BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cloverfield was a great movie.

"The biggest problem, I felt, was with the acting. In a word, it was terrible. Hunt's little quips, though on the most part entertaining, really seemed inappropriate at times. Though it can be argued that he makes jokes in order to calm himself (he said so himself) it happens to the extent and frequency that you know the directer is forcing him and that it isn't natural." Remember, This movie was supposed to have a real feel to it. We weren't supposed to think that we were watching actors, we were supposed to think we were watching a home-made video of real people and that is how it felt. If you think about it, criticizing the acting is kind of like criticizing the "acting" in your friends vacation video from Florida because he or she did something stupid that you personally would not have said or done. "Beth was a terrible actor as well. Her acting was terribly forced, and I feel that the directors had her cry a lot not so that the movie would seem more realistic, but to cover for her inability to act." Ok, this I actually agree with you on but she was hardly actually in the movie anyways. She was the only actor that felt like a reality TV one. "Marlena was fairly good overall, but it bothered me that she could go from being supported in a state of helplessness to supporting another in less than 15 seconds (when they decide to go save Beth). In addition, she had huge gaping wounds that would cripple a 6 foot tall body-builder in her position, and she seemed perfectly okay comparatively." Imagine how crazy your emotions would be going in the same situation. Her wounds weren't really that bad when she was first bitten, I've experienced worse in real life. The part where she exploded was simply brilliant. "I found the plot far too predictable and the suspense lacking. It may be our fault for knowing what monster movies are like, but for a monster movie that boasts originality, they should have surprised us more. There are also gaping plot holes, a consequence of having a second person story." I would have loved to seen something like a collection of videos gathered of the monster from all around the city but whatever. The story wasn't the most original but what is original now a days? This movie took a fresh, new approach on the genre. The movie was far more original than other recent movies that people have labeled great like Juno, I am Legend and SAW4. I hope we see more from the Cloverfield world from Abrams. "All in all, taking into account the trade offs, I would not say it is not a "great" movie, but a "good movie"." I guess if you compare this movie to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings it is just good. However, compared to all the movies released within the last year, this film was great. Also, I think it is an outstanding monster movie.
Cloverfield was a great movie.

In my opinion, Cloverfield was a "good" movie, not a "great" movie. I have to say I was extremely impressed with the cinematography style, it made it truly stand out in its genre because most CGI monster movies use bird-eye views or classic theater styles in order to show off the effects. However, this movie managed to incorporate everything while keeping it frighteningly realistic. The effects and action scenes were also very well choreographed, tying in with the overall theme of "realistic". The positives end there, however. The biggest problem, I felt, was with the acting. In a word, it was terrible. Hunt's little quips, though on the most part entertaining, really seemed inappropriate at times. Though it can be argued that he makes jokes in order to calm himself (he said so himself) it happens to the extent and frequency that you know the directer is forcing him and that it isn't natural. Beth was a terrible actor as well. Her acting was terribly forced, and I feel that the directors had her cry a lot not so that the movie would seem more realistic, but to cover for her inability to act. Marlena was fairly good overall, but it bothered me that she could go from being supported in a state of helplessness to supporting another in less than 15 seconds (when they decide to go save Beth). In addition, she had huge gaping wounds that would cripple a 6 foot tall body-builder in her position, and she seemed perfectly okay comparatively. I found the plot far too predictable and the suspense lacking. It may be our fault for knowing what monster movies are like, but for a monster movie that boasts originality, they should have surprised us more. There are also gaping plot holes, a consequence of having a second person story. All in all, taking into account the tradeoffs, I would not say it is not a "great" movie, but a "good movie".
College should be entirely government funded.

It is very important that the governmeant founded programs for education actually spend their money on the students whom need it properly. I believe a family who earns 5 million dollars and the student opts out to not use family money and get financial aide is taking away from the students whos family makes 15,000 and has many expenses. In addition, if a student does to John jay he or she can get a scholoship therefore he is founded. If he/she maintaines high gpa and work expeirence he she c
College should be entirely government funded.

Should College be entirely founded by governmeant ? I believe it should not ENTIRELY for variours reasons. For one, there are families whom can afford college and persue a career. For tho families whom can',t there should be an aide as we curently do in America but better. Than there is my point of view that if college was fully founded by the governmeant, this can be seen as a form of socialism. If other people can afford better education, than they should be able to.
College should be entirely government funded.

A vibrant modern economy requires a well educated work force and a college education is essential to function as a part of the modern labor force. If the ability to pursue a college education depends solely on one's wherewithal, then a large part of the potential labor force is shut out. Government support for college education is essential to allow wide spread access for many of the poor. This initial investment by the government will be repaid once they become productive and tax payers.
On balance a ban on guns would not be that effective in the US

The resolution is pretty simple. This is a shared BOP Clarifying a few definitions Gun Ban - This is not referring to more strict background checks or limiting magazine capacity. This is talking literally about a ban or buy back. Basically either trying to recall or stop production of guns. Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result. Rules/Outline Pro (1) Rules (2) Contentions (3) Contentions/Rebuttals (4) Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification. Con (1) Acceptance (2)Contentions (3)Contentions/Rebuttals (4)Closing statements, no new rebuttals and points shall be made other than clarification. (1) No semantics or trolling. This will result in a FF
should we genetically modify the future

Let me walk this through with you. .. The resolution is: 'Should we genetically modify the future? ' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future. If PRO meant for the resolution to be: 'Should we genetically modify in the future? ', he/she mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things:DEFINITION OF 'GENETIC MODIFICATION' noun any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also calledgenetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ genetechnology ], recombinant DNA technology REFERENCE:. http://dictionary.reference.com... DEFINITION OF 'CLONE' noun 1. Biology. a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to theunit or individual from which it was derived. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive fromthe same ancestral line. REFERENCE:. http://dictionary.reference.com... So, as you can see, genetic modification requires you to change something, whereas, if you're cloning something, you don't. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone the future? ', we cannot clone, or genetically modify, the future. If PRO wanted the resolution to be: 'Should we clone in the future? ' he/she argued for my side. PRO, you are'pro' because you want to genetically modify the future. I am 'con' because I don't want to genetically modify the future. DEFINITION OF 'PRO' 1. An argument or consideration in favor of something: weighing the pros and cons. 2. One who supports a proposal or takes the affirmative side in a debate. REFERENCE:. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...DEFINITION OF 'CON' In opposition or disagreement; against: debated the issue pro and con. n. 1. An argument or opinion against something. 2. One who holds an opposing opinion or view. REFERENCE: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...So PRO argued for my thesis, which is: 'We should not genetically modify the future. ' He gave me a 'turn. ' He agreed with my thesis. (s)He said:'Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future! 'He agreed with my thesis. After posting my last argument about all the mistakes he made, PRO said this: 'That is what i am saying! we can not! 'PRO, nobody knows what your resolution is. I would appreciate it if you told me what your resolution is next round. Not only that, but he admitted to agreeing with my thesis, as evidenced by his second post. I've pointed out flaws with all of your possible resolutions, PRO.
should we genetically modify the future

Hello PRO. My Thesis is 'We shouldn't genetically modify the future.' However, it is impossible to genetically modify the future just as it is impossible to genetically modify the past or present, so of course we shouldn't try to. You cannot genetically modify a point in time. If PRO meant for the issue to be 'Should we Genetically Modify in the Future?' he mentions cloning, although cloning and genetic modification are 2 different things. CLONE: NOUN Biology. a. a cell, cell product, or organism that is genetically identical to the unit or individual from which it was derived. b. a population of identical units, cells, or individuals that derive from the same ancestral line. Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com... GENETIC MODIFICATION: NOUN any alteration of genetic material, as in agriculture, to make them capable of producing new substances or performing new functions; also called genetic engineering, genetic manipulation, gene splicing, [ gene technology ], recombinant DNA technology Reference: http://dictionary.reference.com... If PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we clone the future?' we cannot clone the future, and we cannot clone the past or present. We cannot clone, or genetically modify, a point in time. Even if PRO wanted the issue to be: 'Should we Clone in the Future?' he agreed with my thesis, which would be: 'We shouldn't clone in the future.' So, any way you cut it, this debate is over. Thank you.
should we genetically modify the future

Okay, so if you think you should clone yourself you are wrong in a million ways because then this world would be to crowded. yes there is mars but its just not a good idea, trust me. if we just constantly keep going like this then we could be homeless, less jobs, less houses, less buildings. we all have a goal that we don't choose or don't wan't. that is the matter of living life and death. you all know this. well, not all of you, but you know you understand. just to end this, you should agree with me. and we should not genetically modify our future!
Democratie Directa

NOTE: This is not part of my argument. My opponent's resolution is "direct democracy". He is using romanian, so it will only be logical for me to use romanian too. For those that don't understand romanian, please use Google Translate. It may not be very accurate but at least gives you an idea of what I'm arguing for. Adversarul meu face doar un punct în argumentul său: "Oamenii ar trebui sa aibe posibilitatea de a putea refuza in mod direct deciziile care le influenteaza viata." Cu toate acestea, acest lucru este usor de respins. Or înlăturată datorită faptului că în lumea modernă, popula ii mari de oameni există chiar ;i într-o zonă mică. Un exemplu bun este New York City, în care există milioane i milioane de oameni. [1] Într-o astfel de zonă, este imposibil pentru oameni să fie de acord;i încă respinge în mod direct deciziile de guvernul lor face în timp ce în mod efectiv efectuarea de drept.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...Vot mine.
The War On Terror Should Stop And Spend The Money On Fixing The U.S.A.

I don't know how you can compare attainment to quality. The U.S. education system is easier so of course they can attain a higher education. If we are not able to beef up the system we will be surpassed. http://www.npr.org... http://archive.newsmax.com... Not Wikipedia Did you know every person in the united states is $177,775 in debt if you were to divide the national debt . http://www.usdebtclock.org... Ok, So we bailed out the banks i never said that was a bad thing. What i did say is that we can bail out banks but not our own people. I don't care what Wikipedia article you post references for I see it every day people not on unemployment working low paying jobs suffering trying to make it. They lost their houses because it took the U.S. to long to act while the banks that created this mess profit like crazy. you don't know whats going on in the world just keep on watching your fox news and being brain washed. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nationalhomeless.org... Oh the poor have health care you don't know what the @#$ you are talking about. There are many poor that don have or qualify for health care. And medicare/Medicaid you think that is quality health care!!! Oh you are also @#$%# if you are a unemployed single male white black or anyother color. http://www.cbpp.org... http://www.urban.org... http://www.commondreams.org... OMG @#$%^$ Afghanistan is a waste of our time and soldiers. You think poppy only comes from Afghanistan It is widely grown as an ornamental flower throughout Europe, North America, South America, and Asia. http://en.wikipedia.org... Paying farmers not to plant poppy would essentially supplant U.S. cash for the fees paid up front by the Taliban to its contract farmers. The idea seems to follow logically from the administration's policy of protecting Afghan civilians and eroding support for the insurgency, but skeptics say it won't work because farmers would take the money and plant poppies anyway. YOUR AN #$%^ THIS WONT WORK http://www.militarytimes.com... YOU HAVE NO CLUE OR EXPERIENCE
The War On Terror Should Stop And Spend The Money On Fixing The U.S.A.

I agree there are many who are lazy. But I disagree with building schools in afganistan and Iraq when our own education system fails so horribly if we can't provide children with knowledge to keep up with the rest of the world they will end up failing. We bail out banks but to bail out our people is welfare when did it become such a task to help our own. banks created this mess sure they will pay with intrest do we not expect the same from our fellow Americans. Not all the poor are lazy you can find a job but at minum wage how would you expect to support a family. By withdrawing from Afganistan we would be able to disrupt the terrorists because they will be unable to pay a poor farmer to attack the armys in there land. they would have to consolidate their efforts to attack soldiers and Americans in other countries. We have already beefed up security in many other nations which would cause the terrorists to expend more money. These attacks are easier to spot so easier to prevent. I was in the military I saw why some of these people become terrorists either they were poor or we killed one of their family members in collateral damage. But we can prevent the unnessary deths of civillians. Plus the military is very inefficient maybe we could create small units well trained in combating terrorism instead of units untrained in the language and culture. My thoughts are very unorganized because I am drunk but I hope this makes sense.
THW implement mandatory military service

My opponent argues that we should favor mandatory military service because it promotes equality. I agree that the logic here is sound, but I disagree that the end of equality justifies the means. There exist a myriad of methods to increase equality in society. For an analogous example, all citizens are required to lick toilet seats. Such a rule would increase equality, millionaires and paupers would both experience the distasteful tonguing of a toilet. However, it would not increase the overall utility of society. Equality is insufficient to justify a mandatory act. My opponent's second argument is an appeal to tradition. He/she fails to state why tradition is desirable in-and-of-itself. In rebuttal to my opponent's claim that my argument, "There are individuals whose greatest talents and skills have no military application. Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society" is incorrect, I simply state that it has not been adequately rebutted. Though it is true that an individual may learn skills in his/her military service, it does not refute the premise that these skills are potentially not those that represent the maximum potential of the individual. In other words, one may learn something, but learning the skills one desires is better nonetheless. My opponent now introduces a new argument: mandatory military service ensures more Government Participation. Although government participation is desirable in democratic political structures, it does not justify the means required. Reductio ad absurdem: "We should require all citizens who fail to vote be put to death, as such a policy will ensure more government participation. " Ensuring more government participation is not sufficient to establish a policy.
THW implement mandatory military service

Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society. This is incorrect, as serving the military means that you are helping out the military, there is no guarantee that you will be fighting, you may be a nurse or doctor, a mechanic, you are putting your skills to the test, under a serious and in-pressure situation. Even if you are wasting the talents you have, you are being given the chance to learn some other skills, widening your skill pallet. Agonist: Freedom is the foundation of any great society. Freedom drives innovation an motivation. Freedom allows individuals to achieve their personal goals and achieve greatness in the fields best suited to their desires. Firstly, we accept that freedom of choice is important, except, the benefits of mandatory military service outweight the so called "importance" of freedom. Opp is abusing this right. they don't want military service. Why? Because he doesn't want it. This is the basic point of freedom of choice. .. .. . I would like to add another argument to the debate. With mandatory Military service in place, It will help ensure high levels of Governmental Participation. With every citizen required to joined in the armed forces when the need arise, the public will be more aware and watchful of the government"s decision, especially in terms of national security and the like. With their lives at risk or at sacrifice, people will seek to understand more about the threats that face their country and will seek a greater voice on how their government approaches problems. I thank Agonist again on accepting this debate, I apoloise for any mistakes made, as this is my first debate on Debate. org.
THW implement mandatory military service

Although I am unclear as to the entity being referenced, I contest that such an entity should not implement mandatory military service. Freedom is the foundation of any great society. Freedom drives innovation an motivation. Freedom allows individuals to achieve their personal goals and achieve greatness in the fields best suited to their desires. Such a group of individuals will create the best society in terms of the utility of its members. Mandatory military service directly opposes this tenet of a great society. There are individuals whose greatest talents and skills have no military application. Thus, by imposing military service upon such individuals, one limits their contribution to society. Thus stands my main argument. I will refrain from addressing my opponent's argument until Round Two.
THW implement mandatory military service

In a world where "freedom of choice" is a right people abuse wrongly, today on proposition, we believe that mandatory military service should be an exception to this abused right. Today I will begin the debate with two arguments: 1 How it will promote Equality 2 How they can protect others, and those before them. But to begin, I will present my Model: You must join between the age of 18 and 35, and you can have a week off for weddings, funerals, etc. Your time in the military will end after 3 years. I present my first argument, how it will promote equality. If the motion were passed, no matter who you are, a tramp on the streets, a celebrity in a mansion, you are still required to join the military. Under the threat of death in war, rich people will have to work together with these poorer people, and they will understand each other. The celebrity will finally have an honest day's work, and the poorer person will help close the discriminatory gap by helping out the richer. Moving on, onto my next and final argument, about how it means that you are protecting those before and after you. When you enter the military, you are protecting the society, just like the elderly will have joined the military to protect you! By joining the military, you are protecting the next generation, who will grow up to protect you, and you are protecting the elderly, who have protected you before! To implement mandatory military service to promote equality and protection, I am proud to propose
THW implement mandatory military service

Though I still contend freedom (especially from the very real risk of death) is the foundation of a great society and supercedes almost all other values, I would like to comment on my opponent's reasons for viewing mandatory military service as beneficial to individuals and society. The various stated benefits of military service (equality, personal development, tradition, et cetera) are also benefits that could be potentially provided by other mandatory service programs. Because military service presents the very real risk of harm to soldiers of many nations, if one wanted to achieve the benefits of mandatory service, one would be better off implementing a mandatory non-military service or services. Programs similar to the American Peace Corps or Teach for America provide similar benefits to military service in terms of personal development, equality, and service to others without the risk of harm or the often harsh environment of the military. It would even be possible to implement mandatory service but enable citizens a choice of program to avoid reaching the extreme end of the coercion spectrum. Nonetheless, I believe my opponent's initial and subsequent arguments to have been shown to be either invalid or weak in the face of alternatives. I invite the reader to look back upon the preceding rounds and vote against against implementing mandatory military service.