BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
book are better than movies

RebuttalYou say that books can teach you things where movies cant, but that is where you are wrong. Movies were created to actually show people things/how they are. What if you were reading a book on how to read? Its not possible, but you can make a movie on how to read because you can hear their voice instead of having to read something you don't know how. ArgumentMovies are far more superior because they have actors, scenery etc. In a book, the only famous person you will find will be the author. On the other hand, movies contain directors, actors/actresses, even more than that. More people on earth know actors than they do authors. Actors can be funny, scary, romantic. Any genre you want they will act it for you.
book are better than movies

Concession: You are right, My grammar an' splling were pretty bad but that was because I was typing fast because I had to leave, and I will agree with you, learning to read is a hard thing to perfect... ...But (Rebuttal) the fact that reading is hard to do makes the fact that you are good at it more satisfying because if you are good at reading you can get better at other things in your life like grammar and spelling. Argument: books are better than movies because they are more educational you can learn more about a wide range of things and books increase your ability to spell and write books.
book are better than movies

I humbly accept my opponents request. I see that first round will not be acceptance so I will post my argument and rebuttal now.Rebuttal "books are better than movies because they are interactive and you can read at your own pace"My responce to this,1. You did not use correct capitalization.2. You can watch movies at your own pace too. They just invented an option called the play and pause button. You should start using it. Also, A movie can too be interactive. Interactive: of or pertaining to a two-way system of electronic communications, as by means of television or computer {1} You must watch a movie using an electronic device of some kind to watch the movie. Argument QuickWatching a movie is much more superior to reading a book because it is quick to learn. If your reading a book it is highly likely you will take a longer time then when you are watching the movie. Because of my opponent only putting up one argument, I will post one as well.Sources{1}:http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Feminism in America (in 2017)

By definition feminism is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes." So in other words, feminism is believing women should have equal rights as men. To this definition, I agree wholeheartedly. Men and women should have equal rights (to an extent - maternity leave etc). However, the current 'feminism' movement across the western world (or at least NA) doesn't follow the true meaning of the word. Modern 'feminists' are mostly SJWs trying to raise women above, and to push down men. Most women polled across the states don't even label themselves as feminists anymore because of these radical 'feminists'. These 'feminists' constantly attack men, get triggered by things trivial and are unable to see where rights are balanced. I disagree with you that true feminism isn't needed anymore in the US, for there are still a few instances where women are at a disadvantage to men. The pay gap is a myth, yet there is still sexism, and sexual harassment of women: which I do NOT support. In these ways feminism is still needed. In summary: I am completely for true feminism, but I think the 'feminism' movement right now is toxic and detrimental to society.
School Uniforms are a Good Idea.

Hi there, thanks for starting this debate! So, let me start with....why doesn't anyone ever think about what the kids want? Blah blah blah, bullying and safety, stuff like that. But then, if they're all wearing uniforms, doesn't that make them all look like clones? Also, the uniforms will cost money, and they'll have to wash them often. Their parents won't get away from buying regular clothes either- no kid will want to wear their school uniform on the weekend or during summer. So, good luck =)!
School Uniforms are a Good Idea.

Many people say that uniforms are a good thing because of the fact that everyone looks the same, people will not compare each other, and think that someone has more money or better clothes than someone else. But if everyone is wearing the same thing, then wouldn't it be easier to compare people? Say there were two girls, both wearing khakis and a white collared shirt. What if one girl didn't look as good in the pants as the other girl. It would be easier for someone to say, "That girl looks terrible in those pants" because they are looking at how much better they look on the other girl. And say that that girl gets bullied because of how she looks in those pants. She probably wouldn't have worn those pants if she was given a choice because she was probably aware of how they looked on her. Most likely she has lots of clothes that look good on her, but the uniform isn't one of them. I think that bullying is inevitable in schools today. So if uniforms would only hurt the situation, then why bother?
Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

Awwww yeeeeeaaaaaa I'm ready 2 go, my first debate I'm so psyched, anyway... I disagree. Marijuana has much worse effects on the brain especially at a young age. Both marijuana and alcohol have an addictive quality. Alcohol affects the brain specifically the cerebellum and the brain stem, Marijuana however affects the cerebrum, cerebellum, brain stem, lungs and heart. I'm not too great at math but I'm pretty sure that marijuana affects more organs. I rest my case, for now
Marijuana should have similar legal restrictions to alcohol (or less legal restrictions).

Hello and thanks to whoever accepts this debate. In most (and perhaps all?) countries marijuana is subject to more severe legal restrictions and penalties than alcohol. Indeed in USA and UK alcohol is legal (though age restricted) and marijuana is a prohibited substance. I argue that this is wrong and that for a number of reasons marijuana should in fact have less legal restrictions than alcohol or at least equivalent legal status. To clarify, for the purposes of this debate: Marijuana = any derivative or species variant of cannabis sativa or indica, including 'skunk' varieties, in any form; buds, hash, oil etc. for both medicinal and recreational use. I've tried to set this debate up before but there was some confusion about the topic so I'll try to be extra clear this time. I am arguing that alcohol is at least as bad or worse for individuals and society. I am not saying whether either substance should have any specific legal status. I am saying that marijuana should have less restrictions than alcohol. This could be achieved one of two ways: 1. Loosen current restrictions on marijuana. 2. Tighten current restrictions on alcohol. I do not intend to advocate one position over the other, merely to prove that alcohol has worse effects on behaviour and health than marijuana therefore the status quo is unfair and immoral. As my opponent will presumably be supporting the status quo, I will allow him or her the option of presenting arguments first, if they wish to. If he or she would prefer however, they can instead use the next round merely for introductions and to challenge me to start the argument. If you are unsure about the topic then please ask questions in the comments section before accepting the debate. I hope that this will be a fun and informative discussion. Thankyou.
The Minimum Wage

I’m glad to be debating this ever controversial issue with LaissezFaire, a most distinguished debater on this website. This will hopefully be quite insightful for readers.Points of NoteObviously, I’m not to make arguments this round, nor will I be having too many rebuttals in R2 – that’s more to lay out my arguments, but it’s important to make crystal clear a key point in this debate to the reader early onWe are not debating whether the minimum wage is economically harmful . The word ‘society’ reflects a more holistic, sweeping view; on the whole, all things considered, is the wage harmful? This distinction is fairly important, although obviously this debate will have clashes on the economics side of things - for instance, one may see monopsony become an issue in this debate on the economics side.Just to be clear to readers, we’re discussing a single minimum wage. We’re not discussing variations, such as a minimum wage per occupation.My other note is that empirical evidence isn’t constrained to just the US. While it is useful to have constraints on scope, evidence from other countries with the minimum wage and the subsequent impacts is permissible. Furthermore, understanding factors that could affect the impacts of the minimum wage is important, and factors may differ between countries. I hope I these points serve as a clarification to the reader as to the scope and weighing of the debate. They are by no means arguments and should not be treated as such.I look forward to a good debate.
Are dogs better than cats

I believe dogs are 100% better than cats, one;they are cuter cuddlier and adorable. Who could resist and adorable puppy's face...and ever heard the phrase, dogs are mans best friend, don't hear any popular phrases like THAT about cats. And cats are horrible, I for one have rabbits and whenever I see a cat I have to run outside in case it attacks my bunnys, dogs don't do that for no reason...also cats can scratch, ever heard of the girl that was trying to keep the cat from attacking her dig and she had to go to the hospital because it attacked her. And yes dogs attack people, because of how their owner has treated them...or something tormenting them, see dogs attack for a reason... Cats just attack because they want to!!!!!!! And what would be best to have by your side if you were getting robbed? A cat that will run away and flee...or a dog that will stay and protect you?
War on Drugs

"First flaw in your argument is that you claim to be a libertarian" I never once claimed that anywhere in my debate."The government isn't the people's master it is actually[sic] thier[sic] to serve us and give us as much freedom and liberty as needed." You never justified this. Considering that the entire purpose of law is to restrict and set boundaries, there is no true liberty with a government."the greatest thing about this country is that everyone has liberty in their lives no matter what they look like, believe, or how large their IQ is because we are still human and as humans we have rights." Firstly, what is 'this country' you never once stated that we were not discussing worldwide war on drugs. Secondly, if everyone has liberty why is there prison? Thirdly, do you seriously think someone with an IQ below 70, which is essentially retardation[1], has actual liberty in whatever you mean by 'this country'? You never justified why being human is an automatic ticket to have the right to take drugs."people who use heroin know that is isn't good for them" If they did know that, they are either suicidal or should be banned from using it. " classifying them as all stupid people who need to be shown how to live their lives is almost insulting to those who have unpopular opions[sic[ and ways of live." Actually there is scientific backing to ban people the right to take heroin, as I highlighted in round one. Merely being unpopular or weird is not warrant, in itself, for removal of one's rights.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
War on Drugs

First flaw in your argument is that you claim to be a libertarian, but your argument goes agianst a fundmental principle of personal freedom and the biggest personal freedom out their is that we as Americans should be allowed to put in our bodies what we want to. The government isn't the people's master it is acutallyt thier to serve us and give us as much freedom and liberty as needed. Second the greatest thing about this country is that everyone has liberty in their lives no matter what they look like, believe, or how large their IQ is because we are still human and as humans we have rights. Lastly, people who use heroin know that is isn't good for them and classifying them as all stupid people who need to be shown how to live their lives is almost insulting to those who have unpopular opions and ways of live. My argument is about freedom and liberty, yours is about government control.
War on Drugs

A government's job and duty is to govern and lead its people to a direction in which they gain the most profit whilst still maintaining harmony amongst the society. It is not the people's friend, it is not the people's slave it is their master, leader and guider. Just because every American (assuming this random scenario would occur) wanted to take heroin, they must utilise force and oppress the people FOR THEIR OWN GOOD. A government is great as libertarians if the people are smart. It is when they are stupid and want to harm themselves that it must step in and destroy the wrong path while leaving the right and just path open for them to take. It is the same as telling your child that if they eat certain sweets or drink you will punish them severely, destroy their stash and shall monitor them with the utmost intent, it's for their own good.Liberty is lovely when it is amongst smart people. Unfortunately many people,like those who want to take heroin, are quite stupid and need to be shepherded like sheep.You are stating quotes of money but I tell you this; saving lives and preventing harm of your people is what a government should spend almost all disposable income on! Saving people from danger, such as class A drugs, is ESSENTIAL!I shall now hand it over to you to counter this.
War on Drugs

Of course Heroin is a very dangerous drug and it causes health problems and even death, but the deaths caused by the war on drugs which include Heroin are extremely out numbered. In the years of 2011-12 55,000 Mexicans and Americans died in the war on drugs compared to the 6,500 that die because of Heroin. America spends about 20 billion dollars on the war on drugs each year that is money coming from tax payers and the last time I checked the United States is in a 16 trillion dollar debt, spending money like this causes much of the problems the United States faces today.Everyone has a right to make their choices as Americans. The last time I checked it said America is free and if someone chooses to use Heroin that is a choice they will have to live with or won't live with. I don't want a government telling me what I can or cannot put in my body this is the biggest government that is possible. I question your character if you allow over 55,000 people to die because America is too scared to let Americans make their own choices. Souces-http://www.nytimes.com...
War on Drugs

Let me tell you about harmful drugs.First off Heroin. Taking heroin involves a number of risks[1]. Here’s what it could do to you: Overdoses can lead to coma and even death – as it can cause respiratory failure (this is what it’s called when your breathing stops). If you have been taking heroin regularly you may have built some tolerance, but if you then stop heroin for just for a few days, your tolerance will rapidly drop – and you risk an overdose if you simply take the high dose you previously took. If heroin is taken with other drugs, including alcohol, an overdose is more likely. Other downers (such as benzodiazepine tranquillisers or methadone), are also linked with deaths from heroin overdose. There's also a risk of death due to inhaling vomit – because heroin both sedates you and stops you coughing properly – and the vomit remains in the airways so you can’t breathe. Injecting heroin can do nasty damage to your veins and arteries, and has been known to lead to gangrene (death of body tissue, usually a finger, toe or a limb) and to infections. The risks of sharing needles, syringes and other equipment involved in injecting are well-known – it puts you, and others, in danger of serious infections like hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV/AIDS. Your character limit is very short so I shall leave it at that. I would like to see how you can justify a government not taking down heroin.Sources:[1] http://www.talktofrank.com...;
isreal vs gaza

First the con saying that he does believe Israel does have a right to exist but yet your first statement is Israel is not even a real place the second argument the contender has these Rockets are no good rockets that don't do harm well let me tell you I know a lot of people that live in the West Bank and when Hamas is throwing Rockets are currently running in shelters for fear of their lives I've seen with my own eyes damage that was done from these no-good rockets that you say let me tell you that I saw a 5 year olds bedroom blown up no longer does a 5 year old have a bedroom for one of these no-good Rockets so let's not use the arguing by saying that these Rockets are not good Rockets then you say look at the damage Israel has done compared to the damage that Hamas has done well I will agree with you that Israel has done more damage but not for no reason cuz her Hamas keeps on throwing these rockets at their civilians now like I stated my first argument if I would be throwing rockets at your kids retaliation would be at the highest possible capability that you have then the con says it's not Hamas throwing the Rockets it's other groups in the Gaza Strip but when Israel agree to a ceasefire with Hamas all the sudden the rocket stop going into Israel and then the con says regarding the 1967 borders Israel to give them back well if they give them back the Palestinians power will go into Israel and kill every single Israeli citizen possible and if you want proof behind that broad statement I just said when isreal gave back gaza hamas started throwing rocket's into isreal even tho they said if you give us gaza we will agree to peace
isreal vs gaza

Hamas which is a terrorist organization shoot Rockets into Israel not at the military at the civilians even if you will say these Rockets are carppy doesn't make a difference if I will shoot shoot crappy Rockets that explode into your backyard at your kids you will retaliate no matter what even if it means that some other people that are innocent will die because your kids go first no matter what you protect your kids first. Now if you're going to tell me that Israel is killed 100 times more the amount that a hamas has killed I will tell you to tell Hamas to stop throwing Rockets. Say some garbage from you that Israel doesn't even belong to exist or let me explain to you that the world did let them in 1947 the world made a vote and they said the Jews have a right to have their Homeland now you want to go back on that 1967 borders my answer to you will be at they didn't start the war with all five countries that started with them and it's not Israel's problem but they won the war now throughout history whoever wins the Wars keep the land especially if now that's only way to be safe and if you disagree with that logic then I'll tell you that the English have the right to take America from The Americans
Is gay ok.

I will start by saying I agree with your second point, that we are not born gay. From personal experience, having formally been gay (now I identify as bi), I would say that being gay is much like many other preferences or personality traits, such as how charismatic someone is. Multiple studies show the various levels of homo or hetero sexuality, such as the Kinsey scale. These show that people are not always exclusively one or the other, instead that some people fluctuate through various stages of sexuality through out their lives. On to your first point. Our goal as a species is to survive and adapt. This does not mean that every single human on the planet must reproduce, instead it should be said that every human should contribute, in some way, to the lasting existence of humanity. Your argument might apply in ancient times, when people were predominately hunter gatherers and lived in much smaller communities. During these ancient times each and every child would have been necessary. However once civilization was born the need for every person to reproduce has dropped as population become more stable. The fact that not every person must reproduce has become the very clear in modern times, this is of course because of overpopulation. In our current times slowing reproduction would be beneficial to furthering the existence of the human race. Just as a side point, if gay marriage stays illegal do you think that would cause gay people to change and decide to like women, that wouldn't happen.
Is gay ok.

okay thank you for the clarification. (1). According to the Scientific American website "our role, the meaning of life, is to perpetuate the genes". Since the purpose of evolution is to adapt to an environment in order to perpetuate the organism's genes A.K.A. "reproduce". Therefore, the natural order of nature, whether you are religious or not, means that gay couples cannot fulfill their base purpose as an organism. Further, for those who would like to tout the supposed "gay gene" a quote in "The Guardian" from Michael Bailey one of the lead researchers for the Northwestern University in Illinois, and one of the discoverers of the "gay gene", says, "The genes were neither sufficient, nor necessary, to make any of the men gay." Therefore not only is being gay not biological, but it violates he purpose of any organism which is to reproduce. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com... http://www.onenewsnow.com... Thank you.
Is gay ok.

I apologize as I have not given this argument a clear definition. I attempted to in the last round, however my opponent to not give me anything to go off of. If necessary I will recreate this debate with a more defined goal - weather or not gay marriage should be legalized. I will make the best of the remaining rounds in this debate. So for the purpose of the rest of this debate, which I have accidentally turned into an interview, why do you not agree with gay marriage.
Is gay ok.

Thank you for excepting my argument. I'd like to open in such a way as to establish a clear view of my opponent's standing, so I will start with a series of questions, that will then be followed by some opinions or reason. These questions will reflect my views as well as give this debate some needed clarity. 1st. How does Gay marriage affect you. - Two men or women marrying each other has no real effect on anyone other then them. 2nd. Is your view of gay marriage altered or dictated by a religion. If so do you have an argument that does not require faith in said religion. - To many arguments against gay marriage use only proof from their religion, such as: quotes from the bible, laws of the world proclaimed by a preacher/religious official, and gut feelings. (Note: you are still welcome to use religious reasoning) 3rd do you believe that gay marriage/unity is not right because it does not produce children/or is not the way god intended. - Many people pose this argument, however, quite often I've found that these individuals have no problem with sexual acts with a woman that do not result in conception, such as blow jobs, hand jobs, and cunnilingus.
Is gay ok.

I would like to engage someone in a debate concerning gay marriage/rights/existence that focuses on whether or not homosexuality is ethical. I would like to make it clear that I enjoy debate in a more argumentative fashion. This means rather lose conduct. I would prefer an opponent willing to argue in this style, but it is not necessary. I myself am bisexual, however I have no problem dealing with peoples beliefs, so don't hold back. I am new to debate.org, so apologies in advance for any mistakes caused my unfamiliarity with the website. P.S homophobes welcome