BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was plagiarized from Willy the Wizard

Rowling (Harry Potter) vs. the Jacobs Estate (Willy the Wizards) The Jacobs Estate claim that JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was copied and plagiarized from Willy the Wizard. I say Rowling did not plagiarism because Rowling said that she did not read Willy the Wizard (1). My second reason is that Mrs. Rowling did not plagiarize from Willy the Wizard is because Mrs. Rowling used the usual uses from literature, mythology, real life events and other fiction. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... One claim is that Mrs. Rowling copied from Willy the Wizard by having both books having the protagonist wizard competing in a magic contest (2). Many real life events involve competitions and real life events can influence an idea to a writer. It is easy think of competitions for your books, since there a lot of books and other fiction involve magical competition in a story arc (3). Since it is that easy to think of having competitions as a storyline she could have think of having a competition as a storyline for her books or do research on real life competitions like the Olympics, World Cup, Tennis, international martial arts competitions and etc. Competitions have been going on since the early days of the Roman Coliseum (4), maybe even longer than that. So Willy the Wizard is not the only thing that has competitions, there are so many competitions in fiction and real life that can have an influence JK Rowling. The Jacobs Estate claim Mrs. Rowling also copyright by "Both Willy and Harry complete the task using information gleaned from helpers." (5). This is the one of the most common in literature, mythology and other fiction, this is called companionship where a warrior or people befriends the hero. This also happened in Wizard of Oz where Dorothy gets help from the Tin Man, Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion. It also happened in Jason and the Argonauts, Power Rangers, Code Lyoko, Sailor Moon with the Sailor Scouts, and etc. Explain more at You Tube video number 3 and 4. Just like Star Wars Revealed, JK Rowling could have the same or similar influence and ideas for Goblet of Fire as George Lucas did with Star Wars that the Jacob Estate obviously missed. 1.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 2.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 3.http://tvtropes.org... 4.http://www.rlrouse.com... 5.http://www.scribd.com...
Homeschooling is better than Public School

The argument : "" Home schooling is better than Public School"" ""For clarification purposes, I am home schooled and am arguing that home schooling is superior in every way to public school."" My responses It is impossible to generalise each student learns best in different ways. Religion is the main reason that students are home schooled not academic success. No social interaction in a work environment Lack of specialized subject teachers when being home schooled. Not one country in the world sees home schooling as the better method of schooling. My rebuttals: ""90% of Germans voted for Hitler before WWII, majority/might doesn't make right. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right."" Very extreme example however Hitler led Germany from nothing to one of the most powerful nations in the world. We live in a democracy and have to accept the consensus view. In this case the consensus is Home schooling is NOT better than Public School. ""Actually, home schooling is illegal in many countries, especially in Europe. Germany, Albania, Cyprus, Andoria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Moldova, and many other countries persecute home schooling and make it hard to educate children in that manner. and again, just because something isn't popular, doesn't mean it isn't right."" It is legal in the vast majority of countries and is still not seen as the best form of education in any country in the world. "" homeschoolers use private testing, whose test scores are not given to the government but equally valid nonetheless"" . You used none of these stats in your argument and even if you did it would not allow us to compare with public results. We therefore cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from any of your stats used. "" he knows what the parent's are thinking and they want to manipulate the children and putting the wool over the child's eyes"" I do not wish to insult your beliefs but the fact you and many others like you were home schooled and believe in creationism is in my view no coincidence. As proved thought this debate for the vast majority of students public school is best option. I would like to thank Pro for the debate. Vote con. All References: http://www.homeschoolnewslink.com...... http://nces.ed.gov...... http://www.examiner.com...... http://nces.ed.gov...... http://www.indiana.edu...... http://www.hslda.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......
Homeschooling is better than Public School

Well, I've said just about all I think I need to say on this debate. So this round, I'll summarize. 1. Homeschooled children are much better than Public Schoolers academically.2. Homeschooled students are better socially than Public School students3. Homeschooled students are less likely to get into crime and more likely to be successful in life because of their close relationship with their parents.Rebuttals: "Most parents (97%) still believe public school is the best place for their children.":90% of Germans voted for Hitler before WWII, majority/might doesn't make right. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right."Internationally parents and students do no believe home schooling is better that is why it is very uncommon."Actually, homeschooling is illegal in many countries, especially in Europe. Germany, Albania, Cyprus, Andoria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Greece, Malta, Moldova, and many other countries persecute homeschooling and make it hard to educate children in that manner. and again, just because something isn't popular, doesn't mean it isn't right."Pro has used flawed statistics to make his argument."Actually, I used one study, and you used a different study from a different organization on the same subject to prove that my study was flawed. All that showed was that your study was flawed. Also, I showed that many homeschoolers use private testing, whose test scores are not given to the government but equally valid nonetheless"Key motivation is religious not for the child"s education. Facts presented in a biased way to enable the parents to manipulate the child."This goes right along with the other "imagine" objections to homeschooling. Imagining what homeschooling is like. From Con's point of view, he knows what the parent's are thinking and they want to manipulate the children and putting the wool over the child's eyes. Also for the "biased" part... In my homeschool, we learn about evolution and creation, not just creation. On the other hand, in public schools you only learn about evolution. I'd say public schools are more biased. And remember, not all homeschoolers are religious.Remember that the burden of proof is shared and vote Pro.Bibliography for debate:Round 2:http://www.hslda.org.........http://school.familyeducation.com.........https://www.google.com.........http://www.essentialparenting.com.........http://aspe.hhs.gov.........http://www.modernmom.com.........http://www.livestrong.com.........http://www.blog.montessoriforeveryone.com.........http://www.webmd.com.........http://www.fatherhood.org.........http://nces.ed.gov......... Round 3:http://www.indiana.edu......http://www.hslda.org......http://www.usnews.com......http://www.secularhomeschool.com......
Homeschooling is better than Public School

The debate states that ""Homeschooling is better than Public School"" not that ""Homeschooling CAN be better than Public School"" this implies that no matter who you are, who you parents are if you stayed at home you would receive a better education no matter what the circumstances. I find this argument rather ridiculous it is impossible to make such a sweeping generalisation you fail to take into account parents education, occupation, and other motives they may have for example religion. Furthermore you do not state in the argument that ""Homeschooling IN THE USA is better than Public School"" therefor I am entitled to use international examples. The nation with the best public schools, south korea has a population of 50 million only 600 to 1,000 families choose to home school there children. A public school has teachers who have trained for years to help children achieve their maximum potential. You use figures from the National Centre for Education Statistics but this doesn't provide a full picture, as many homeschoolers are strongly opposed to any sort of governmental oversight of their efforts, and therefore refuse to participate in any data-gathering attempts (the 2003 NCES survey, had a 58% refusal rate) therefore the figures you sight are likely to be distorted and inaccurate. Refuting the basis of you argument. A child needs to have a rounded educational experience learning how to work as part of a team to achieve their full academic potential, this includes working with each other in a learning/working a valuable skill when attending university or work you need to these skills at their disposal. Parents are not up to date with modern teaching techniques or theory"s for example modern day sciences have refuted the idea of creationism and other teachings of the bible and yet they are being taught to some ""homeschoolers"" like they are fact. Summary Suited to some children not all therefore is wrong to say all it is better in every way than public school again supported by international examples. Flawed figures in Pro argument distort the facts. Rounded education is not guaranteed giving the child an obscure view of the world. Sources http://www.indiana.edu... http://www.hslda.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
God is a fallacy, Nature is the true higher being

You refer to nature as being are dominate being, Not only is this a religion but matches the term spirituality, Which you even said is an idea created. Spirituality is "a deep sense of spirit that connects to the natural environment. " The natural environment is nature in one of its greatest forms. You also say that God was created at a time of manipulation. Then why can't people prove it false with all the knowledge we gained since they started writing the Bible? They must have been the best "manipulators" out there; ever! You also said that they use the concept of Heaven and Hell to scare people into worshiping kings and queens even though the Bible clearly says, "Worship the LORD your God, And serve him only. " Thank you for your time
God is a fallacy, Nature is the true higher being

Spirituality is an idea created when mankind didnt understand complex forces of nature. However, Though in its infancy, Mankind made a mature move toward spirituality by seeing a god of each force of nature: a god of rain, God of sun, God of moon etc. God was created at a time mankind began to express manipulation and systemic greed. God, Heaven and hell was introduced to scare people into worshing human kings and queens. I propose god needs to be seen as forces of nature so that we worship the veey ground and animals that feed us and helps us grow. (Please have reasons to oppose, And please just stick to the question and not make your own, Othrwise create a separate debate and invite me. )
Eating meat is unethical

Thanks for the debate Pro.Pro seems to be hedging back his concession.Luckily, DDO already has a policy on conceded debates.You'll see.*Responding to Pro More*Pro admits again:"I did concede to that point."My response:You conceded that you had no response to my directly-impacting-the-resolution argument and that eating meat is *not* unethical, so it's not just "that point" you conceded; you've conceded the whole of the resolution.Pro mentions:"I wouldn't be surprised if people voted Pro."My response:I would.Most voters don't want to have their votes removed.DDO's vote moderation policy clearly states:"A conceded debate is any debate in which one side clearly concedes to their opponent. These debates are considered conceded debates and are only moderated [if] a voter votes for the side that concedes."http://www.debate.org...Voters, moderation will remove your vote if you vote for the side that conceded.Come on Pro.Pro opines:"Semantics though" isn't a valid argument."My response:According to the DDO's New Members Tutorial on Resolutions, Burden of Proof, Semantics, and Picking topics:"Semantic arguments are valid. In regard to usage, semantics debaters will easily tear you to pieces if you get out of step [and] most likely, the audience will applaud the opponent's use of semantics and vote in favor of that opponent. To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first, sets the definitions for the rest of the debate."http://www.debate.org...Didn't bother reading up on actual, valid debate tactics?That's ok.At least you conceded.Pro continues:"You clearly knew what I was referring to."My response:Yeah.You were referring to eating meat, and whether or not it was unethical, and that's exactly the debate that unfolded before you.You also found out, on some level, you agree that eating meat *is* ethical.That's what debate does...shows you something about yourself that you never thought was possible.You're a meat-eating vegan.Pro councils:"Anyways, I suggest you don't get too engaged by semantics."My response:Says the guy who *didn't* supply definitions 1st round to the guy who *did*.I was trying to avoid semantics by providing definitions, 1st round, to guide the debate and precisely avoid semantics; clearly my intent was ant-semantics.*Conclusion*Voters please understand that definitions were provided round 1 for both crucial terms of the resolution by Con and *these* definitions should be considered when gauging the debate.Also, Pro CLEARLY conceded 2nd round and this cannot be overlooked when voting, in fact, those who vote for the side that conceded will have their vote removed by moderation.Thanks again, Pro.
Eating meat is unethical

Thanks for your response Pro.Pro, as I suspected, ended up agreeing with me after all.Pro also expressed some disdain for my actions.I shall respond.*Responding to Pro*Pro admits:"I can't argue against your point as I don't see nothing wrong with your reasoning."My response:Yeah, I was pretty sure that most vegans consumed meat however antithetical it may sound.Vegans consume a lot of meat as it turns out.Pro characterizes:"Dodging the debate using semantics was a really childish thing to do."My response:Thanks.I'm glad my arguments are clear and simple enough such that even a child can understand them.childish - appropriate to a child.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Pro reckons:"you're just prolonging the discussion while lives are being taken for palate pleasure."My response:Whose lives are being taken to please the separation between the cavities of the mouth and nose in vertebrates?Where are the lives being taken to?Don't we just brush our teeth and maintain regular mouth hygiene to please our alveolar ridge?That way we don't have to take anything anywhere, lives or otherwise, to please our hard and soft palate.Pro reasons:"I'll just have to copy and paste the same argument and change 1 word."My response:I wouldn't.Instead, you should just provide definitions for each term of your resolution so that no one can just come in and distort your debate.I don't know who would actually do that though...Pro adds:"But again, I do thank you, it's my first debate, I'm not a native English speaker and I learned a new definition for meat."My response:Oh you're very welcome, and, while I have speakers of other languages in ALL of my classes (I'm a high school teacher), your writing doesn't appear to be non-native and is quite fluid; I couldn't tell you're not a native speaker.Pro concedes:"I guess I concede if we consider the definition of meat to indicate the flesh of fruit and nuts."My response:Yeah, debate rules typically dictate that the first provided definitions for the terms of the resolution are the definitions used throughout the debate, so vegans are responsible for tons of meat consumption and you admit that you don't find *that* to be unethical.*Vote*Voters should understand the definitions provided first round and take serious note of Pro's concession.Also, Pro should understand that for this debate to make it to the voting period, Pro has to type "forwarding" in the subsequent rounds, else the debate ends in a forfeit sans a vote.Thanks for the debate Pro.
Eating meat is unethical

Thanks for the reply, as I know that you clearly understood what I was referring to when I wrote "meat". I can't argue against your point as I don't see nothing wrong with your reasoning. Dodging the debate using semantics was a really childish thing to do. Also unethical in my opinion as you're just prolonging the discussion while lives are being taken for palate pleasure. I'll just have to copy and paste the same argument and change 1 word. But again, I do thank you, it's my first debate, I'm not a native English speaker and I learned a new definition for meat. I guess I concede if we consider the definition of meat to indicate the flesh of fruit and nuts, although in my argument it's clear that I meant animals.
Eating meat is unethical

I accept Pro.Thanks for instigating this debate.I suspect that Pro is a vegan, so he may end up agreeing with me.I mean, who doesn't love eating fruits and nuts?*Meat*We put it in smoothies, we make spreads out of it, we drink its juice, we even mash it up into a paste and place it on our skin for its rejuvenating effects; we love meat.It's also healthy for you.Most meat has tons of fiber, vitamins, antioxidants, and, get this, by adding more meat to your diet, you can lose weight more effectively and extend your life.My wife had our third child about 6 months ago (at the time of this posting) and feeding our baby anything other than breast milk can be challenging, because our baby has no teeth.That's why we mash up different types of meat, into a fine sauce, and spoon feed our baby; this was actually the pediatrician's recommendation.I was surprised to learn that eating meat was considered a contentious issue, let alone that it was unethical.What could be unethical about consuming the edible part of an organism's offspring?Are you going to tell me that plants can suffer too?Come on.I argue that the organisms from which we harvest meat lack the neuronal substrates and neuroanatomical wherewithal to experience suffering, pain, or mental anguish, especially when you consider that we mostly harvest the meat of those organisms' inanimate offspring, not the original organism itself.Is Pro willing to defend that juice is also unethical?Drinking the juice of certain meat is not only delicious, it can provide much needed vitamin C, so, for people with that particular deficiency, certain meat juice is not unethical; it's almost necessary.Is it unethical for frozen yogurt places to choose to use meat as a healthy, flavorful topping for their products?All the data shows that meat toppings increase sales, increase customer satisfaction, and yes, increase the nutritional value of the total frozen yogurt product; people love adding meat to their desserts.Should ice cream and frozen yogurt companies only use gummy bears and sprinkles, because someone's getting all angry about angiosperm abuse?Give me a break.Now, even though I'm a non-vegan, I eat a ton of meat.I suspect that nearly all vegans eat meat too.Which is why it's so confusing that someone like Pro, who seems to be a vegan, is so against eating meat.My best friend was a vegan for nearly 5 years, and do you know what he always ate?Two peanut butter and jelly sandwiches a day for 5 years.Think of how much meat that is!It takes a lot of meat to produce just one jar of peanut butter or jelly, and two sandwiches a day for 5 years makes that amount of meat astronomical.*Conclusion*There's nothing unethical about eating meat, in fact, that's why even most vegans do it.While I can see how farming and consuming *animals* could be viewed as unethical, eating *meat* is morally inert and in most cases beneficial.Definitionsmeat - the edible part of fruits or nuts.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...unethical - not morally correct.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Eating meat is unethical

This argument has been formulated by vegan youtuber Ask Yourself, in this video he tackles point by point the most common arguments used by non-vegans. It is a long video but to be fair non-vegans have a lot of retarded arguments. If the video is too long I'll try an summarize it here, but before debating this topic I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the counter arguments. Let's cast aside the 4 N's http://rvgn.org... Eating meat is "Natural" - Appeal to Nature fallacy. Saying that something is natural doesn't mean it's ethical. Rape is Natural, is it ethical? Eating meat is "Normal" - Another fallacy. Similar argument to the one above. Slavery was normal few hundred years ago, is it ethical? Rape is normal still today in some cultures, is it ethical? Eating meat is "Necessary" - No it isn't. The American Dietetic Association states that a vegan diet can be adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and infancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Also these reputable doctors have done plenty of research and published peer reviewed scientific papers showing that a plant based diet is healthier than a diet which includes meat: Dr. Michael Greger from nutritionfacts.org and author of "How Not To Die" a New York Times best seller. Dr. Neal Barnard from pcrm.org Dr. John McDougall author of The Starch Solution There are many other doctors, nutritionists and scientists which have evidence supporting this argument, eating meat, dairy and eggs isn't necessary in our modern society. Eating meat is "Nice" - Insane position I think everyone agrees that "I love meat" isn't a proper argument. You wouldn't agree someone trying to eat you because you taste good. What is the justification then?