BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Christians should have their own non-secular state

I am happy to take this debate. The main reason Christians should not have their own state is due to the fact most devout Christians cannot get along with other, slightly different devout Christians. For example, a devout Catholic would have difficulty getting along with a devout Baptist, and both groups of people would have difficulty getting along with devout Mormons. This religious tension would lead to intense gang-like wars (carried out by the different missionary groups) followed by all out rebellion of the different factions. The state would then collapse, fall under a fascist ruler, and a building of arms would commence. Then, this Christian nation would start a world war in a quest for domination and "spreading the word and Love of Christ", similar to the crusades of old time. Thus, unless the world wants another world war, a Christian state should not be created
The Christians should have their own non-secular state

The Muslims have an Islamic state: Saudi Arabia.The Jews have a Jewish state: Israel.The Buddhists have a Buddhist state: Bhutan.But what about devout Christians? There is no non-secular state that is governed according to Christian doctrine.There should be a country where pious Christians can live their lives according to the teachings of the Bible. A country where:• Businesses are closed on Sundays.• Women are legally obliged to dress conservatively.• Blasphemy is not tolerated.• No meat is eaten on Fridays.• Coveting your neighbour's house, wife, slave, ox or donkey is strictly forbidden, as is bearing false witness against them.• Homosexuality is outlawed.• Extra-marital sex is a punishable offence.• Publications featuring plate tectonics, fossils, astronomy, nuclear physics, Darwin's Theory of Evolution or any other material that contradicts divine creation are banned.• Internet access is restricted to Christian websites.Since 75% of the population of Utah are members of churches [1] a referendum should be held there to decide if Utah should leave the Union and become an independent nation. If, for some Constitutional or other political reason, this is not possible, then another location could be found: possibly the sovereignty of an archipelago of Philippine or Indonesian islands could be purchased, but wherever, the Christians should have their own non-secular state.Thank you.[1] http://www.adherents.com...
Should Sadiq Khan stand down as mayor of London

Actually, that quote is from last year:http://www.dailymail.co.uk... He elaborated: "It is a reality I'm afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things. That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice." So: [1] He doesn't seem to be callously ignoring the victims -- he seems to be saying that "we should prepare and try to minimize the badness of the next attack". (Obviously, this is a very difficult job: the US has had 16 years of antiterrorism activities since 9/11 and yet still faces domestic and foreign terror attacks.) [2] Regardless of the first point: If a mayor makes a callous remark, should they step down? Or should mayors be evaluated on what they do rather than what they say?
Should Sadiq Khan stand down as mayor of London

No, Sadiq Khan should not stand down. Unless Pro wants to present evidence that Mr. Khan aided or abetted this attack, it's not clear why Pro thinks Mr. Khan is such a poor mayor of London that he should step down. In particular, Pro should explain whether [a] they think that every mayor of every city in which mass violence has occurred should step down or [b] they think that Sadiq Khan is a particularly poor mayor.
Books are Better than Movies

First off, there's MUCH to rebuttal. 'which makes it clear to me that s/he has nothing to add or rebut'. If you were able to study my last post, I did say that something based off another does not determine the quality of a movie. So what if one thing came first? So what if something is based off a book? It means nothing when we are attempting to determine if movies are better than books or books are better than movies. I still do not see how if something came first, it automatically makes it 'better'. I render her argument useless in this situation. Did you know that authors provide insight into the movies being made? So 'knock-off' wouldn't be the word to describe it. 'Better' and 'quality' go hand in hand. Allow me to rip a definition out of Webster's Dictionary: Quality (Webster's Dictionary) a: a certain degree of excellence b: superiority in kind Better (Webster's Dictionary) a: more attractive, favorable, or commendable b: more advantageous or effective As you can see, quality determines if something is better. My opponent also never rebutted the fact that movie scenes are much more intense and epic than book scenes, via music and cinematography. My opponent also claims that books are much more detailed than a movie. 'with it's flowing narration, can describe scenes in much more detail than the movie can'. This argument is debunked, as a movie doesn't 'describe' a scene via words, but by images. I don't see how words can describe something that is more detailed than an image. When you look at a picture of a forest, you have a forest. When somebody describes a forest, you have an improvised vision of a forest ; but not as much detail as the image. Unless you happen to be a supercomputer, then yes, perhaps you can view things in AS MUCH detail as an image. It is impossible to be 'more detailed' than an image. While books may improve your literacy skills, movies can improve your speaking skills, performance skills, acting skills, socialization skills, and more. I feel that the benefits movies can provide outweigh the benefits books can. Movies have employed thousands of actors, while books.... well, I'll leave it at that. People of our generation does not simply go with having one person read aloud and have everyone sit down and listen. They would much rather go to movies and enjoy as fantasies come to life with friends, alone, take a date with them, or go as family. Do you really imagine an 18-year-old boy taking a date to his house so they can sit down and read a book for 5 hours? As one once said in the comments, movies remain a key part in human achievement, the sort of things that make humans human. In the words of Nina LaCour, "We love films because they makes us feel something. They speak to our desires, which are never small. They allow us to escape and to dream and to gaze into the eyes that are impossibly beautiful and huge. They fill us with longing. But also. they tell us to remember; they remind us of life."
Books are Better than Movies

Now for the final round...the rebuttal round. In the 2nd round, I made two arguments. I told you that books allow you to use your own imagination, and movies are often based on books. My worthy opponent did not rebut my first argument, which makes it clear to me that s/he has nothing to add or rebut. My second argument, however, was replied to as "I do not see how the point 'the book has more credibility' relates to this argument in any way'". However, the title of this debate is "Books are Better than Movies", not "Book Have Better Quality than Movies". Being original contributes to the book in many ways, as you know it isn't a knock-off version of the real thing. In the 3rd round, I made two more arguments. I explained why books include more detail, and books help improve your literacy skills. My opponent made a point against this argument in Round 2, and then I made my counterargument. Then, s/he said "Again, looking back to Star Wars, we can all remember the epic battles between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader...Can such epic battles and corresponding music be carried on to written text?" S/he then went on to say how the translation would be sloppy, and fast-paced battles be slowed. However, that is not the case. Writing is often very eloquent, not overly-so, however it wouldn't be sloppy. Furthermore, fast action can be translated into text, still keeping it's fast pace. And And to my argument about books also help with literacy skills, my opponent actually agreed with me, furthering the credibility of my argument. My opponent firstly declared that anybody can watch films, but not everyone can read that great novel, making it much better. However I rebutted his/her argument in my first paragraph of Round 3. Nanubot did not respond to my rebuttal, which I can only assume means s/he agrees. Then my opponent said "visualization is better than imagination" however I say that that is not true. I answered this statement with the counterargument in the first round "books allow you to use your own imagination". Nanubot then went on to explain that not everyone has the stamina to read through a 500+ page book. However, I could say the same about the movie, not everyone has the stamina to sit down and stare at a screen with "moving pictures" for an hour and a half+. Finally, you said that the movies provide much more intrigue. The beginning of the first Harry Potter book was nothing compared with the movie. Yet, you said earlier the opening was a "fine opening, if I must say." You are contradicting yourself, by first saying the opening is good, but then saying that the opening is not memorable. You also then said Harry Potter in all forms if good, if not superior. As you can see, I have answered all of Nanubot's points, however Nanubot has no answered all of mine, in fact, s/he has even agreed with one! And to the point s/he has answered, if have replied to myself. And through this you can clearly see, books are much better than movies!
Books are Better than Movies

First off, I do not see how the point 'the book has more credibility' relates to this argument in any way, and originality does not determine the quality of a book or movie. Again, looking back to Star Wars, we can all remember the epic battles between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, Obi Wan Kenobi and Darth Maul, Yoda and Darth Sidious. Can such epic battles and corresponding music be carried on to written text? Perhaps, but the music will be redacted, the fast-flowing battles will be slowed or written in a very sloppy way in order for it to work. While I do agree that books improve your literacy skills, I do not agree with the fact that they can be more detailed than movies. When you watch things on the big screen, they are much more in-depth and wonderous. Books only leave it to the readers imagination, while the book itself does not precisely determine what is going on. Movies, however, set the scene for you, delving you into a world where you don't need your imagination to enter a new world, only your eyes and ears; all attention to the screen. You cannot say that books have more detail than movies when it varies from how different people see books. Using your Harry Potter example, I will quote the first line from the first book; "Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much. They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense." (Which is still a fine opening, if I must say.) Meanwhile, the movie opens with an owl standing atop a sign reading, 'Privet Drive', as a foggy mist shrouds the street. A robed figure enter the scene, capturing 'light' from the street lamps, as a cat magically transforms into another robed figure, donning a witch hat. When I look at it, I see that the movie opening is much more thought-provoking and exciting than the book opening. I also find the movie opening much more memorable and nostalgic than the book opening. To refute your points, I just don't see reading aloud a 500 page book being more enjoyable than sitting down with a bucket of popcorn and watching Harry Potter unravel itself in all of it's mysterious glory onscreen. (But still, isn't all forms of Harry Potter still good? [if not superior] )
Books are Better than Movies

Your points are rather interesting, however have a few disagreements. Firstly, you said "not everyone can read". However, that is mainly in less developed countries, where people probably can't afford a TV anyways, if they can't afford education to read, or in younger children, in which the movies you referenced wouldn't be age appropriate. The age appropriate films they can watch, almost all of them don't have book basis you can compare to. Also, a whole family can enjoy a book experience. One person can read aloud and the rest can close their eyes and watch scenes, battles, and dramas fold out in their heads...sorry, I got distracted. :) Now onto my own arguments. Firstly, books include more detail. I noticed your second point say in "books...one can never see them firsthand in such detail and wonder as a movie did". However, I have a counter-argument. It is, in fact, the movie that can't catch the wonder and detail of the book. The book, with it's flowing narration, can describe scenes in much more detail than the movie can. While we see it, panning across the screen it is just background. However, in the book, you see it in high definition in your minds eye. And you can catch subtle references in the description you can't just see on a movie screen. The narration provides much more detail than "moving images" on a screen, to use your definition. Secondly, books help to improve your literacy skills. Not only do you get the benefits of using your imagination, you improve your literacy skills. Movies, can only help your...eye tracking skills? Meanwhile, a book helps improve your reading skills, helping you with every day life not just with entertainment. And while thrill seekers looking for entertainment can just watch a movie, you can get the same thrill from reading a good book, plus benefits.
Books are Better than Movies

Alright, using the same template my opponent has used, I shall also define said terms. - Movie: a story or event interpreted via moving images - Superior: higher in quality - Book: Written work, often telling a story [ Anybody can watch them] Not everybody can read. Not everybody can correctly interpret or define what they are being told. With movies, anybody can sit down and watch them. Families and people of all ages can watch, without having to use skills they may or may not have to enjoy the media. People can band together in groups and watch at once, sharing a wonderful and memorable experience. Books cannot be experienced all at once or with family. [ An entirely different experience ] In 1977, a film called 'Star Wars' opened in theaters everywhere. The moment the movie opened, viewers were introduced into a world that instilled awe and a sense of 'Could this be real?'. Books could never achieve the feeling Star Wars could. A whole new world people were never familiar with and could possibly never imagine could be real; yet they saw it for their own eyes, starships drifting across the screen, glowing swords, and special effects that wow-ed the audience into utter amazement. Perhaps books can tell of fantasies that are from real, but one can never see them firsthand in such detail and wonder as a movie did. With music and actors and visuals, movies all but enhance the world of story-telling on a level books can not match. After all, visualization is better than imagination. [ Watching / Reading ] Not everybody has the time or stamina to read through a 500+ page book, nor the skills to do so. With movies, all you need to do is sit down for 2 to 3 hours and enjoy a story you can watch, rewatch, and analyze at your leisure. With books, to read, re-read, and analyze may be more of a hardship. People can watch the Lord of the Ring Series on their couch with their friends over a weekend. Reading the Lord of the Rings Series of the course of one, tasking week just for the fun of it doesn't work with most people who are simply looking for entertainment. _________________________ All in all, movies can do things books can't and do everything books could, sometimes to a better degree.
Books are Better than Movies

Firstly, let me define the terms. I define: ~book: a written text that can be published in printed or electronic form ~better: comparative of good; of a higher standard, or more suitable, pleasing, or effective than other things ~movies: a film shown in a cinema or on television and often telling a story The arguments I shall tell you this round are: ~books allow you to use your own imagination ~movies are often based on books And next round I will explain why: ~books include more detail ~books help improve your literacy skills Firstly, books allow you to use your own imagination. "How is this?" you might ask. "A book still tells you exactly how a character or place looks." Well, that's true. A book will tell you a description, however, it can be interpreted in different ways. And the way you interpret a passage depends on who you are. Meanwhile, a movie just gives you the image. There is no room for maneuvering. You must accept the image the way it is. For an example, I'm going to use the ever popular "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" novel, which was later adapted as a movie. "Mr Dursley was the director of a firm called Grunnings. which made drills. He was a big, beefy man with hardly any neck, although he did have a very large mustache." This passage, while it does tell you what Mr Dursley looks like, there is plenty of room for your own imagination. You can imagine him with all kinds of hair, eyes, and mustaches. There is plenty of room to let your own brain do it's work. However in the movie, Mr Dursley's image is set. He has blondish-brownish hair, and brown eyes. He also has a typical mustache. Whilst in the book, you were allowed to imagine those features anyway you want, in the movie, the image is "force-fed" to you, if you will. "Why is that bad?" you may ask. "What is so bad about the images given to you? How does that make movies inferior?" Well, being allowed to imagine the various bits-and-bobs of a book's character's and settings makes it more personal. By making Mr Dudley's mustache a curly type of mustache makes him not only J.K. Rowling's character, but yours. It makes the story more intimate, and more real. The movie is cold and distant. It is someone else's interpretation of the character. Secondly, movies are often based off of books. Rarely do find a book based off of a movie, unless it's a Disney book of Frozen for 4+ . Mostly, it's always the movie based off of the book. The book tends to be the original, the more valid version. Therefore, the book has more credibility and is more authentic. And that makes it much better. So for all these reason, books are better than movies! Sources: ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~http://dictionary.cambridge.org... ~https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com... ~Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
should prisoners be able to get a job after prison

I apologized for my forfeit, I coincidentally had legal issues to deal with. You were given the chance to further prove your point and didn't so I will state the obvious. Newly released prisoners are released. They have decided to change their life for the better. However after searching for an honest job that will hire them, they see that society has given up on them and prevented them from simply getting a basic job to support themselves and their family. They see no other alternative as to go back to crime to make a living, as they need to survive. Preventing convicts from attaining jobs causes more problems than then positive things. No discussion
There is most likely an intelligent creator of the universe

Okay Tejretics chose these judges for the most part, I just agreed. I finally found time to put some effort and energy into debating. I'm sick of seeing the God debates and even sicker of seeing people who actually specialize in nothing but God debates. With that being said, one of you guys with no life and way too much free time who spend all day debating the same topic over and over are welcome to apply in the comments. I'll accept the best opponents, from those who specialize in this type of debate. First round is acceptance Okay Tejretics is getting the debate, he is the most challenging opponent and has surpassed me in ELO, sole on his God exists debates, which annoys me. So let's start off Edit: changed to choose winner and 4 rounds
Swine Flu is bad

So, swine flu, good topic to debate on. My opponent has stated, "Swine flu is good because it is good for murder on your big enemy." Doesn't murder make you feel weird when you kill a guy? I think so. Sooner or later, the world will have the cure for swine flu so your scheme will fail. Swine flu, does not have a cure yet, so, you can still die from it ( even though that isn't so possible). So, I hope this will be a great debate. Thank you Special thanks to my opponent and to whoever votes.
scientifically inexplicable happenings occur that appear supernatural but almost never to atheists

i can't give as high of props for con's next round of argumentation. con pretty much resorts to semantics regarding use of the words "supernatural" and "miracle". first he just ignores that i said "appears supernatural". and it may have not been the best worded request, but everyone knows what i mean when i say "appears". find something that is of the same magnitude as what is provided for theists. cancer remission isn't of the same magnitude cause there are readily available explanations for that. i realize that it could still be arguable about any cures i provide, whether scientific or not.... but that misses the point that you could still find something of the same magnitiude as what happens to theists. unless your bottomline is that it all happens by placedbo? but even if that's true, there should be a placedbo for atheists at least in some situations. but bottom line... do you hinge your whole debate on placebo? and do you then follow that to acknowledge that things of the same magnitude "cant" be provided by atheists? it's almost a tacit admission that some things do occur to theists and not atheists, cause con insists on calling it placebo effected based. "Yes most if not all "cures" have a scientific explanation." do i detect a hint of reservation? that there might not be a natural explanation? as for the intercessory prayers study, i'm sure if miracles did occur, they wouldn't if the people actively being monitored. that is not 'of faith'. it's bad enough that miracles do putatively occur, and might not be viewed as 'of faith', and people just write them off.... but even that given the hardness of heart still must be 'of faith'.
scientifically inexplicable happenings occur that appear supernatural but almost never to atheists

i give con props for a generally well argued debate. but, as with most who take the debate, he couldn't provide a single example of something that would be called supernatural happening to atheists had it happened to atheists. con criticizes me for 'miracle' and supernatural and such, but it's obvious that i didn't call anything either. at most i said it 'appears supernatural given there's no scientific explanation'. 'appears' is somewhat loaded, but everyone surely knows what i meant. i was careful not to call anything a miracle or supernatural. perhaps not all supposed 'apparent supernatural' events are true, and con has given examples with the blog examples. but, some of them have stood the test of time. same goes for most examples for Lourdes and Congregation for Doctrine of Faith. some cures do have medical explanations, some don't. do they have scientific explanations anyways? well, that remains to be seen. we can surely find examples happening to atheists that happen to theists, but that have for sure explanations to them. what about something that would be called non explicable? i realize in theory this is possible to find, and then quibble about explicable or not. but, con hasn't even allowed us to get off the road, cause he hasn't provided any examples of things happening to atheists.