BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

While comparing both movies, I have learned that there is more violence and sadness in Up than there is in the Winnie the Pooh movie children should feel happy when watching a movie; not crying over the death of a guy's wife and feel scared about the extreme heights that are seen throughout the 92 odd minutes that it is on. Winnie the Pooh is a fun-loving movie with only some parts that aren't really that down as a doctor telling you that you cant have a child as it did in the other. This other movie was also made when there were no blue-rays or anything of the sort, so this leads me to think that society is more open to their kids with saddening issues than they were years ago. Times have changed for the worst.
George Zimmerman acted in self defense against Trayvon Martin.

I'm hoping to find an opponent who will discuss this topic without bias. This topic is clouded with bias and emotions from both sides because of bad media coverage and sensitive issues. I'm looking for someone who will defend his views with reasonable evidence instead of fallacies and opinions. I'm not concerned about heavy amounts of formality. I want a discussion that gets to the point and isn't scared to get a little interesting, so long as both sides are reasonable and calm. First off, round 1 will be accepting the debate. 2nd - 4th round will involve discussing the evidence for both sides. My name is Donald Keller, I am a 20 year old Graduate from DeSoto High School. I am supporting George Zimmerman in this case on the bases that George Zimmerman was assaulted by Trayvon Martin after Zimmerman reasonably tried to investigate.
is rape culture in the west real

Thanks Con for this debate.These days it seems like it's everywhere.I order some fries at the baseball game, rape.I order wings at the bar, rape.Fried turkey on thanksgiving? Up to our ears in rape.My wife and I got some dinner the other night, and wouldn't you know it, rape was inevitable; fried catfish was the special.It's like all I see are advertisements for McDonald's using rape to entice new consumers, companies finding new innovative ways to use rape as a means to attract investors, and fields and fields of rape throughout this great country; hey, pigs gotta eat too, right?Don't get me wrong, my wife and I love rape as much as the next guy, but isn't there another way to meet our needs?You can try changing your preferences, but as an westerner, in a culture dominated by different foods, you're bound to get rape; we live in a rape dominated food culture.I'm not as upset about it as others might be, but I agree that our rape culture is existent.Come on, you can't even go to a simple party these days without rape; chips are a party staple.The US, a major player in the western world, actually supports rape to the fullest, by constantly allowing for it to be a normal part of the everyday western cultural experience; the US is responsible for tons and tons of rape.http://www.usda.gov...Oh yeah...since I found explicit definitions for neither the word "rape" nor the word "culture," in round 1 of this debate, I shall supply my own.Definitionsrape - a plant of the cabbage family with bright yellow, heavily scented flowers, especially a variety (oilseed rape) grown for its oil-rich seed and as stockfeed.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...culture - the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social grouphttp://www.oxforddictionaries.com...Rape is really just a plant...http://www.ars-grin.gov......and it's used to make canola oil.http://www.canolacouncil.org...The foods described are cooked in canola oil, which is made of rape, and pigs eat rape oil leftovers in a stockfeed mash.I affirm the resolution, because the west is clearly a rape culture given rape's ubiquity in the American culture; it's real.
killing deformed children benefits society

but did the Romans give care to these little monsters? no they simply ignored them, but people want to help and lend a hand to those in need. so given the fact that over their life time these things they leach off of tax payer money and cost their family's millions. just imagine that you have a child and its deformed, cant walk, cant talk, they are just a vegetable and you have to pay out of your pocket to keep this vegetable alive, when you kill just kill it early not get attached and still have money and time to make another child that might be useful to society
World war 3

While it is true that peace is an option, you have to take into account backstabbing politicians, warmongering terrorist cells, and ultra nationalists that could, if left unchecked, could cause the war. And it could even be started on accident! Who's to say that all wars were caused by madmen or greed? Peace, at least in this day and age, is impractical. As Sun Tzu said: "War is used to create peace, while peace is used to prepare for war". Though the least of our problems is political, we could end up with a second cold war at the bare minimum. Nobody wants another cold war, I'm sure.
Christianity is just as bad as Islam

This is basically my whole point I am knit picking verses and your knit picking verses If you put them side to side both look equal Basically if I did what you did I would state Quran verses like this Quran 2:224 And do not make your oath by Allah an excuse against being righteous and fearing Allah and making peace among people. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing. and then put a Christian verse such as "At that time the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and led an army against the Ammonites. And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, "If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD the first thing coming out of my house to greet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering. " his only child ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. "My daughter! " he cried out. "My heart is breaking! What a tragedy that you came out to greet me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and cannot take it back. " And she said, "Father, you have made a promise to the LORD. You must do to me what you have promised, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin. " "You may go," Jephthah said. And he let her go away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept his vow, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah's daughter. " Judges 11:29-40 NLT If you don't like reading he burned his own daughter alive So I basically did what you did. I made the Quran look good by knitpicking and made the bible look terrible by knitpicking You have yet to actually make a statement that the bible is morally better than the Quran.
Christianity is just as bad as Islam

Thank you for accepting I will also use just the bible and the Quran The main argument is that the religions are equal Christiainity and Islam both have brutal laws and commandments. I will give an example -Kill witches (Exodus 22:17) -kill Homosexuals (Romans 1:24-32 ) -Kill fortune Tellers (Leviticus 20:27 ) -Kill Children who don't listen to their father (Matthew 15:4-7) -Kill an Entire Town if one person in that town is not a Christian (Deuteronomy 13:13-19) And these are just a few verses However a Christian will say that Jesus has come and abolished all the laws of the Old Testament right? Wrong Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB) Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB) Your move Con Vote Reformist
Christianity is just as bad as Islam

Christiainity is just as bad as Islam Terms: The user must think islam is worse than Christiaity. Rules for Rounds 1-acceptance only 2-Constructive Response 3-Rebuttals 4-Conclusion I'm not a person who freaks about links but make sure you have one or 2 so I can get an idea on your postion. If your using a bible just state the verse Happy to Debate!
Vegetables Are Healthier than Fruits

Facts from google: Amount Per 0.5 cup (91 g) Calories 59 % Daily Value* Total Fat 0.1 g0% Saturated fat 0 g0% Polyunsaturated fat 0.1 g Monounsaturated fat 0 g Cholesterol 0 mg0% Sodium 32 mg1% Potassium 154 mg4% Total Carbohydrate 12 g4% Dietary fiber 4 g16% Sugar 2.8 g Protein 2.6 g5% Vitamin A77%Vitamin C4% Calcium2%Iron3% Vitamin D0%Vitamin B-65% Vitamin B-120%Magnesium5%
Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons

Ok, since this is the final speech and I go to work in a bit, I'm not going into super detail. I'll just go over each main point. Hobey ho! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intro 1. Okay, I am not against GEs in messaging. That is for sure. If you want to vote against me on an argument like this, I don't think you should, but there's nothing I can do. 2. Forums aren't even up yet, how can we know it won't include emoticons? Just something to think about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantage I 1. When we increase the chances of potential offense, we see this disadvantage come into effect, not simple misunderstanding. 2. What I'm saying here is that if there is someone who has both, they should win. If they lack both, they should lose. It's when a mix, the judges must take in all variables in order to make an informed decision. 3. Like I said, GEs promote sarcasm and disrespect. This is not a solution. 4. No, there was no sarcasm. I really wanted to see these debates. (btw, #5 is hilarious)... ... And we see how miscommunications are resolved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantage II (can I have some ribs? I'm starving!) 1. A debater is not belittling someone by winning (even by an expansive margin) It's when sarcasm comes in that we see this happen. The whole argument is based upon intellect. We should promote using a load of strong arguments. If your opponent cannot cope, you win. We see this happen in my example. However, when it is a close debate, this does not come into play. The debaters should use words still, not GEs to get their points across. This helps their chances of winning when it is obvious they are the better debator! 2. As I said before, strong arguments. 3. Increases potential... see above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cont 1 1. I don't propose a burden. I just think that you should think about what you write, and write the best you can. Chances are, if you are a good debater, you are a good enough writer to get your point across without usings GEs. 2. Ok, it is made to show emotion. I accept this, but this does not for sure decrease miscommunication. Fun is good, sometimes. 3. Cross Apply Disadvantage II, 3. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contention 2 1. Good point, but they still do not deserve disrespect of their speech writing skills. Isn't beating them horribly enough? (No Sarcasm) 2. No. Lol. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thanks for reading this debate! Vote for Me!
Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons

! Hobey-Ho, let's go! ________________________________________________________________________________________ Roadmap. 1. I will start out by introducing a two disadvantages to using graphical emoticons, henceforth known as GE's. 2. Then, I will go on to cross-apply arguments and make new arguments on my opponents first speech. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Disadvantage I-- Disrespect a) A debater should not show disrespect to the opposition in the form of sarcasm. In a live high-school or college debate, when a debater shows contempt through sarcasm, they are usually marked off for this. The reason--disrespect. It is all too common in today's society to show sarcasm, but it should not be allowed in an environment in which intelligent conversation is encouraged. Allowing GE's is one way to allow sarcasm which should not be done. b) A debater should not show disrespect to debate in general by using 'fun' GE's to 'prove a point'. Debate is known as an 'intelligent sport'. It should not have GE's ruining this. In a live round, you would not see a debater pounding his head into a wall because of the opposition's obvious stupidity (as you see in my opponent's example), rather, you would find a debater pounding his points into the judges heads to show the opposition's obvious stupidity. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disadvantage II-- Loss of Needed Intellect a) When you allow GE's into debate, you take away from the needed intellect to get points across. If you must use a head into wall GE, it simply means you aren't able to show your opponent's lack of intellect by using your own intellect. Rather than using GE's, wouldn't it make more sense to offer twenty points in order to show your voters why your opponent is wrong? I believe so. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Case-- Contention 1- Like I said in Disadvantage II, if you need GE's to get your point across, you shouldn't be debating the topic. Now, I do agree that non-verbals make up an extreme amount of communication. But, if you look at books as an example, do they use GE's? No, but they are still able to get a tone across using diction and being explicit. Contention 2- If you accept this contention, you are accepting everything I said in Disadvantage I. This is extremely disrespectful and should not be made available. To illustrate a point, use words, not GE's. See Book Example. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion--- In order to vote Con, you must see that you are voting for disrespect, not only of your opponent but of debate itself, and you are voting on making debate less intelligent. For these reasons, my opponent's case falls, my case stands, and the resolution stands. Thank you.
Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons

Greeting to my future opponent as well as to all members of debate.org. Every once in a while, I'll argue in favor of something I actually care about and this is an instance, so I request that my opponent not resort to cheap parlor tricks (such as concocting some absurd definition of the topic) in order to win this debate. Onto my case: Have you ever had a discussion with someone online where you ended up making a sarcastic comment, only to have it taken seriously and lead the conversation some place where it wasn't intended to go? Or how about where you made a comment that was by no means intended to be offensive, only for the other individual(s) in the conversation to get upset in light of your comment? As great a place the Internet is, one of its greatest fallbacks is the lack of non-verbal conversation when it comes to online forums. Indeed as roughly 93% of human communication is non verbal. Due to the problems implied above, I strongly negate the resolution which states "Resolved: Debate.org should not enable graphical emoticons." ======= Definitions: ======= Graphical Emoticon: http://en.wikipedia.org... ======================================= Contention #1: Can help lower the rate of miscommunication ======================================= This contention is a no-brainer and shall thus be swift. Due to all of our discussions being heavily text based, there will be plenty of times where misunderstanding shall occur if we don't rely on some form of non-verbal communication. Keep in mind, non-verbal makes up a large percentage of our language. Now I understand that there is already a means of posting an emoticon which is the usual text based smiley " :)" ":D" . . . but it is very easy to glance past this form of emoticon due to how it blends in so well with the text. Not only that, but the more complex emoticons are difficult to properly convey through using text. Thus, actually enabling graphical emoticons will eliminate the "drawbacks" which normal emoticons have. ==================================================== Contention 2: Graphical emoticons can allow one to illustrate their points more effectively. ==================================================== Lets say that you want to give others the idea that someone else's point is absurd. What better way to do this than with a graphical emoticon such as this one: http://www.graphicalemoticons.com... And voilï¿½ï¿½, a way to make the presentation of your ideas more effective when it concerns persuading your audience. And that'll do it for now.
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

It looks like ROFLmywaffle forfeited this round. I'd be happy to hear from him in the fifth if he'd like to come back. First, I'd like to incorporate all of my prior arguments from prior rounds. I'd also like to point out that we can only assume silence indicates assent and the last round was forfeited so. .. I'd like to emphasize my opponent's agreement with the fact that Jar Jar Binks is a generic character. I feel this is the strongest point in the debate by far. Important characters are characters "Of MUCH significance". If a character is so significant they cannot be readily replaceable. As a generic character any old joe schmoe character could be plugged in and do exactly what Jar Jar did, therefore Jar Jar's presence is basically unnecessary and insignificant to the story and therefore unimportant.
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

Thanks for replying so soon Roflmywaffle. Again, nothing personal meant by the following. First I'd like to incorporate all of my prior arguments and I can only assume your silence indicates assent. Then, onto your new arguments: 1. Well, the issue wasn't over whether Jar Jar was a "minor character" as you state. It was whether he was a "generic character". You agreed that he was and generic characters are unimportant because they can be replaced by any other generic character therefore their presence is insignificant. 2. As to whether Jar Jar saved the Jedis in the forest? Well, the threat was hardly immediate (and frankly the conflict was a little lacking. Qui Gon just puts his hand up to his ear and says he hears transporters.) for starters. Secondly, they'd already escaped several transporters which seemed to take no notice of the Jedi. Third, it seems as easy for them to kill droids as it is to shoot fish in a barrel. Fourth, the droids had their hands full with the invasion of the planet it seems likely that trained Jedi could their notice. In summary I do not think it evident that but for the actions of Jar Jar Binks the Jedi would have died at the hands of the droid army. There are many possible avenues of escape, hiding, ambush, etc... available to the Jedi which would not have involved Jar Jar. 3. As far as the Gungans role in fighting the droid army--the way I understand it from the movie is that they're little more than a glorified diversion. A diversion which could have been provided by many other means any number of which can be found in similar Hollywood tropes--diversion, computer virus, etc. 4. How do you know that the bill would not have been proposed by someone other than Jar Jar? The group that seconded the motion seems like an excellent candidate. 5. "...you are just speaking in what ifs, what's important to the story is what did happen, not what could've happened." Why? Was that in the ground rules and I missed it? (Besides I am arguing from a good deal of what has happened in the story.) If you're going to treat the story as real then it exists in a world where causation is a factor. Course' if you don't want to treat it to treat the story as real, but as a product of the writer's imagination and a conversation between writer and audience--I've addressed how Jar Jar is not an important character in that sense in Round 2. Then, if you want to treat the story as a money making venture in the strictly material sense I addressed that in Round 2 as well. Or is a story merely an illusion, a figment of the imagination? I addressed that as well. I look forward to see where you take this ROFLmywaffle. Thanks for the fun.
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

Let me explain to you why Jar-Jar is important despite the fact that he is a minor character. In Episode I while Qui-gonn and Obi-wan were in the forest, who was it that saved them from the droid transporters? Jar-Jar. Had he not taken them to the underwater Gungan city then the Jedi Knights wouldn't have had a chance against all of those droids. Had he not led them out if the path of those transporters they would've been killed and the story would've ended right then. Pretty important if you ask me. But just for fun let's say that Qui-gonn and Obi-wan did end up making it out of there, there would've been no one to fight the droids in Naboo which would've most likely resulted in the death of Padme, meaning that she and Anakin would have never had Luke and Leia which again the story ends right in Episode I. In the Galactic Senate, Jar-Jar is the author of the bill so without him the bill wouldn't even have been proposed. And what you are saying about how the Chancellor could've had someone else do it, you are just speaking in what ifs, what's important to the story is what did happen, not what could've happened.
The importance of the Star Wars character Jar-Jar Binks.

Thank you for your opinion TruthTrust but I stand by what I said about Jar-Jar being an important character. To address what you said about Jar-Jar's role possibly being filled by a new generic character, that's what he is. He was introduced to aid the Jedi Knights in Episode I. Secondly, what you said about Jar-Jar's speech, this is a common method used by writers and authors to create diversity in their characters. It's the same as when a writer gives a character an accent, although it may take a second for what they're saying to register once you understand the dialect it becomes easier to understand. Finally, although Jar-Jar may be a clumsy goof of a character he still does some acts that affect the story. For example in Episode I during the fight between the Gungans and the Droids when the General gives Jar-Jar the booma, even as he fumbled with it he managed to take out the battle droid controlling the AAT. So even though he may not be the most desirable character it does not affect his importance in the series.