hindered by obstacles. What is admirable is overcoming those bumps on the road courageously and with determination. It shows that you can become rich and successful by being truthful and loyal. Both Gump and Malik pursued a childhood friend who was the sole reason for their actions. The obvious difference is that Forrest Gump led a life of affluence while Jamal Malik lived in poverty. It shows the huge income gap worldwide. There are those who could afford buying the love of one's life while many struggle on affording basic necessities being waiters and beggars. ‘Slumdog Millionaire' may not be based on a real story, but the story told through Jamal happens commonplace. Other than the ending where Jamal wins ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire', the film is as realistic as it could be while entertaining the audience. Indians inhabiting slums rarely attend school because they are too poor to travel into the city to go public schools. So, that special recognition is given to those who actually succeed. Those who do eventually find a way out of the slums do it through school. The rest will find themselves impoverished while trying to make a livelihood. Soon enough, the lack of entertainment and excitement as well as growing contempt for their existence causes them to break out in fights. Gangs are formed and drugs are smuggled to be sold for a better life. For them, dealing drugs and doing other activities in the black market are the easiest way to go from penniless to prosperous. Although some Indians see the poverty and crime in the slums and know the circumstances of people's lives there, they chose to blame the poor. They want to be kept away from what is happening the slums while refusing to take responsibility for being users of illegal substances that has led the expansion of drug trafficking and urban violence. By telling the story of Mumbai from a low-class point of view, the viewers are taken to the extremes of emotions from hopelessness to redemption. The feelings of truly living to survive were captured. Conditions in the slums are getting worse with every day and so, Boyle set about to create an understanding as to why slums are the way they are for the world. Boyle wanted them to see that the poor do not want to be lowlives and steal from the rich. He knew the only way to do that was by exploring the reasons as to what makes a violent criminal. Even from the beginning, Jamal is portrayed as a honest, caring boy. Later on, he is shown to steal belongings of tourists. Jamal may not not reached the extreme which his brother, Salim, does by shooting carelessly, however, he does regret his shameful past.
Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

Beings that can directly observe the physical world don't exist. Just like with a robot (because we are in many ways machines made of biological material) the brain only receives signals through wires; not the light directly, Because that was just an unintelligent sensor receiving that. The brain must have parts to translate the signals into the program language, And that is the level at which decisions are made and at which thoughts exist, Even though they are composed of unthinking particles of matter. A robot could get plugged into a computer which sends simulated signals through the wire of its sensor, And the robot would have trouble identifying any difference between the simulation and the reality, And even more trouble identifying which case was reality. Ideal situations might not occur. The world could be empty blackness, Except for minds which only perceive that a world is real and that they are interacting with each other. The real world could be anything, And any objective ethical value is as likely as any other. The world could be a dream in which logic is backwards, Making all statements necessarily as easily false as they could be true. We cannot determine whether any statements are objectively true therefore; only perspectives on the nature of the world can be created and be available for reasoning; those perspectives verifiably exist. The subjective level of truth is the only verifiable level of things, And the only level that matters (other levels only matter for effects ON the subjective level). Whether or not the objective world is in alignment, The world within which the minds interact and perceive is the only level in which decisions can and will be made. There is no reason to define an area of objective truths as objective ethical values because the nature of the objective statement does not matter; only the effect on the subjective world matters, And something in the category of "ethical" as it exists in the objective world is just as likely to affect the subjective world as something outside of the category. Because objective truths are unknowable and their natures are not indicative of their effects on the important world, The nature of any objective truth is moot (and indeterminable). The truth itself (not the nature of it) might not be moot because it could have effects, But determining whether it has an effect and therefore matters at all is also moot (and indeterminable). An objective value cannot and does not need to be identified as real or right.
Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

I in forward want to apologize for my short answer, For I do not intend to disrespect you by giving such a short answer of mine to such a long and well-thought argument of yours. I think it was a mistake of me to use the term "perspective", As indeed it is linked to subjectivity. Furthermore, Humans are indeed not necessary for life to exist, However, Species are, For a life has to fulfill the criteria of reproduction and a species (at least within the theory) is defined as an ensemble of individuals that can inclusively and exclusiviey reproduce with other individuals of the same species. The reason we are talking about the example of humans is that we are humans. Ethical values have to exist inside minds to be relevant, But not to be right. Wouldn"t it be ideal for an objective value existing outside minds would become an ethical value existing inside minds? There is no reason for it to be impossible that an ethical value existing inside minds and an objective value existing outside minds are identical. In the case that they are identical, We have an objective ethical value. However, For an objective value to become an ethical one, Minds have to make the respective thought-process needed in order to recognize this objective value as an ethical one. I do not want to create strawman here, But saying that an ethical value has to exist inside minds to be true(, If that is what you wanted to say, ) is like saying that something is true when people claim it to be true. As you implied yourself, Only because a principle exists inside minds for an arbitrary reason does not make it impossible for this principle to also be the result of an non-arbitrary reason (outside minds). I could also lists principles that are result of my theory that do not generally exist inside minds, For instance the concept of eugenics. (Well, At the end, My answer is not that short. )
Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

I am aware that the vocabulary used may be confusing to some. Still, I decided to use this vocabulary, For it describes in the most concise and precise way the ideas of the “theory“, If you will. I can assure you that you have correctly interpreted the text. Unfortunately, I cannot assure you that the following text will be entirely accurate from a purely logical perspective, Even though I will try for it to be. In your text you treat the topic of relevance/importance. You define the relevance of an action/process in respect to its impact/effect on the universe. The measure of the impact/effect would be its size/“bigness“, If you will, As you have used the example of the black hole being more relevant than the inhabitation of a given planet. The reason for this probably is that a black hole can potentially affect a number of planets superior to one. However, I fail to see how being bigger, Of a superior size would make an impact/effect more relevant. However, I can comprehend your reflexion on how value does not need to be assigned to the survivability of species. My reflexion on this is that, Indeed, From a neutral perspective, Value does not need to be assigned to that. However, Humans are part both in the external as in the internal selection. Therefore, Humans are to regard this from a partisan perspective. One could go as far as to say that every aspect of our life is inherently part of both selections. As a result from this circumstance, From the human partisan perspective, Value does need to be assigned for example to the survivability of its own species. (I just quickly want to insist on that “partisan“ does not equal “subjective“. )
Objective ethical values do exist and these are them

I'm not so good at understanding all those terms, But they do seem like they're NOT just empty jargon. I think I understand most of the arguments well enough, But if I misinterpret, Correct me. ;/ I saw that you assigned objective value to the survivability of a species, And that it was good that the high quality species were selected for and that they survived. I don't agree that value needs to be assigned to that. I think that, If the high quality or fit-to-survive species were wiped out, Or even if all of the species of life were wiped out in the whole universe, The universe would persist and conditions would remain favorable for life, Or favorable for the creation of conditions favorable for life, Just as conditions became favorable on Earth. Earth was created from the sun, And formed into all that is considered good today. (For people who would rather believe in a religious creation at Genesis from the bible, Or any other creation story which doesn't match space-sciencey origins, Earth was created from the god, And formed into all that is considered good today (or however it happened for specific religions; I guess I could look up every religion, But it would take a long time and I think I cover most of it, Or my logic could be easily applied to cover those situations by those people who care to have them covered)). The features of the universe that allowed for planets to form and contain materials for life would not change if life was wiped out (unless it was an end-of-all-existence situation, But let's say that doesn't happen, First). OR The features of god that allowed for him or her or it to form the world and/or give it life did not change (that's probably true for most religions, Likely for the religions of anyone who reads this). Given enough time, Conditions can align or god could decide to allow for creation of life at the same level of complexity as before. If things can return to the way they were, And if things WILL return to the way they were, Then there was no harm done. And having tiny organisms that can survive extremely well on a tiny ball in space doesn't mean things are better or worse. The rest of the universe isn't affected much by anything that happens on inhabited planets. If the effect on the rest of the universe is even what matters, A black hole is better than earth because it affects the rest of the universe MORE. If it matters that a "good" effect happens, Then it really doesn't tell us anything about what "good" is.
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

Accepted1. "The fetus can only be regarding as a human being... when it... is essentially living... without any external aide."So my opponent's definition of human life is when the baby can breathe and on its own. Astronauts can't breathe on their own in space without external help, neither can babies outside their natural habitat.2. "to consider abortion murder would be robbing the mother of her right..." So my opponent thinks abortion isn't murder because it would keep a mother from killing the child? What?My contention:A baby in the womb contains human DNA, has a heartbeat, and is growing. It looks human and is genetically human. Look at the abortion photos. Sickening. Abortion is murder. http://www.youtube.com...
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

Abortion cannot be regarded as murder, because firstly you cannot regard as a fetus as a human being, it is just that a fetus. The fetus can only be regarding as a human being and worthy of protection of the right to life when it takes its first breathe a separated from its mother (when the umbilical cord is cut off) and is essentially living on its own without any external aide. Furthermore to consider abortion murder would be robbing the mother of her right to bodily integrity and to choose whether or not she wants to keep the baby. After all it is her body and baby, who are we as society to tell her what not to do and what to do in this regard
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

Funny, my second video did not get posted. Anywho. Here it is. http://www.youtube.com... Looks human to me. Now, let's look at my opponent's definition of human. That doesn't apply to toddlers! Do by my opponent's definition, toddlers should be killed. There seems to be no good definition for "human" which is where the controversy comes in. I would say an unborn child is human because it is a growing being with human DNA. Simply underdeveloped.
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

Definition of human being (more technical than human therefore more appropriate): a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. Oxford -Fetus does not meet these requirements set= not a human being -Apes also have characteristics of humans, and DNA over 98% similar does that make them human? -If a fetus has the right to dignity, wouldn't this mean that mother's would be prohibited from smoking and excessive alcohol consumption -fetus only begins to appear remotely human at week 11 http://www.embryo.chronolab.com... -who should be charged with murder, mother or doctor= legal uncertainty
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

Human definition:1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2: consisting of humans 3 : having human form or attributesWebster DictionarySee video and think about it. A growing organism with human DNA... meaning that it has characteristics. Most abortions happen after week one and before week 9. The period in that video. The baby has human-like organs and human DNA and looks very human by the end. It is obviously human.http://www.abort73.com...If the baby is human, which it is by definition, then murder applies to its wrongful death. It should also have the "right to dignity." Meaning murder certainly does apply to it. The baby in the womb has every right as baby outside the womb.
Abortion is not murder, and cannot be regarded as murder

"The fetus can be regarded as a human being"- astronauts are regarded as human beings, reasons need not be provided for this assertion as Pro's initial arguments speaks for itself. A fetus is not a baby, it is not human, it lacks the capacity to survive on its own, a human being's natural habitat is not inside a woman in a womb, it is outside, human being can breath, murder is regarded as intentionally killing a human being, it is not so broad as to include killing a non human organism such as a fetus. Also at what point should we regard the fetus as living, if we're going to regard it as a human being capable of being murdered, should we not then afford it with all other rights afforded to human beings, such as the right to dignity?
Iker Casillas should start for Real Madrid instead of Diego Lopez

My opinion is that everybody wants to play Iker just because he's legend, although he isn't actually the best RM's keeper. You write your opinion, but just opinion. How did you get this opinion? What's the base of your opinion? You are just his fan and no matter what Lopez does, Iker will be still your number one. I think Lopez is better, because he can also prove it. Iker doesn't.
Iker Casillas should start for Real Madrid instead of Diego Lopez

Yes, the stats say Lopez is better, but Casillas has grown as a player since those were taken. And honestly is you source reliable? This season as an example, when we played Osasuna in La Liga, we tied them 2-2 (that was when Diego Lopez played), but when we played them again with Casillas starting, we had a shutout 2-0. Coincidence? I think not! Also, our defense is faulty this year, but what is the only player change in our defence? Goalkeeper! The stats currently say Lopez is better, but I think even having Casillas makes our defense as a whole stronger. Casillas' leadership is much greater than Lopez's and I think he can really command the defenders and midfield. What is more important, stats or actual scores and points? I think game scores. Once Mourinho put Lopez in for Casillas we dropped to third place in La Liga. If those stats really mattered, then why did Casillas get awarded goalkeeper of the year 5 year in a row?! You don't really have an opinion, do you? You are probably just statings "facts" simply to join in on a debate. Right? The fans also act better and support the team better when Casillas plays. They LOVE him! I think the managers have a grudge against him because of the way Mourinho treated him. Stats are BOGUS!
Iker Casillas should start for Real Madrid instead of Diego Lopez

It's hard to prove why is Lopez (actually) better than Casillas. I mean, I'll use statistics from WhoScored.com and Bleacher Report (released 30th April 2013 and 9th August 2013). On WhoScored compared Casillas' stats in 19 matches and Lopez' stats in 12 matches. Former of Sevilla has got more saves per game (3,17 x 1,74) so about twice more saves per game. He has got also better save success rate (74,5%) against Casillas' 63,5%. Both did just 1 mistake which meant goal so Casillas needed more matches to make a mistake. Lopez also caught more crosses (24) than Iker (15) but it's expected because Casillas has got problems due to height. And if we talk about offensive part of their gameplay, Lopez send more accurate long balls per game (5,75) what's quite different against Casillas' 3,05 accurate long balls. Also, Real Madrid has got better Win / Loss Ratio with Lopez (they won 75% of matches when he played against Casillas' 63%) and lost just 6% with tall keeper in starting eleven (with Iker it's 16%). You should think Iker is better, but these stats say something different.
Iker Casillas should start for Real Madrid instead of Diego Lopez

Lopez can't even compare to Casillas. Diego Lopez isn't even in the current squad for Spain! Casillas' achievements at Real are unmatched. Casillas was the best goalkeeper for five years in a row! (1) He only didn't win this year because he never got to play! Casillas didn't play for a while, but once he came back against Juventus, he had an AMAZING game! How can you call his performance "out-of-form"? I know any challenger's argument will only be that Diego Lopez is in "better" form, but is he really? No (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Best_Goalkeeper http://www.youtube.com...
God does not exist(video debate)

Rounds: 5 Voting Period: indefinitely Time to Argue: 72 hours argument Max: 500(we will be using video, so this is set to the lowest to deter written argumentation) The god in question I assume will be the Christian god. Definition of 'Exist' as taken from Dictionary.com: 1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not. If these terms are agreeable for hello-orange, then our video debate shall begin in the next round. I am looking forward to a good debate :)
Resolved: There is no afterlife.

... the memories other s have of you when you die is a way of living after death. Memory and life are clearly completely different things. In any case, your argument still falls over in a scenario where all people die. In such a scenario, nobody could have any memories of other people, and hence there would be no afterlife.Also the bible states that... Well, I have a piece of scrap paper on which someone wrote “The bible is wrong. There is no afterlife.”, and I strongly believe what it says on that piece of paper. I would also like to point out some strange appearances such as ghost. Some people say they don't exist, but I say they do. In fact I have had multiple experiences with them... As with all supernatural things, the only “evidence” for such phenomena is anecdotal. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of ghosts. All ghost “sightings” or “experiences” can be explained by ordinary physical phenomena e.g. air pressure changes (slamming doors), reflected light (“ghostly” images), imperfect vision, and especially pareidolia [1].Sure when you die your brain functions cease, but that doesn't mean you lose your brain, and I quote you, "When someone dies there is no brain." The brain functions cease, but the brain is still in the cranium, (or head for those who don't know.) It makes no difference. When brain functions cease, there is no consciousness. Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, “no brain” and “no functional brain” are the same thing. In other words, my argument can be restated as follows:1. If there is no consciousness after death, then there is no afterlife (by definition). 2. Consciousness in an emergent property of a functional brain. 3. Hence, if there is no functional brain, there is no consciousness. 4. When someone dies, there is no functional brain. 5. Hence, when someone dies, there is no consciousness (3 and 4). 6. Therefore, there is no afterlife (1 and 5).Clearly, the question of how long it takes for the brain to cease to exist due to decomposition is irrelevant.And if you take the Greek mythology into account, you have Hades or Pluto in his Roman essence, Osiris in Egyptian Mythology, and in christiananity you have heaven and hell. If there was no afterlife explain these religions and beliefs. The explanation is that they are, as you stated correctly, religions and beliefs, and not facts. I have provided a sound and logical argument that there is no afterlife, and I have provided concrete evidence to support my argument. Con has not refuted anything that I have said. Further, Con has not provided any sound argument as to why brain damage would reduce consciousness but brain death would restore consciousness.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...