BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Lethal Weapon"/"Die Hard" launched the buddy cop genre, not "48 hours"

Your comment: "The reason 48 Hours isn't a buddy film is because of the racism and lack of respect that Jack Cates" is based on opinion not a general consensus of what a "buddy cop film" consist of. Wikipedia states: "A buddy cop film is a film with plots involving two people of very different and conflicting personalities who are forced to work together to solve a crime and/or defeat criminals, sometimes learning from each other in the process. The two are normally cops, but some films, such as 48 Hrs. (a cop and a con), that are not about two cops may still be referred to as buddy cop films." Respectable critics say... Matt's Movie Review: "One of the first buddy action movies, 48 Hrs. laid the ground work for the sub-genre that was at its best during the 1980's." Umm, like Lethal Weapon. Ebert wrote: "What makes the movie special is how it's made. Nolte and Murphy are good, and their dialogue is good, too -- quirky and funny. ... Where [Walter] Hill [the director] grows in this movie is in his ability to create characters. In a lot of his earlier movies ("The Warriors," "The Driver," "The Long Riders," "Southern Comfort") he preferred men who were symbols, who represented things and so didn't have to be human. In "48 Hrs.," Nolte and Murphy are human, vulnerable, and touching. Also mean, violent, and chauvinistic." Dave Kehlr (Chicago Review): "All in all, a superior genre piece, if not the height of Hill's artistry." More than 30 years ago 48 Hours was recognized as a buddy cop film by film critics and audiences. Thus predating LW by 5 years.
"Lethal Weapon"/"Die Hard" launched the buddy cop genre, not "48 hours"

I will argue that it was "Lethal Weapon" or "Die Hard" who launched the buddy cop genre, not "48 hours. " I want con to make the argument that "48 Hours" launched the genre. The reason 48 Hours isn't a buddy film is because of the racism and lack of respect that Jack Cates (played by Nick Nolte) has for Reggie Hammond (played by Eddie Murphy). And likewise, I also have reason to believe that Cates really disrespects his black boss, making him not just a racist but a fool who would put his own job at jeapordy. What is a buddy film, you may ask? There has to be a level of respect. Mind you, it doesn't have to be a friendly relationship, but eventually it has to become friendship. Mind you, in Lethal Weapon, Riggs and Murtough coundn't fear each other more. Murtough wanted to retire and Riggs was suicidal because of the loss of his wife. However, even in the moments when there seemed to be a aversion for each other, they got along. When they are on their way to apprehend suspects at a cozy mansion (the one with the pool), they already get along, with Murtough laugh. Buddy cops are supposed to be pleasant. Partners having a good time, sharing jokes.48 Hours is anything but a buddy movie. Cates treats Hammond with disrespect, calls him a "nigger" and a "spearchucker," even makes a messed up remark about how he didn't know that "darker people got foreign car jobs. ". http://www.youtube.com...;In the beginning of the movie, in exchange for Hammond's favor and service of trying to help him get a criminal, named Ganz, Nolte refuses to let Hammond out of prison, and only does so, because that's how desperate he was. http://www.youtube.com...The sequal to the movie isn't any more of a buddy film either. Cates cheats Hammond of his money, and Hammond hates Cates for a good reason. Nothing there has the making of a buddy film whatsoever. It's more depressing to watch sometimes. For those reasons it couldn't have been that movie. "Die Hard" is more of a fairy tale with friendship than "Lethal Weapon. " Bruce Willis' character is pals with Reginald Veljohnson's character, and has been. But both are more buddy cop films than "48 Hours," which is more pitting an angry black man with a potential Klan member, and yes I mean what I say, as Cates acts like one throughout the entire film, and he's even worse in the second, because he's a snide backstabber who cheats people.
The Design Method of Small Incremental Changes is Useless for Designing Something From Scratch

Very simple, any step will improve the device because if it doesn't improve the device, then it clearly isn't a step in the first place and you thinking that a non-improvement step exists in the process of building the product will lead you to build a different product that is malfunctioning for the purpose of the original one. We build the clock by moving cogs and bolts around until the clock is finished, if any step involved was not improving the design of the lcock or building of it, then it wasn't a step and was you misfollowing what the real step was.
The Design Method of Small Incremental Changes is Useless for Designing Something From Scratch

(please only serious challengers.)Premise 1: There is a wide variety of different types of complex functional systems in life forms and their complexity is very high.This should be self-evident for anyone who has studied nature.some examples: eyes of mantis shrimp, nematocyst in jellyfish, bill of platypus, hibernation system of bears, periscope eyes of spook fish, etc.Most scientists maintain that The design method of small incremental changes (random mutations coupled with natural selection) was responsible for this engineering complexity.Premise 2: if this is so, then this method ought to be employed by a human being to build some things of moderate complexity FROM SCRATCH (where the human induces a series of small changes which he calculates each one will improves the device somehow.)I maintain that this is not possible and that the method is useless for designing things of moderate complexity from scratch.The successful challenger will show me a detailed step by step scenario of how he built a motor or a mechanical watch etc. FROM SCRATCH by small incremental steps.Here is a functional mechanical clock: http://clicktempus.com...and a motor: http://www-mdp.eng.cam.ac.uk...The challenger may look for intermediate or precursor functionality in the in between steps provided each small step adds some improvement over the previous step.(the idea is to assemble a functional device of moderate complexity. if you cannot build the above motor or the above mechanical clock then please specify what device you would like to build in the comments so that we can agree it is also something of comparable complexity)The challenger may use a warehouse of nuts, bolts, springs, gears, metal plates, small motor components, etc. and every kind of raw materials available in a hardware store, but must follow the limitation that every tiny step which he induces improves the device.As an engineer, I maintain that this method is completely useless for producing a moderate functional design from scratch.This debate is NOT about living things or evolution - only about the power of the design method of small incremental changes.This debate is NOT about whether the human body could be designed in a better way or how existing functional proteins can combine to produce new functionality.It is solely about demonstrating the ability of the method of small incremental steps to assemble a device of moderate complexity.please be sure to understand this before joining this debate. The first version of this debate was wasted in clarifying the topic of the debate see: http://www.debate.org...If you would like to assemble a different device than the above mechanical clock or motor, please confirm the device and its function in the comments (to make sure it fits the above criteria of moderate complexity, etc) so that we don't also waste this debate on a bad example.
Sentient, technological beings exist only on earth

Given that this universe is ca. 15 billion years old Given that earth has existed ca. 5 billion years and carbon based life in some form for the majority of that time. Given that carbon has existed since this universe was ca. 5 billion years old i.e. after first generation stars went supernova. Therefore sentient technological beings have been possible in this universe for a minimum of 5 billion years. Assuming that our (or any) technology can advance beyond our present state. Assuming that this advancement will continue to accelerate at or near historical precedents. Assuming that this advancement will include exploration and occupation of this solar system within at most 1000 years; and subsequent exploration and occupation of this galaxy within at most 1 million years. Assuming that these activities will lead to visible changes. First in the solar systems (e.g. asteroid mining, orbit manipulation). Later in the galaxies (e.g. Dyson spheres, engineered novae). If we survive our descendants will almost certainly engage in these and countless other (currently unimaginable) galaxy changing activities. This could/should have been happening for the last 5 billion years. If only one capable race developed every million suitable years, then there have been over 5000 opportunities to achieve the above mentioned technologies in this galaxy alone. Multiply this by the 50 billion galaxies at least as old as our own. Given that there exists no evidence of these visible activities having ever occurred in the past. Therefore sentient, technological beings exist only on earth.
Sentient, technological beings exist only on earth

Perhaps my opening statement was not clear. I do not state that such beings are not possible. Only that they have , up until this time, appeared only on earth. I do not rule out the possibility in the future. I also accept that lower 'life' forms may well exist in abundance. I use humans as an example of what should be possible because it is the only example I have. We may well not achieve the lofty levels of advancement of which I speak. What I do contend is that there has been more than sufficient time for someone else (carbon based or not) to do so, many times over on many different planets. Why haven't they? Cost is not a valid argument. A $100,000 colour TV camera of 1965 is $100 today (and it fits in your pocket and is high definition as well). A $100,000,000 human genome reading in 2001 is $8000 today. Travel time too, is inconsequential. Feasible plans for interstellar travel are already in existence. A solar sail capable of achieving a respectable percentage of light speed is actually possible today. We could travel to the nearest star in a decade. Spend 50 years there building a ship (likely more powerful) and send a few of our offspring to the next system. Jumping like this we could occupy the galaxy in less than a million years. In the 5 billion years (minimum) that sentient, technological life has been possible in the Milky Way alone, why have your millions of alien species been unable to accomplish this? Remember, it takes only one society with these capabilities to occupy a galaxy. Nothing I surmised is beyond physical law. My only speculation is that a race sufficiently advanced should be able to accomplish these things. If there are these millions of advanced races all over the universe as you surmise, why is there no credible evidence of their existence. As for the chances argument. In another debate I could easily point out that our existence is astronomically unlikely to be repeated elsewhere or elsewhen. We are the result of a long chain of fortuitous events. From million to one chemical combinations in proto cellular creatures to who knows how many to one odds of a stray asteroid luckily killing off the big dumb dinosaurs that loved to eat smart little mammals who otherwise wouldn't have grown into astronomers. Therefore sentient, technological beings exist only on earth.
Public Colleges are just as good as private ones.

NO NO NO. I's don't think that YOUS understands MOI. Dem der education is done down important. If we dont done get are education, we'll all be dumb dumb, like dem chickens and not able to do things, like the all important Math. So, dats done why YOUS needs to done listen to MOI. 'cause yous seems like a meany mcjeany pants who done likes to trolls with people down done here on this done, down, down...., down, here down done page of debates. So, I would suggest you, in the future, to not accept debates from people if you are NOT going participate right. You spoiled this.
Public Colleges are just as good as private ones.

There is this conflict that many people think private schools are better than public ones. That's not necessarily true. Maybe private high schools are better than public ones because they offer more classes, but public colleges are not the same thing. I just toured the public college in my state. At first when I toured, I assumed it was private. It had a BIG number of courses. From political science to arts and media! Pretty good if ya ask me. The tour guides were extremely helpful and nice. The environment was friendly and nice. But it bugs me when people say public colleges are no good, because if you toured at this college, you would like it. And it is a liberal arts. Here's a link to the College's Wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The time has come for US State and Fed Govts to decriminalize polygamy

I accept the debate under the following pretexts:I will be arguing that the time has NOT come for the US State and Federal Governments to decriminalize polygamy. The language of this debate, to include the challenge title and first post of round 1, indicate that:1) This debate is specifcally concerning the standing state and federal governments of the United States of America. Examples of this present tense include:"The time has come""Historically" followed in the next sentence, as a contrast, by "Today"Any sense of time or duration, then, will be presented in the frame of a representative's term duration. Because some term durations are shorter or longer than others, I believe it is agreeable to stick with the 4 year cycle to avoid semantics.2) This debate is specifically concerning the decriminalization of polygamy as per the Model Penal Code, section 230.1, which the states base their laws on(as their laws vary from state to state). I have interpreted the challenge and presented reasonable terms to the best of my ability. In good faith, I allow my opponent to contend these terms, within the debate or in the comments section only. I reserve the right to withdraw myself from the debate upon a lack of agreement over any changes to the terms, to result in a tie between myself and my opponent. The following is not a pretext, but a proposal:The second round will be used to present stand alone arguments. The third and final round will be used to provide refuttation and any other closing statements. I have purposely not argued my case in this round, as it would give me both the first and the last word on the resolution, an unfair advantage for establishing my position.
Resolved: The time has come for US State and Fed Govts to decriminalize polygamy

During recent debates about the legalization of gay marriage, a popular conservative talking point has been a "slippery slope" argument suggesting that permitting gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy. After all, conservatives argue, if polygamy is an alternative family arrangement between consenting adults, shouldn't that marriage be accorded the same rights and privileges as another? Although the argument was intended to dissuade people from gay marriage, I found it a compelling argument for the decriminalization of polygamy within certain limits. Historically, I can see why the US found it easier to ban polygamy than to address certain social issues, but social progress has provided significant relief in those respects. Today, If some citizens wish to enjoy plural arrangements for reasons of religious or personal preference, are there really any arguments left that might compel government to interfere?
Capitol Punishment

My opponent thinks that prison is a good enough punishment for murder, yet how is it really a punishment when the prisoner does not have to pay house payments, taxes, pay for their food, etc... My point is it's really in a way a relief to paying your taxes and food. Plus there is happiness in prison, like talking to cell mates, writing poems or stories, and being able to have quality time with yourself. This is not punishment, when the family of your victim is mourning over the loss of their loved one. How would you feel if someone killed a person you deeply loved and truly didn't suffer any consequences?
Capitol Punishment

Even though the title says, "Capitol Punishment" I will assume capital punishment is meant for this debate. I value life as well. To truly value life one must value all life. Pro only value's the victim's life. A just society would punish criminals in a way that values life. Like the saying goes "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." Also, if murderers are to have the maximum punishment and a just society would seek the maximum penalty, wouldn't life in prison be the better alternative? To die by lethal injection or electric chair (most often lethal injection) where any pain is over shortly hardly serves as a just penalty. Life in prison would deprive the person of freedom for the rest of their natural life as well as subject them to the rigors of prison life for much longer.
Capitol Punishment

I value life, and with this value i uphold the people who have died by murder. The innocent people who lost their life by currupt minded people. By losing their life they have lost all happiness their life had to offer, or any joy they brought to their families or friends. Capital punishment is just. because how else do we punish these sick minded people who go out and slaughter our innocent people of America? We kill them, so they feel the same pain and loss that the person they killed felt. It's fair, and it's right even though it may be harsh.
Capitol Punishment

Rebuttals: P2 response: The difference is a person's life is different than a car, virginity or being raped. (Also the car thief you mentioned has to pay a fine which is normally the cost of the car or more.) Life will go on if a person was robbed or raped, but their life ends when they have been killed thats why we should enforce the punishment, because imagine if you were murdered? Life would just go on for your murderer if they were to be put in a cell, doing who knows what. When a murderer beneficially spends time in a cell, it's hard to believe that their life has changed so it doesnt make an impact on their view of other's lives. So imagine, how many murderers we would have then? (without the punishment) P3 response: My opponet believes i have not visited a prison or have had any contact the a former prisoner.. I have and the people i have encountered would only steal or commit a crime to go back into prison, so that they wouldn't have to pay taxes or take on their responsibilities as a citizen. -My opponet has a quote about how only insane people enjoy prison, well dont you have to be insane to kill someone from the start?? C2 response: Your saying the goverment doesn't value life? I think it most certainly does. If you value life to the extent that i do then you would understand a innocent life taken away is extremely wrong and the person who has taken the innocent person's life is insanely currupted in the mind and deserves their life to be taken away. I understand it comes accross harsh, but don't you think killing a little girl just cause it harsh as well? My Case: C1: If we just lock up insane people who think murder is ok or even an option, then when they have served their time chances are they will only go out to make the same mistake again. This is why we have the capital punishment system, thisis why it's just. So that if a innocent person is killed, let's say a small five year girl, is killed by a insane minded forty year old man. When the citizens of the state are disgusted by this case or situation we can mostly (by mostly I mean most of the watching citizens) see it's only right to kill the currupted man. I believe there is no more to say, I of you to vote in favor of pro.
Quiz before Vote

Americans have a responsibility to know the topics or people that they are voting for. Also laws are confusing and people have voted incorrectly before because they misunderstood what they were voting for, or against. To make sure that Americans understand what/who they are voting for, they should be required to pass a short quiz on the issues before voting. If they fail then they can be given information written by both sides and if needed can have someone read them this information. Then they will be allowed to vote. It would be important to set up safeguards against people being swayed one way or another if they needed assistance understanding. It is important that each American have a voice and that there voice is accurately translated through our voting system.
Homosexual adoption

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement." And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents. "There's no doubt whatsoever from the research that children with two lesbian parents are growing up to be just as well-adjusted and successful" as children with a male and a female parent," Stacey told LiveScience. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Homosexual adoption

So just to clarify, I would not disallow homosexuals to adopt, nor do I hold any pre justice against them. I merely believe that, if given the choice, two parents of a different sex should always be preferable to a homosexual couple, when bringing up a child. Not because homosexuality is wrong or because children shouldn't be seeing two men/two women being intimate because its confusing. But because of the unavoidable problem of only one type of sex, and possible confusion about themselves. This confusion could arise, for example, when a child askes where she has come from. The two guys would have to explain how a woman gave birth to her, because a mommy and daddy loved each other very much and cuddled specially to create her. Then they would have to explain why that mother is not bringing her up and what you and your partner actually are. You would have to explain that anyone can have sex with anyone and that although it takes a man and women to make you, you (the young girl) are being brought up by a 2 guy relationship. I think this has the potential to be damaging at times, not because gay people are bad, gay people I'm sure make excellent parents in themselves. But they cannot avoid that problem, its not their fault. And so that is why traditional, man/woman couples should be chosen first for young people, because it maybe typically better for their mental health. Remember I would never, ever ban gays from raising children. I would just always pick a traditional couple over a homosexual couple if the choice can be made. Also if I was in power, I would probably not discriminate at all because I believe gays would feel 'hard done' too. Thank you