BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NHS being Privatised

Yes there are bound to be problems with privatising the NHS but there are problems with the NHS as it is. The NHS was not designed to care for a 21st century Britain where they have to cater for people living, people getting fatter and fatter or people with terminal illnesses that need long term care. The NHS was designed to ensure basic care was available to all and now they are providing costly and lengthy treatments to people with complicated problems like cancer, don't get me wrong it is not a bad thing we help those who have these problems who without the NHS might not get treated but we need to find new ways to help fund these expensive services.
NHS being Privatised

Please call me LibDemsForTheWin during this debate. I would call you ToriesAreRubbish, but some of my family voted Tory (the only one of the five major parties in the whole of the UK we did not vote for was UKIP). A1: Privatisation leads to greed. In the end private companies want money and a good reputation to earn them that, but they don't need a good reputation so they will not care about customer service and other things similar. A2: If something goes wrong, it is very difficult to find out who to blame and who needs to improve. A3: If privatised, jobs will become unsafe quickly (not that the Tories care). If you work in a state school, your job is a lot more safe than in a private school. A4: To be fair, the UK arguably has the best health service in the world, but it is no laughing matter and private companies will not take it as seriously.
PC Gaming is Superior to Next-Gen Gaming

That is not an argument.1. PC Gaming & Online PlayThe PC gaming does not require annual or monthly payments for playing online. If someone has the Internet on their computer, they can play multiplayer on their games without any extra payments. 2. PC Gaming & FeaturesPC games can be modded and characters can be re-textured to something else. PC games allow for users to control their game as best as possible. If a player gets tired of playing PC games. A player can simply play an emulator on the PC. This means people can play Nintendo, Playstation1, Dreamcast, Sega, and many other former console games on their PC through an emulator. The PS4 and Xbox One can't do that.3. PC Gaming & MemoryPC games have more space to fit in more in-game features. PC games are likely to hold larger maps and have longer story mode or campaign gameplay.
PC Gaming is Superior to Next-Gen Gaming

I as Pro am arguing in favor of the resolution that PC gaming is superior to Next Gen gaming, meaning both Xbox One and the PS4. The PS4 and Xbox One offer enough memory for high quality graphics to be played in games. But what about the PC? We don't see as many high quality graphics overall in PC games because a PC may explode due to the amount of virtual memory available. But is graphics all that we should look for in a game? How about th gameplay? How about multiplayer? How about the quality of the games offered on the PC compared to the Xbox One and PS4? I plan on showing in this debate why the PC out does the Next Gen consoles overall. Gaming on the PC should be embraced compared to the inferior Next Gen gaming consoles.
Titanic Vs Avatar

Disclaimer1. Pro's source numbered 1 is actual history of the ship RMS Titanic.2. Most of the arguments made by Pro i.e Argument 3 & 4 is directly copied from his source numbered 2. This I believe is "Plagiarism".Award ComparisonThe award comparison of "Titanic" and "Avatar" can be done from these sources. [1][2]Avatar V/s Titanic1. The story line of the movie "Titanic" is predictable as it is inspired by the true incident of the disaster of the ship RMS Titanic where as the movie "Avatar" is unpredictable. There is chills and thrills in every part of the movie.2. Every character of the movie "Avatar" is unique i.e Navi ( Fictous Indigenous people of the planet "Pandora") and animals (of the planet "Pandora"). These characters are dynamic and incomparable.3. The "visual" effects is amazing especially the view of "Flying mountains", the view of the whole new imaginary planet "Pandora" is amazing, the fight sequence and many more. 4. The music in this show is just terrific. It really helps build on emotions, and also is really good at setting the mood.5. The innovative "graphic" and "visual" effects were introduced. The 3D view is really amazing.ConclusionThough both movies are good, "Avatar" is better in many ways as stated above. It has the highest collection in the box office records, better story line, better "visual" effects, better "graphic" effects, dynamic characterisation etc. Thus "Avatar" movie is definitely better in many ways. It is the movie of the decade which passed the record of "Titanic" in many fields.Sources[1]http://www.imdb.com...[2]http://www.imdb.com...[3]http://www.cinemablend.com...
Titanic Vs Avatar

Reasons why Titanic Is way better than avatar 1.Titanic Garnered 11 Oscars 2.Titanic is a fictional story but it depicts history as well due to the sinking of titanic 3.Titanic" was nominated for 14 Academy Awards, and it won 11 of them. Both of these are records that have yet to be broken by any film. "Avatar" can never beat this, as it was only nominated for 9. "Titanic" won every technical award (minus Best Makeup), Best Picture, and Best Director, and it was nominated for two acting awards, including Best Actress (Kate Winslet) and Best Supporting Actress (Gloria Stuart...the old lady). "Avatar" has been nominated for its technical categories, which it clearly has earned, and Best Director and Best Picture. No acting awards. 4."Titanic" is a movie like no other. Everyone and their mother (literally) has seen it. When it hit theaters, those young and old went to see it. A film that spans all age demographics is impressive, and I can't say I know of any other film that has done this. "Avatar" sure has a lot of hype, but I can assure you my grandmother isn't going to see it. Now to achieve this box office record, "Titanic" was in theaters for months longer than most films. In fact, I've read that it was re-released into some theaters after awards season, and it came out on video while it was still out in theaters. That's the kind of demand it had. 5.Avatar had the same director as titanic but There were one part that is like the movie titanic look at video Sources 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://annoyingmovieguy.blogspot.com... 3.http://www.youtube.com...
Titanic Vs Avatar

Rebuttals"Titanic depicts history."Most of the story in the movie "Titanic" is not real history including the love story of "Jack" and "Rose". [1] "Avatar depicts blue creatures running around."It's way more than that. Avatar is a Science fiction adventure movie which shows the possibility of another planet which may sustain life.The graphics used were amazing. The movie was the highest gross earning film ever in the box office.[2][3]Reasons Why "Avatar" is better than "Titanic"1. Highest box office collection.2. The technology used in the production of "Avatar" beats "Titanic".3. The graphics effects was amazing in "Avatar".4. A number of innovative visual effects were introduced.5. The movie has won 3 Empire awards,9 Academy awards, 3 Golden Globe awards and many more.[3]Sources[1]http://www.chasingthefrog.com...[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...[3]http://james-camerons-avatar.wikia.com...
Is Jesus God? (Christian vs Muslim Debate)

Jesus is part of a "Holy Trinity" including God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, those three things being separate parts of the same whole. This would make Jesus not God, but a third of him. In addition, John 1:1-3 states "In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Logically, this is impossible, as nothing can both be with someone and a part of them simultaneously. Christianity has several contradictory statements in its Holy Book that, taken in whole, seem to indicate Jesus has some prevalent connection to God, but is not the Great I Am themself.
Is Jesus God? (Christian vs Muslim Debate)

My opening argument for the thesis on Jesus being God is that not only did he affirm and claim deity, but his own disciples believed in his deity as well. In order for my opponent to win this debate, he/she will have to demonstrate these three forms of criteria: 1. The Bible consistently as a whole attests to Jesus not being God. 2. The Old Testament is exclusively Unitarian. 3. Only Unitarianism is Monotheism. If my opponent can make an alternative form of criteria that is sufficient for the needs of the audience, then I will debate those terms as well with acceptance of the standards we are putting on the table. This round will be used to accept the challenge. My opponent can either accept or use his first reply here to be a chance to make an opening statement while I also respond.
It is possible to get your virginity back after you have lost it

I am going to defend the claim that a person who has lost their virginity can get it back.Definitions:Sex: When the penis of a living human male enters the vagina of a living human female.Virginity: The state of having never had sex.Loss of virginity: The state of having had sex. The initial loss of virginity occurs at the moment sex begins.Possible: It could actually happen in the real world we live in. I'm talking about physical possibility, not broadly logical possibility. I'm not going to be using possible world semantics or time travel scenarios to defend my position.Yes, I realize 'sex' has a broader definition in common usage, but I want to stick to this definition for the purpose of this debate, not because it has any semantical value in the argument I intend to make, but just because it makes things more simple.Rules:1. The burden of proof is on me, but you are welcome to share the burden of proof if you think it will help you.2. You must engage my arguments. Don't be one of those people who just makes a short comment and doesn't engage, or who goes off on a tangent. No red herrings. I want this to be a debate.3. You must not forfeit. Please don't accept this debate unless you think there's a good chance you'll be willing and able to finish it. Of course life is uncertain, and I won't hold it against you if you absolutely must forfeit due to unforseen occurences. I'm a reasonable person. But please try to finish.4. Don't play games. What I mean is that sometimes a person's meaning is fairly obvious even if they didn't put it exactly right, and it's open to humorous misinterpretations. Don't pretend to misunderstand me if you honestly understand what I'm saying. Of course real misunderstandings happen, and if you misunderstand me, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you're being honest and not just playing games. I ask the same of you if I misunderstand something you say.Round 1: Acceptance, greetings, felicitations, and well-wishes.Round 2: My argument/your first rebuttalRound 3. My attempt to salvage my argument/your explaination of why I failedDiclaimer: I do not actually believe what I'm defending here. This is just for fun.Good luck, and may the odds be ever in your favour!
Neo-Nazis and Fascists Are In Control of Ukraine's Government

Ah. Well, there appears to be a change of leaders in Ukraine. "Arseniy Yatsenyuk" is the Prime Minister, and "Oleksandr Turchynov" is the acting President. From what I gathered, none of them are exactly racist or Neo-Nazis. Oleksandr is a Baptist. Arseniy is Cathloic. [1][2] Ukraine's congress is also not politically Neo-nazis. Svoboda has a mere 36 seats.[3] [1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Neo-Nazis and Fascists Are In Control of Ukraine's Government

Right then. You might or might not be aware of the far-right political party "Svoboda" which has several members in high-ranking positions in Ukraine's parliament presently. Oleh Tyahnebok, its leader, co-signed a letter to President Yuschenko in early 2005. He wanted the president to investigate "criminal activities of organized Jewry in Ukraine." He also has made comments such as the one in his speech at the Carpathian Mountains in 2004: "You are the ones that the Moscow- Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears the most" (referring to the Ukrainian people watching on television) It is noteworthy that this man was giving the speech in recognition of members of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, or UPA, which committed crimes such as the murder of over a million Jews in western Ukraine. "They were not afraid and we should not be afraid. They took their automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods, and fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state." So said Svoboda's leader about Hitler's Ukrainian agents. Of course, he neglected to tell them about the UPA's collaboration with Hitler. Or who knows, could have slipped his mind... No. He knew very well he was leaving that part out of his speech. It is Noteworthy that Svoboda was also once known as the "Social-National Party of Ukraine", with a modified Wolfsangel rune as its symbol. Members in Parliament: Deputy Prime Minister (resigned recently) Environment Minister Minister of Agriculture Sure, that may not seem like much, but these people spearheaded the protests with pictures of Stepan Bandera, head of the organization that controlled the UPA, firebombs, and T-shirts that said things like "Beat the Kikes" and "Svoboda". Also, on May 9, Russian Victory Day (over Nazi Germany), Arseniy Yatsenyuk, acting Prime Minister, made the comment "Let us honor the brave soldiers of the UPA who died this day". Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not a member of Svoboda but is Ukrainian nationalist and did support the protests. Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, gave the title "Hero of Ukraine" to Stepan Bandera. This man is also conducting the "antiterrorist" operations in East Ukraine presently. Many of the protesters were inducted into the Ukrainian National Guard by this man following the revolution. Oleh Tyahnebok supports Yatsenyuk. The "Right Sector", an organization similar to Svoboda, also had a major part in the protests. So, explain to me, are they not Neo-Nazis?
Neo-Nazis and Fascists Are In Control of Ukraine's Government

I accept. Pro has to prove that the leadership of Ukraine is Anti-Sematic and they are, mostly, Neo-Nazis. Anti-Semitism is prejudice, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Neo- Nazism consists of post-World War II social or political movements seeking to revive Nazism http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The Constitution of Alabama must be rewritten.

The Alabama Constitution is ineffecient and ineffective and therefore must be rewritten. The Encumbrence of the Constitution "At 340,136 words, the document is 12 times longer than the average state constitution, 40 times longer than the U. S. Constitution, and is the longest still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. [1] (The English version of the Constitution of India, the longest national constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length. )"(1)The constitution of Alabama is colossal, and unecissarily so. What many people don't realize about the constitution is that most every piece of legislature made in Alabama requires a state constitution. This is the primary reason why the constitution has become so large. This system is ineffective, because it requires a large amouont of laborious work in order to pass simple legislature. (2)The Constitution and Local AffairsWith the currents design of the Alabama constitution, local matters become a voting point of the whole state. Because all matters put up the vote require a constitutional amendment in Alabama, many affairs that deal only with one county or city. In fact, 75% of all of the 856 amendments affect only one county or city. When voting time rolls around, though (because these laws require a constitutional amendment), voters in Mobile, Alabama could be voting on how much the coroner of Huntsville, Alabama ought to be paid. The inability to create localized legislature effectively is one of the massive weaknesses of the Alabama constitution. (1)(2)SummaryThe constitution of Alabama is ineffecient, and cumbersome. This means that legislation is passed slowly. Local legislation can be affected by non-local voters. The state spends too much money on elections. The constitution must be rewritten. VOTE PRO! Sources1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...;2. "It's a Thick Book" A 45 minute film on constitutional reform in Alabama
Secession is a valid option for a state in these United States

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." The authors of the Declaration of Independence recognized that a government can become so oppressive as to compel its citizens to rebel. A recognition that led to the American Revolution and freedom from the tyrannical King George. Do these principles still apply in the modern world? I argue that they do. If a government is 'for the people and by the people,' then a government that isn't upholding its responsibilities to the people is no longer a valid one (included in these responsibilities is following the rules laid out for behavior). The Constitution that binds the states together is a contract that was voluntarily entered into by individual states. This contract detailed the sovereign powers that each state would cede to the federal government (coining money, national defense, negotiating powers with foreign nations, etc...). It also laid out the procedures involved in enacting and enforcing legislation. Much like a business in the private sector can sue for release from a contract if the other party is not upholding its end of the bargain, if the citizens of a state feel that the federal government is no longer appropriately using the powers ceded to it, that state has the right to dissolve its union with the United States and reclaim those powers for the citizens. Would anyone argue that it is moral for a government to force people to remain citizens? If we allow for expatriation (the process by which one renounces citizenship), why would we not allow secession?
Secession is a valid option for a state in these United States

I extend all of my previous arguments. I add the following.1) There was no provision or qualifier given at any time that dropped points or counter-points were to be considered conceded.2) Pro is making good arguments, he's just not making good arguments that Secession is a Currently Valid option for a state in these United States. 3) Pro brings up electoral votes and that some States didn't vote for the current administration and legislators that continue to pass Pyhrric and parasitic laws. I agree with him, he's mostly correct. I've said all along that I agree with the IDEA of secession as a last resort. We are not yet at the point of last resort.4) Pro has not effectively countered my points on Economic Viability. I have not yet been shown actual evidence of A single State's ability to support itself economically after secession from the United States of America. I even suggested to Pro in the comments section before this debate that Texas, having by itself the World's 17th largest GDP, would be the only State that could even remotely hope to secede successfully. Pro evidently decided not to run with this gift I handed him, as that is, in my opinion, the only opportunity he had to find actual evidence of viability of secession.5) This has been a good debate, but I urge readers not to get bogged down in Pro's arguments, he is often arguing valid points, but points that do not directly correlate to the Validity of Secession of a State. 6) Thanks again to crodgers for a great debate.7) Vote Con.-Bull_Diesel out!
America would be better if it was less diverse ethnically.

I would like to represent the argument that is against this notion. Firstly I would like to point out that the notion is more or so enmeshed with a racial conduct. Also, I would like to remind you that Europeans towards the end of the 15th century had colonized America, and the fact that Latinos, Africans and Asians had migrated there was purely due to the influence of the Europeans. Latinos for example came to existence due to the colonization of Spanish and Portuguese, Africans were brought by British and Portuguese colonists, and Asians were brought for cheap labour for industrialization. Thus I would like to conclude my opening argument by stating the fact that European colonists are the ones responsible for ethical diversity.
America would be better if it was less diverse ethnically.

1. Better-superior than our current state Mostly, this debate was meant for the ethnic blending and ethnic conflict. Look around. Look at the lunch table's at a high school. There are black tables and white tables. Look at a neighborhood. There are asian, black, mexican, and white neighborhoods. They are usually not blended. America is not some sort of melting pot like people say it is, it is just a mixture of people who do not mix well. Other than the fact that the races tend to seperate, they also act differently. The black people where the Southpole, Vans, and other ghetto brands. The mexicans wear their own things, the white people wear their things. If you look at an AP class, these are predominately white while the regular classes are predominately black. People of different ethnic backgrounds all feel like they have to fit into this profile. Many of these profiles are not good. Furthermore, look at the polls. Black people are predomitally democrat, white people are mostly republicans.(More whites go democrat than blacks go republican.) Why is this? Isn't America supposed to be one big melting pot? If it was, there would not be a difference in skin color at the polls. And yes, the ethnic diversity was the Europeans fault. Still, it is proving to be a weakness for today.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

Do you notice having much less since they sanctioned Iran? Most people don't. We should admit there are more important things than our wallet. Like whether or not the world is going to allow behaviors that belong in the WWII era. Failure to respond sets a very dangerous precedent. Russia could go on tro try and subjugate all former soviet places, China could also be enboldend. The long term implications pale in comparison to what Americans might suffer from sanctioning Russia. Really, its up to Europe to effictively santion Russia because they trade much more. The US, and all the other major suppliers can just provide the energy shortfall. You will not suffer very much either way. Whether or not you like Obama is irrelevent, Obama is an elected man an Putin is a bloody dictator who says in power by cheating, oppressing, and murdering. To support such a man against the leader of not only a democratic country, but your own democratic country, is really a sign you need to rethink things.
U.S sactions on Russia over Ukraine.

Yes we can all survive economic sanctions. Russia will and everyone in another country that has to pay more for energy and everything tided to It as well will likely survive... People living with a class war mind set need to think things through. Every poor person in the US will have less if we shut off Russia's energy supplies. Same goes for the rest. I live in the US and I hope Putin can kill Obama....I don't like many things Putin pushes, but I have more respect for Putin. I hate Obama for treading on our constitutional rights.