BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jim Carrey is better than Adam Sander

I think my opponent for this debate. However, I am going to show why his entire case fails. Response To My Opponent's Arguments "This argument is based completely on my opponents opinion. My argument was based on a poll or a vote. The overall vote was for Jim Carrey." The problem with Pro's stance here should be self-evident right off of the bat; it is self-refuting. The poll votes were just based on the opinions of the voters. Therefore, if something based on opinion is not valid like Pro is suggesting with regards to my argument, then his argument with regards to the poll is invalid as well as it is based on the voter's opinions. "Not necessarily because he makes more money, but because he is funnier and an overall better actor." This would be their opinions though. My opponent rejected my argument about 2 Pac being better than Justin Bieber due to it being based on opinion, thus he has to reject his own argument if he is to stay consistent with his logic. Also, just because there are slightly more opinions in favor for Jim Carrey than Adam Sandler does not mean he is better. This is an Ad Populum [1] logical fallacy. "If I were to ask one thousand little Justin Bieber girl fans, who do you like more Justin bieber or tu pac…the mojarity vote would be to like Justin bieber." This would be selective sampling so this point is useless. If I were to ask one thousand people in the hood who was better, the majority vote would be for 2 Pac. "So your argument is completely invalid because it is based on your opinion."Actually, Pro's argument here fails because it is self-refuting. If something based on one's opinion is invalid, then the poll argument from Pro is invalid, as it is based on the voter's opinions. Also this is an Ad Populum fallacy anyway, which means it was invalid before further argumentation for it even got into the mix. Pro then mentions many Jim Carrey quotes. The problem here is that only one of them is actually memorable. Which one? Of course, "alrighty then!". There was more than one memorable quote from Adam Sandler provided by me, therefore the resolution has been negated as Pro's last round was self-refuting, and just did not cut it as far as the burden of proof is concerned.Sources[1] http://philosophy.lander.edu...
Jim Carrey is better than Adam Sander

I will begin by attacking my opponents case then move on to prvoing that Jim Carrey is overall. My oponents first argument: However, 2pac's net worth was $40,000,000 [1], and Justin Bieber has a net worth of $110,000,000 [2]. It is self-evident that 2 Pac is better than Justin Bieber, even though the case can be made that Justin Bieber is more successful. The point of this is to show that having more money does not necessarily indicate that one is better. In this case particularly; it cannot even get off of the ground as a plausibility argument. My response to this: This argument is based completely on my opponents opinion. My argument was based on a poll or a vote. The overall vote was for Jim Carrey. Not necessarily because he makes more money, but because he is funnier and an overall better actor. If I were to ask one thousand little Justin bieber girl fans, who do you like more Justin bieber or tu pac…the mojarity vote would be to like Justin bieber. So your argument is completely invalid because it is based on your opinion. There af quotes that Jim Carrey says that makes him great and memorable to every age group. Ace Ventura (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective): "All righty then."The Mask (The Mask): "Hold on, Sugar! Daddy's got a sweet tooth tonight!" Lloyd Christmas (Dumb and Dumber): "I'm talkin' about a place where the beer flows like wine, where the women instinctively flock like the salmon of Capistrano. I'm talkin' about Aspen." The Riddler (Batman Forever): "Riddle me this, and riddle me that: who is afraid of the big, black bat?" Fletcher Reede (Liar, Liar): "Here it goes: I sped. I followed too closely. I ran a stop sign. I almost hit a Chevy. I sped some more. I failed to yield at a crosswalk. I changed lanes at an intersection. I changed lanes without signaling while running a red light and SPEEDING!" Chip Douglas (The Cable Guy): "Come on Stevie, time to leavey, It's the fun bus man!" Fletcher Reede (Liar, Liar): "I hold *myself* in contempt! Why should you be any different?" The Riddler (Batman Forever): "Tell the fat lady she's on in five." With this being said.... I urge a pro ballot!
Jim Carrey is better than Adam Sander

"Contention #1: Jim Carrey is overall more successful!" - Masterdebatr91I am willing to concede this point. However, 2pac's net worth was $40,000,000 [1], and Justin Bieber has a net worth of $110,000,000 [2].It is self-evident that 2 Pac is better than Justin Bieber, even though the case can be made that Justin Bieber is more successful. The point of this is to show that having more money does not necessarily indicate that one is better. In this case particularly; it cannot even get off of the ground as a plausibility argument. The rest of Pro's argument consisted of: (i) Bare assertions that Jim Carrey is better and that everyone loves him more (ii) Lists of Jim Carrey movies The above cannot be said to effect the resolution. Not much can as "better" is subjective, but I'll give it a go! What gives Adam Sandler the edge? I cannot seem to recall any memorable quotes from Jim Carrey.... I believe that Adam Sandler wins because he has more memorable quotes. This gives him a legitimate edge over the "success" argument from Pro due to content: Billy Madison "Stop looking at me Swan" "He called the sh*t poop!" "Shampoo is better, I go on first and clean the hair. Conditioner is better, I leave the hair silky and smooth! Oh, really, fool?!" Happy Gilmor "The price is wrong, bitch" The Wedding Singer "But is all was bullsh*t, it was a goddamn joke! And when I think of you Linda...I hope you F*ckin' choke!" Waterboy "Viki Valencourt showed me her boobies and I liked them too!" Little Nicky "Get in the flask!" Having more memorable quotes is stronger then who has more money when determining who the better comedic actor is. For this reason, the resolution has been negated. Sources [1] http://www.celebritynetworth.com...[2] http://www.celebritynetworth.com...
Jim Carrey is better than Adam Sander

In this debate I will be affirming the resolution. Resolved: Jim Carrey is better than Adam SanderThis is a debate for entertainment, so at least pretend to have fun!RULES OF THIS DEBATE: One video or link must be posted every round that i related to the topic! No being a meany hole jerk face to eachother! No other rules! Contention #1: Jim Carrey is overall more successful! As you can see, on this link thingy.... http://www.the-movie-times.com... Jim Carrey makes much more money and everyone loves him more! Some awesome movies he has been in are..... Liar, Liar The Cable Guy Ace Ventura The Mask Dumb and Dumber The Truman Show Adam Sandler has no chance in competeing with Jim Carrey! I look foward to my opponents response!
kingdom hearts 2 is better than kingdom hearts one

I think they are all good, kingdom hearts 1 has the best story, kingdom hearts 2 has the best graphics and fighting system 358/2 days you get very attached to the characters! chain of memories was fun to play as Riku, but fighting was gay birth by sleep has the best worlds and the longest story coded just straight up sucks I love kingdom hearts and cant wait for 3,but i think they should end it after the this next one.
kingdom hearts 2 is better than kingdom hearts one

But clearly my opponent does not understand the nature of this debate. I am not disputing the fact that they are all good. I am arguing that kingdom hearts two is better than kingdom hearts one. I will begin listing all the problems that I had with kingdom hearts one. #1. the introduction was meandering and slow. For the first three hours, you had to go through a coma inducing intro to the game you are playing. never once have I enjoyed being spoon fed in the introduction to a video game. and for people who like to be high level, that meant grinding against the 4 people in mock battles. Fun, this is not.
Are actors and actresses paid too much

Hi, nice to meet you. Thanks for letting me debate this topic with you. But on topic, I do not believe that actors and actresses are paid to much. In the beginning, you have to think of what they are actually paid for. They are paid up front and in royalties for their part in a movie. Also, the amount of effort that they put into these films is tremendous. A book takes one person to write, the author, a movie on the other hand, takes crews of people to put into motion. All of these people are paid for their rolls in the making of movies. Sure actors and actresses are paid a lot of money, but it really isn't that much compared to what some people are paid for even more ridiculous jobs, like tossing a leather ball across a field. On top of all that, how much an actor makes is determined by the amount of money the movie makes, in other words how many people buy it/watch it.
Smoking in public places should be banned

As I mentioned at the beginning that I am smoker as well, however I prefer not to smoke in closed area, and I do not want other people smoking around me. There are a lot of other great places to sit and smoke, but it should not be in the public places. Being mature is not only about doing whatever you want to do, being mature means be responsible and think about others. I respect healthy life style of other people, I respect their good healthy choices and I do not want spoil their healthy environment with my sigarets. I am on way of giving up smoking and I need people who surrounds me helps me in this battle.
Smoking in public places should be banned

As many researches prove air that we breath every day in big cities are more toxic than good cigar or tobacco for handmade cigarettes. As a parent I definitely tell to my children pros and cons of smoking, but no one must tell me where to smoke. I believe that every person must have right to smoke or not. And If you don't like me smoking, you can go for another place! I we will fear just to breath one shot of smoke, we also must close all junk food restaurants and all Coca Cola facility
Smoking in public places should be banned

Thank you Askar for your reply. Definetelly, you have right to choose how to spend your time. But, smoking in public places bring harm for every one who surrounds you. Second hand smoker is as harmful as a smoking. I am sure, that you would not smoke if your children will sit around. Prohibition of smoking in public places will save your health. Such necessary measure will make you cut down on smoking. Big cities like New-York, London and Tokyo banned smoking in public places. It is a good healthy trend that our city should follow as well.
Smoking in public places should be banned

I am a smoker, however I am in favor of banning smoking in public places. If several smokers smokes in tiny room, the concentration of the poison in sigarets rises several times. Thus, smoking in the closed area is more harmful not only for non-smokers, but for smokers as well. Today, in Almaty, most of the restaurants allow their guests to smoke in the restaurants. Even though, there is a law that prohibit smoking in public places, owners of the restaurants ignores it.
Supernatural doesn't exist

Definitions in this debate: supernatural - Event that is defying laws of nature (but not laws of logic) laws of nature - set of rules, by which events always happen exist - could be, can be or will be possible to register with human's senses (either directly or indirectly) Debate rules: - Topic is resolution. - BoP is on Pro - Con's first Round is acceptance Voting rules: - "Who used the most reliable sources?" will remain tied. - Forfeit in round 2 or 3 by Pro means all points go to Con. Forfeit in round 1 or 2 by Con means all points go to Pro.
Supernatural doesn't exist

Supernatural typically still involves natural factors, for example, Jesus rising from the dead. It's supernatural not because of the act itself (which is natural as the body comes back to life), but because of the cause (God). Same with the healings of Jesus and the miracles of the Bible all which involve natural matter. "If my opponent is talking about people now, they might believe it is Jesus that healed them, but they can always get more reasonable explanation of how they got healed." You say they can always get more reasonable explanations, where are they? How do you explain Jesus rising from the dead? How do you explain the paralyzed being able to move freely again or the blind's sight being restored? Unless you are able to come with scientific explanations for this phenomenon, we should take the position that it has a supernatural cause based on the very act itself being attributed to the conviction of God himself.
Supernatural doesn't exist

No one person knows all laws of nature. Just because some person doesn't know a particular law of nature by which event occurred, doesn't mean it was supernatural. If my opponent is talking about people 2k years ago, only form of evidence that Jesus healed them is one single book. Since bible was more translated and copied by handwriting, claims in harry potter books are much more of the evidence for supernatural events. If my opponent is talking about people now, they might believe it is Jesus that healed them, but they can always get more reasonable explanation of how they got healed.
Supernatural doesn't exist

1. If person1 observed something that appears to be supernatural to person1, it would mean that what person1 regarded as law of nature is not law of nature, but rather pattern that happened accidentally. Then person1 would update his beliefs - would regard new idea of pattern which includes this event as law of nature. Then event that person1 observed would not appear to be supernatural anymore. 2. Only events regarded as natural are those which are observed. And all events that are not observed are regarded as supernatural. For example: It is natural for rabbit to jump less than meter, and it is supernatural for rabbit to jump more than kilometer only because we observed rabbits jumping less than meter, and we did not observe rabbit jumping more than kilometer. If we observed rabbits jumping more than kilometer, then it would be natural. If something doesn't exist, it is impossible to observe it. If something is possible to observe, it does exist. Therefore, if something exists, then it is natural.
Using forks to dip oreos are better than fingers

What if you are impatient and want the whole oreo at once not many people can only eat small bits of the oreo they want the whole cookie. You won't need a napkin with a fork so you would waste a napkin without one. You would be killing trees. Also if you have a low amount of milk forks are good for reaching those low milk levels. You can be caught with the napkin and it can be seen in the trash while dishes can be rinsed.
Using forks to dip oreos are better than fingers

You don't have to sufficiently dunk all of the oreo at once. With fingers you can do some parts sufficiently. You can have a napkin near you to wipe your fingers on if you really don't want to spoil all the oreos. If you have a partiality for eating oreos with fingers than you should buy cups sufficiently big enough for your hands. Napkins also again for sneaking oreos.
Using forks to dip oreos are better than fingers

The only way to sufficently dunk an oreo is to use a fork if you use your hands than there are still hard parts o the oreos. If you have a skinny cup then people with bigger cups will hurt their hands or go through the process of getting another glass of milk and with oreos staring at you it is a hard thing to do. Also you don't want to eat all the oreos at once so spoiling them is a bad idea. It is also easier to sneak oreos if you use a fork because you won't have your hands wet and if you are quick the only evidence will be a fork and a glass of milk.
Using forks to dip oreos are better than fingers

When eating oreos and getting your fingers dirty you always go back for more. You reach in the bag and spoil the bag and several oreos with your wet fingers. You dunk the whole oreo with a fork but you don't shove the whole piece into your mouth. That's a choking hazard you also eat it piece by soggy piece. Using a fork also allows you to have a skinnier cup so you don't have to shove your whole hand in the cup.
Abortion should be legal.

Well I'm glad we can agree that human life begins at conception and every life should be given a chance. We even would (almost) never advocate someone aborting a child. Pro you write:Though I am against abortion I believe it is a mother right to choose to abort her pregnancy." It almost seems you could be pro life because you're against abortion and you would never tell someone to abort. It almost sounds like you're contradicting yourself but i think i get what you're saying, You're against it but if someone wants to they can do it? Im against people smoking cigarettes but i think people should have the right to smoke if they please. The problem i see with the your view is more than just the woman are affected. First id like to say women are not the "givers" of life. Babies do not spontaneously conceive in a mothers womb and i know that concept is as basic as it gets but men are just as responsible to giving life as a woman. Second, Pro writes"No one should be allowed to tell someone what to do with their body" then adds "until a baby is born child and mother are one." The assumption that the mother and baby are "one" is not backed by science at all. So if they are not "one" what right does the mother have over the baby's? I reaffirm that abortion should be illegal because everyone has a right to life.
Abortion should be legal.

I also believe life begins at conception and also agree that all life should be given a chance. Though I am 100% pro choice I would almost never advocate someone aborting a child. Though I am against abortion I believe it is a mother right to choose to abort her pregnancy. As the giver of life I believe until a baby is born its life is in the hands of its mother. No one should be allowed to tell someone what to do with their body and until a baby is born child and mother are one.
The Internet Does More Harm Than Good

I admire you for attempting to quit your Internet addiction. For the following reasons the Internet does more good than harm. Contention #1: Correlation Does Not Prove Causation. This is one of the most and logical Philosophies ever. It has yet to be refuted. This basically states a logic that just because the alphabet can be used to write insults, it doesn't make it a bad thing, and doesn't prove anything special. For example, I have a really big head. One of my friends has a really small head. But he is way smarter than I am. So just because I have a bigger head it doesn't mean that I am smarter. This is what this Philosophy is stating. This can be used as a example for this debate as well. The internet is not completely safe. No has and/or ever say it is. So simply just because the Internet, has bad things, it doesn't mean there are insufficient good things to balance it out. In fact there are more good things on the Internet than bad things. I personally have a lot of people around me who's lives evolve around the internet, and yet they are still the same person as they were when hearing someone is using the internet is rare. Bottom Line: The Internet Does More Good Than Harm. Contention #2: Personal Development The Internet has revolutionized the way we look to enhance living environment, and more importantly our entire lives for the better. The Internet has so many wonderful things we can do with it. Because of the Internet we can: Find Jobs Because of the Internet we can: Submit Resumes Because of the Internet we can: Gain Knowledge Because of the Internet we can: Increase Confidence Because of the Internet we can: Connect With Other People Because of the Internet we can: Go To School Etc. So all these (and so many more), are helping our World, Economy, and our selves grow, and become enhanced! Translation: We live better lives because of the internet. So now I ask you: The internet is giving you a better life. Does it do more good than harm? I would say YES. Bottom Line: The Internet is helping our world grow. Contention #3: Our world is working and has eliminated lots of negative aspects of the Internet. 1. Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is act put in place to reduce the amount of illegal activity on the internet. "It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel" 2. Both Windows, and Macintosh (including iOS) OS' have security features inlace to protect, humans from Harmful and Illegal acts/uses online. These features allow the user to control what websites and/or content the computer will be able to show. This is protecting our selves, and maybe even more importantly the future of our world - our children. So these features are helping us, or you could even say, making us stay away from terrible thing online such as Pornography, Identity Theft, Bad Influences, ETC. Bottom Line: Our world has and is working to eliminate bad things from the Internet. Sources: 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The necessity of detoxing.

Thank you for clearing that up, I'm still learning. Before beginning I would like to add a few more terms to our definition pool. Toxic: Containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation Toxin: A poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism. Toxicant: A toxic agent, usually one produced by human-made activity, such as pesticides. Detoxification products available in the market place are not necessary for healthy living, but have no actual impact on the purchasers health.In biological sciences it is widely accepted that the kidneys and liver are responsible for clearing the body of waste product, drugs, alcohol and other potentially harmful substances. The jobs that are too big for them require detoxification, and not in the form of a fruity beverage and a sauna, but a trip to the hospital. In medical terms detoxification is a process one undergoes after being exposed to harmful substances (poison, heavy lead, venom) or to reduce withdrawal symptoms in recovering addicts. The former relies on the belief that our bodies are somehow retaining toxins, and gets by using its arbitrary term without defining which toxins their product actually removes, or by what mechanisms they work. When searching the medical journals for literature on the subject no results are found. Now I understand that absence of evidence is not a reason to conclude something false, however with the claims that they make on their product I would expect to find a trial that would lead them to their conclusion. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com...
The necessity of detoxing.

I bestow my acceptance. Additionally, a few preliminaries are absent, including the outline for the debate and definitions. I will define any pertinent terms so that the ambiguity Con concerns himself with will be avoided so that both debaters possess no dubious understanding of the definitions. Moreover, since Con did not address the outline of which I am to adhere to, I will refrain from posting any arguments this round, but merely define terminologies, and accept the debate. Necessity: (Noun), the fact of being required or indispensable. Detoxification: (Noun), the process of removing toxic substances or qualities. I will be arguing in favor of the necessity of the detoxification of the human body. Con, please proceed.