BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order)

My PointOkay, so it seems that, for the most part, I just didn't make my position clear. I don't actually mean that I want various cultures and ethnicities to be dissolved into one, big, blended and bland race. Certainly not! I just encourage unified relations between these cultures and ethnicities. Take the UK, for instance: it is comprised of four countries, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, all of which have distinct cultures, but also have fairly good relations, and act as one nation [1]. It is my will that that be such as the relations of the world: all countries cooperating together as different states of one nation. With whom one has romantic relations, with whom one lives, that is all one's choice. Cultures merely should not draw themselves into isolated containment within borders and strictures of enmity and alienation.DiversityYou could say that diversity is the cause of wars. Then again, you could say that poor relations are the cause of war: with a strong Federal Government, the United States have not broken into war with each other for over two hundred years. With a strong unifying force, the European Union has not broken into war for many years as well, though not that many. I think it might be better to say that the absence of government and unification is what leads to wars, not diversity. Furthermore, war may lead to new scientific discovery, but so does peace. They didn't build CERN as a weapon, nor is the ISS a device of espionage, yet both of these facilities have been bearers of great scientific progress and discovery.I will not deny that forcing cultures that are so drastically different to mingle is inadvisable. While I do not support Libertarianism, I posit that a leaf of that book should be submitted: if you don't like people who don't wear clothes, don't spend time around them, and if you don't like pictures of people who don't wear clothes, don't look at them. If you don't like the economy in a country, don't shop there. If you don't like the religion in a country, don't practice it.GTFAYour final point, regarding countries that trend toward xenophobia, the fear and hate of outsiders and diversity, is a good one. I suppose you can look at it like the kid in the sandbox that wants to be left alone: just...leave him alone. Let everyone in the world that's interested in peaceful socialization peacefully socialize, and just ignore everybody else. That may not sound ideal, but I think it's hardly less ideal than getting into ideology skirmishes, or just ordinary skirmishes at all.ConclusionI agree with you, actually, that globalization should not be a double or nothing institution. Not everyone in the world is ready for globalization. In fact, most probably aren't. But one by one, as countries decide to form stronger alliances, we can work toward a more ideal world.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Globalization: Friend or Foe, Con or Pro (though not in that order)

This debate will be about the issues involved with globalization (the unification of the planet, the intermingling of culture and race). As Pro, I am going to be arguing for globalization; I will be arguing that it is to be encouraged for cultures to interact, and for global unity to flourish. As Con, you, whoever you are, shall be arguing the opposite. Burden of proof shall be evenly split, (though it's negotiable) And because we're all friends here, the rules shall be lax. Please, no default votes, even if the Con does forfeit. (I shan't!) Now, let us state our opinions, and support them with facts! (Though simple logic will suffice)
abortion early in the pregnancy can be rationally justified, but morality is eye of beholder

There needs to be clarifications. reasonable versus rational. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing them. You hint it might be reasonable, but not rational. how can that be? Or, you mean it's reasonable belief, but not rational implementation to have abortion friendly laws. The later I will address more. Am I understanding you> The main point you made is that any chance of no life is such that we should defer, given the infinite loss potential, versus the "mere" loss of the choice of the mother. The mother's loss of choice, though, is a definite loss, and the loss of the person is not concrete. *Some people value liberty more than life.* If no liberty, there's no life. Now, there is the life and liberty of the putative child to consider. But, the liberty to decide that issue, I think, could reasonably be set for the mother. If the child dies, then, at least there was the liberty to decide given taht it is valued less than life. I realize that my stared quote is only certainly applicable to the person themself to decide to live, and teh child does not have the chance, or putatuive child. I acknowledge the society can have a say, but, I'm simply saying if it says the laws are arbortion friendly it's rational, not that it's analogous completely to areas where it can obviously exist. Now, personally I would outlaw it all, because of my concurrance that we should defer completely. My title was misleading in that vein. I was only saying a society that has it legal would be a rational society, in my view. I also think incidentally that you could be personally against abortion but allow people to decide for themselves, but only if you don't think it's certainly a person and are using the freedom issue. You use your freedom to not abort, but you respect the other person's freedom to choose themself. This is reasonable, and so rational in implementation as a law. I'm not sure how it could be reasonable and not rational in implementation. I think i'm on the right track. I do note you were sort of kinda maybe conceding it reasonable and maybe not so definitely. Any differences of opinion we might have, it seems, would be an inherent value judgment call, and tehre's not much more to discuss. But, I will await your reply to see for sure.
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

My opponent concedes on all of my arguments in round 3. He then continues his EU argument which I feel I have attacked thoroughly. The only new thing that my opponent brings up is that Disney's leadership is changing. This will occur at the end of June in 2016. [1] While it could potentially be problematic, who will actually replace Iger is at this moment far too speculative to really be considered an argument. For these reasons I can see no other vote than con. 1. http://www.deadline.com...
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

Things are not looking good for my case now. I seem to be losing the argument. Con brings up points that I was not aware of. I did not know that new Expanded Universe content was in progress, much less that production was not restricted. However, it does surprise me that Con ignored my first point in round 2 yet brought it up in round 3. While Disney will never likely by any means monopolize *all* franchises, on further analysis, more and more are coming under the leadership of Disney and its competitors, e.g. DC, Marvel's competitor (Warner Bros.) and Star Trek, Star Wars' competitor (Viacom). This takes them out of the hands of their original independent directors and puts them in the hands of large companies that may not care as directly about their properties and have more of a profit motive to override their creative impulses. I wish Con had brought this up earlier so we could have had more time to debate it. As for fan content, it's good news that it is still proceeding as usual, by and large, but with Disney's leadership up in the air, as I mentioned in round 3, it's only a matter of time whether that changes. If Con can successfully defeat my remaining argument in the final round, then I will be prepared to lose graciously, as I was even before I started this debate. Con's arguments have even begun to convince me that my cause may not be entirely just.
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

I will now provide a rebuttal for my opponents case. 1. This argument seems like it is cut short, as if my opponent laid the groundwork, but forgot the actual point. Obviously if Disney had a monopoly on the film industry it would be a bad thing but this is nowhere near the truth. Last year Disney made less than Warner Bros. [1] 2. The Expanded Universe is now non-canon. Sort of. It is now being labeled as an alternate universe titled "Star Wars Legends". Already new content is being planned. New content will continue to be produced with no effect imposed upon it, other than a new header. [2] This also brings up further evidence that the films will be good. The reasons cited for the decision are "In order to give maximum creative freedom to the filmmakers and also preserve an element of surprise and discovery for the audience,". Giving creators freedom to their film is a known method to helping ensure quality. Just look at the first two Spider-man films compared to the third. [3] 1. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... 2.http://starwars.com... 3. http://www.rottentomatoes.com... http://www.rottentomatoes.com... http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

You make some good points. Disney has indeed done great things with Marvel properties and, like I said in my opening argument, I expect them to do the same for Star Wars. However, my bad feeling would have been much more justified under Disney's previous CEO Michael Eisner. Disney under Eisner was producing worse and worse grossing films towards the end of his career, [1] arguably because they were less and less creative. [2] Now, though, that seems to be changing. [3] And you're right about them handling the Marvel films well. What I'm more worried about though isn't the franchise itself but the general legal status of fan works. While I do believe that Disney couldn't really have made new full-scale films that fit into the Expanded Universe, and fans still have the right to make new fan works even outside of canon, I again emphasize that Disney has a good chance of imposing the same canon policy on new fan works as they already have on their other properties. Thus, there could be no further fan publications on the scale of the Thrawn Trilogy or Darth Plagueis. Yes, the Expanded Universe hasn't been as popular as the core films, but it's by far the largest of any franchise, and now with Disney's acquisition, what will be the legal status of new and old EU works? Will new ones not be allowed to be sold? Will old ones become owned by Disney? Star Wars was a special thing for fan works, and now that specialness is gone. This is in large part up in the air, as Disney's president, Bob Iger, will be replaced not long after Star Wars Episode 7 is released. [4] It's not clear yet who will succeed him, and Disney's new copyright policy could greatly change depending on who it is, such as the president of Marvel. [5] But Disney is known for heeding fan input, and we the fans may be able to retain rights to Star Wars fan works if we speak out. However, I believe the time to do so is *now*, before Disney makes any further policy changes in the leadup to Episode 7. [1] http://boxofficemojo.com... [2]http://www.decentfilms.com... [3] http://www.thewire.com... [4] http://articles.latimes.com... [5] http://www.latinoreview.com...
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

I believe that Disney's buying of Star Wars is a good thing. I will now present several reasons why. Disney recently acquired the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) and under it's reign all has been good. One film from the MCU with Disney as publisher have over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. [1] This is rare especially for a superhero movie. Audiences were even more enthusiastic, giving it an A+ and over a billion dollars. [2] (5th point.) Furthermore it's attached to a director (and co-writer) who is regarded as being a good or great director. He also successfully rebooted Star Trek The RT scores for the films are, 95% and 87%. [3] The second one, while not received as well as the first, (Still great for an action/sci-fi film though.) was mainly disliked by people for something that this new Star Wars film couldn't do. (Spoilers*) It's other co-writer, Lawrence Kasdan, is also very good. He co-wrote the second two Star Wars films and the first Indiana Jones film. He has also been nominated for three screenwriting Oscars (as well as an Oscar for best picture. [4] With this in mind there is every reason to believe that the films will be good. This will be great for Star Wars as finally it won't be half bad. [5] (More than half if you are going by run time.) You mentioned the EU being much more significant and its being uncanonized, and while I will attack this more in my rebuttal, but since more people care about the movies than the EU my point still stands. In a subjective debate majority opinion rules. Furthermore there are other benefits to Disney owning Star Wars that couldn't have occurred otherwise. The big one of course is Star Wars theme park rides. [6] You can't really argue that this is a bad thing. I think that it would be awesome to go into the world of Star Wars, especially as it sounds like it's going to be on the scale of Universal's Harry Potter World. The other big thing is the possibility that Disney would rerelease the original Star Wars cut on DVD or Blu-Ray. Disney loves all that kind of limited edition stuff, and they know that there is an audience for it. The only reason that this wouldn't happen is if George Lucas put some kind of red tape on their contract or if it is impossible to get the original film. (Although it does make more sense for them to hide it for a surprise reveal than for them to not simply come out and say "we can't") 1. http://www.rottentomatoes.com... 2. http://www.cinemascore.com... 3. http://www.rottentomatoes.com... http://www.rottentomatoes.com... 4. http://www.imdb.com... 5. http://redlettermedia.com... (If you aren't convinced they are bad films this will do it for you.) 6. http://www.ign.com... *It ripped off the ending of the first second Star Trek film while wimping out on what made it great.
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

Here's why I have a bad feeling. Two main reasons: One, Lucasfilm isn't the only major American fiction creator that's been acquired by Disney. Marvel and Pixar were too. All three were major creators before Disney acquired them. Disney also acquired the Muppets, which while not as big was still widely beloved. Disney seems to be monopolizing more and more franchises. Two, Disney is known for being strict about copyright. This may not matter too much in many cases, but with Star Wars it's quite dire, owing to the vast "Expanded Universe" of fan-made content. Before the merger, George Lucas openly sanctioned this content, and even took pains to ensure it aligned with a common timeline. But now with the merger with Disney, on Star Wars Day about a week ago, Disney announced that the entire Expanded Universe was non-canon. The EU was by that time so much larger than the six core films that most of the Star Wars galaxy vanished just like that. Sure that included a lot of terrible content, hopefully including the Holiday Special, but many EU works were up to snuff with the films themselves, especially the prequel trilogy, and a few even surpassed The Empire Strikes Back. But now with a wave of Disney's hand, all of it is gone. Now that content still exists, and many fans may recognize it over Disney's new direction, but it's no longer that intertwined. This may allow fans more creativity, but it destroys that unified feel, and I wouldn't consider it out of the question that Disney might ban bigger fan projects altogether. Before Star Wars was acquired by Disney, what's more, it was only one of two franchises worldwide that openly sanctioned fan content, and now that it no longer does, the only one left is the Japanese Touhou Project, which arguably even in the EU has much less serious content. So this marks a major blow to fan content as a whole. Both of those are, in my opinion, great disturbances in the Force.
I Have a Bad Feeling About Disney Acquiring Star Wars

Disney has recently acquired Star Wars, and I believe it is to the detriment of the franchise. I will accept a challenge from someone who believes it is good for the franchise, and in the debate I will explain why I believe the franchise will be hurt and Con will explain why he or she believes it will benefit. We will discuss whether the franchise will overall gain or lose from the deal. I am not giving any arguments in my challenge, and I will not accept any acceptances that contain arguments.
Famer's debate tourney, TheElderScroll VS Beginner Round#1

In this debate, PRO is to prove the existence of karma.DefinitionsThe definition of 'Karma' provided, linked off of thefreedictionary.com, should run thus:"1. Hinduism & Buddhism The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny."(My opponent obviously has some aversion to 'ctrl c' & 'ctrl v'.. the definition typed above fails to replicate the site's definitions correctly)Aside from the explicit fact that Karma is a Hindu/Buddhist concept, this definition needs further elucidation. What exactly does it mean by successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny? Here is a definition from the Oxford Dictionary (the best of dictionaries):"(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."[2]Future existences imply reincarnation. The successive phases of existence are the previous 'lives'. The idea is that karma is based on actions performed in the past and is a factor in deciding a person's fate in future existences, or incarnations. Karma and reincarnation are buddhist/hindu concepts[1]. Under such context, the definition should run thus:The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the. . [previous]. . phases[, or incarnation,] of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny [or future & future incarnations].By employing this definition, my opponent sets out to prove not only the existence of karma, but also all the conceptual implications inherent within its religion-derived definition (such as reincarnation). First, my opponent must establish Hindu/Buddhist principles as fact. Only then would the existence of the subsequent concepts of karma & reincarnation be firmly validified To prove Karma's existence, pro would have to establish the legitimacy of Hinduism or Buddhism. I look forward to my opponent's presentation.[1] http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu...[2] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Famer's debate tourney, TheElderScroll VS Beginner Round#1

In honor of our beloved member, famer, I, TheElderScroll, would debate Beginner on the issue concerning the existence of Karma. Resolution Karma Exists. Position Taken Pro: TheElderScroll Con: Beginner Rules In deference to famer"s recommendations, the following rules would apply throughout the debate: - 8000 Max Characters - 3 Days Per Argument - 2 Weeks Voting Period - 4 Rounds: - 1st Round: Rules, Definitions and Acceptance - 2nd Round: Opening Arguments ONLY - 3rd Round: Rebuttals ONLY - 4th Round: Defense, Final Rebuttals and Conclusions http://www.debate.org... Definitions Karma: The total effect of person"s actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person"s existence, regarding the determining the person"s destiny. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Additional Information Please refer to http://www.debate.org... May both of us enjoy the debate and let"s begin.
Australia should liberalize its policies on child pornography

Extend all my arguments. I just want to add one study to bolster Advantage 3 - that more access to pornography means fewer molestations. There are three countries that at some time in their histories made it legal to possess child pornography: the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Japan. [1] Studies comparing the periods when child pornography was illegal to the periods where it was legal found that the amount of "[c]hild sex abuse was much lower" when child pornography was legal compared to when it was restricted. [1] The study authors note that they do not "approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography," but they note that "artificially produced materials might serve" to decrease the number of molestations. [2] In addition, I'd like to preemptively respond to my opponent's case. Turn, the failure of countries like Australia to draw a clear distinction between "real" child porn and "virtual" child porn has led certain countries, like Japan, not to make child pornography illegal at all. In Japan, the anime and manga industry have fought hard against any attempts to criminalize the possession of child pornography because they see it as a threat to their livelihoods. [3] To the extent that my opponent believes that child porn (involving real children) is bad, Australia's law makes this problem worse because it makes it less likely that those with political influence in Japan will accept restrictions on child porn. If there were instead a clear distinction made in every country that virtual images did not count as "child pornography," then Japan would not be so intransigent to restrictions. In the interim, Japan has become the child porn capital of the world. [3] Only be voting Pro can we hope to convince the last OECD country with no child porn restrictions that it can safely ban the possession of pornographic images that involve *real* children without also having to ban manga and anime (cartoon images). [1] http://www.springer.com... [2] http://www.hawaii.edu... [3] http://www.ucanews.com...
Legalization of Marijuana

Actually it is not as dangerous as any other drug because it has no signs of physical or mental addiction nor has it been 100% proved to be the cause of harder drug use. No deaths, suicides or over doses have been confirmed by any such marijuana user nor has it been shown to impair judgement. Smoking cigarettes kills millions a year and drunk driving kills even more. The number of people killed behind the wheel under the influence of marijuana: 0.
Legalization of Marijuana

Marijuana has a significant amount of side effects that people do not take seriously. Use of marijuana can cause dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, dry or red eyes, heart & blood pressure problems, lung problems, impaired mental functioning, headache, dizziness, numbness, panic reactions, hallucinations, flashbacks, depression, & sexual problems. Therefore, its just as dangerous as many other drugs. Not only to the individual using them, but others as well especially when doing things like driving.
Legalization of Marijuana

people get addicted to prescription pain killers without ever taking a puff of marijuana. People (i.e. doctors) are getting people addicted, not marijuana. Rather than prescribe someone a pain killer for the pain, marijuana should be prescribed especially with all of the medicinal purposes it has now been recognized to have. Marijuana has very mild (if any) side effects and has no record of physical or mental addiction, highly unlike prescription pain killers which are far more dangerous.
Legalization of Marijuana

55% of Americans favoring the legalization of marijuana, doesn't mean that we should legalize it. I'm sure there are individuals out there who favor the legalization of prostitution and other deviant behaviors but that doesn't make it okay. Drug abuse stemming from the use of marijuana is VERY relevant. Yale conducted a study which showed that marijuana, cigarettes & alcohol showed an increased likelihood of prescription drug abuse. Drug overdose was the leading cause of injury death in 2010.