BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

Thanks for welcoming me into this debate Movies vs books My self Debate0ts. I m a boy. U should also introduce ur self to counter my intro. From ur view of intrest. I get conclusion that u r on movies side to argue. So well then i know my side to debate. Lets start then, Movies r the demand of todays word its because due to rapid growth of digital entertainment industry or perhaps so. But movies r realy good to watch its only depend on its contents as same applied to books Also. But the movie does not do any Things to improves any sense quality in viewer its totally a spoon feeding just to child. Just like a child feeding. Its lack in imagination concept of view which is much higher in book reading. On the other hand the book reading stuff improves reasoning skill, Apptietude skill And also increase memory concentration and focus. And where in movies stuff user experience a imaginative screen world for its pleasure of knowledge. I m only saying book reading is much better work then movie watching. And finally last point is that Book reading creates good writing skill And u and i must agree on these point becz We r bebatting the topic throught writting skill only. Our existing in this plate form is due to reading stuff.
Movies are a better form of entertainment than books

When people are asked if they prefer movies or books, Most older people would answer books, Because they leave room for imagination and are what they grew up with. Schools and parents would also prefer books, Because they are more educating and can help students and children to improve their language skills. I, And most of the younger generation, Think that movies are more entertaining because they have exciting visual and auditory effects to make the watcher feel more involved, Take less time, And you can watch them with friends. Do you prefer to watch a 2-hour long movie with fascinating visual effects and detailed sounds, Or would you rather stare at dull pieces of paper all day? Movies can provide way more detailed effects and breathtaking scenes, While in books, One has to imagine them themselves, Often resulting in misinterpreting the author’s initial goal, Or just a rather dull experience. For example, The 2001 Space Odyssey book and movie came out at the same time, Yet the movie became far more remembered than the book. Movies are also way less time consuming, The Harry Potter series takes approximately 60 hours to read, While the 8 movies only take 16 hours. Watching movies, One can enjoy different kinds of stories efficiently. And with new technology, Movies are equally as portable as books, As you could just download a movie on your phone to watch on your bus ride to work. Movies are not only a detailed and efficient experience of the story, They are also a great social experience. You can have a few friends over to watch a movie at your house or go to the cinema, But would you have a few friends over to read a book together? I think not. With movies, You can have the same experience as your friends while you enjoy it together, But reading the same book as your friend wouldn’t give you equal experiences, Due to your different interpretations of the book. In conclusion, Movies are more entertaining than books because they don't take a long time to watch, You can watch them however you like, Whether you are on the go or settled down with friends and family, And they provided breathtaking scenery and sounds, Fully conveying the author's original idea.
Modern music is declining in quality

Thank you for the debate. My opponent thinks that just because something is popular, it's quality is good. This is inconclusive evidence and can not be withstood by itself, and therefore is not actual evidence. However, if my opponent could tell reasons WHY people liked it, it would be a point. However, just because it is of their taste in music does not make it good, because we all have different tastes in music. My opponent also seems to believe that the "quality of music" is only limited to how "good" modern music is contending older music. This is not true, because he did not set the definition for quality, and has yet to argue my point. I proved, with a valid and highly expertized source (in the music field), that music is declining in quality. Since he has not argued them in the least, they still stand. I have also proven why his only point is false due to a fallacy with a source, and he has yet to attack my source. Besides, the logic in his reasoning is flawed, thusly, a fallacy. Please, =VOTE PRO=
Modern music is declining in quality

First of all, if the public like it that means that it is good thus it is fact. If the public didn't like it then it would not be there and a load of older songs would be on the list and I would not be able to us the list. So my list and my original arguments are still standing. If would also like to say that I am not arguing that modern music is better, nor am I arguing that it's worse. Nothing more and nothing less.
Modern music is declining in quality

For my second argument I am not going to go on about the 'elder generation' I am simpley going to go on about all the number 1's in the past year to prove that modern music is good. This is a bit different but I don't care. Black Eyed Peas - I Gotta Feeling David Huetta feat. Akon - Sexy Bith Chick Dizzee Rascal - Holiday Jay-Z feat. Rihanna and Kanye West - Run This Town Pixie Lott - Boys and Girls Taio Cruz - Beak Your Heart Chipmunk feat. Dayo Olatunji - Oopsy Daisy Alexandra Burke feat. Flo Rida - Bad Boys Cheryl Cole - Fight for This Love JLS - Everybody in Love Black Eyed Peas - Meet Me Halfway The X Factor Finalists 2009 - You Are Not Alone Peter Kay's Animated All Sar Band - The Official BBC Children in Need Medley Lady Gaga - Bad Romance Rage Against the Machine - Killing in the Name Joe McElderry - The Climb Lady Gaga - Bad Romance Iyaz - Replay Owl City - Fireflies Helping Haiti - Everybody Hurts Jason Derulo - In My Head Lady Gaga feat. Beyonce - Telephone Scouting For Girls - This Ain't A Love Song Usher feat. Will.I.Am - OMG Diana Vickers - Once Roll Deep feat. Jodie Conner - Good Times B.O.B feat. Bruno Mars - Nothin' On You Dizzee Rascal - Dirtee Disco David Guetta & Chris Willis feat. Fergieand LMFAO - Getting Over You Shout for England feat. Dizzee Rascal and James Corden - Shout Katy Perry feat. Snoop Dogg - California Gurls JLS - The Club Is Alive B.O.B feat. Hayley Williams - Airplanes Yolanda Be Cool & DCUP - We No Speak Americano The Wanted - All Time Low Ne-Yo Beautiful Monster Flo Rid feat. David Guetta - Club Can't Handle Me If this doesn't make you know that modern music then hopefully my last argument will.
Modern music is declining in quality

Resolution: Modern music is declining in quality. I am in Affirmation of the resolution. REBUTTAL: 1. My opponent does not give a source for the "elder generation" that disapproves of most modern music. Therefore, I ask the audience to disreguard this unless and until my oponent generates a source where most, defined as a majority (over 50%) of senior citizens disapprove of modern music. 2. Even if it were true, that arguement is a fallacy called "The Appeal to Popularity". According to, http://www.nizkor.org... , they state that "It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim." So all arguements based on the senior citizens is therefore invalid. 3. The second and third points of my opponent also have no source and are listed under the above falliacy. 4. My opponent contradicts himself when he says, " I agree that music editing should be banned as it makes the artist seem better than they are. But it does without a doubt make music better." Then he says, "I conclude that music is neither getting better nor is it getting worse." I would like to point out my opponent has but the realms of his case around his belief that music is not getting better or worse, but he agrees that music is getting better? His case falls apart and his logic is flawed. ANALYSIS: For the reasons above, I believe my opponents arguements are flawed and invalid. Contention: 1. According to the Rolling Stones magazine music experts (http://current.com...) the quality of music is declining "...quality of music is drastically dropping. Music engineers are being told to forget subtlety and crank up the sound levels 'to grab listeners attention" and the result, the magazine say, is nearly always for the worse. Summary: For the points above, my case is proven. =VOTE PRO=
Modern music is declining in quality

Modern music has been criticised by older generations for years. I am not saying that all older generations disapprove but a large amount do, these people say that music in there day was a lot better than the modern chart topping hits. But this is untrue for various reasons, for starters all generations think that their music was best. It is a well known fact. They have said that they believe music is bad because it is being edited and dubbed. But doesn't that make the music better, I agree that music editing should be banned as it makes the artist seem better than they are. But it does without a doubt make music better. Secondly, music has changed styles which may be a reason some people disapprove. People like things to stay the same and if a certain type of music reminds them of their childhood then they will think other types of music are worst. Thirdly, every generation has music that is just plain rubbish, most music is forgotten within about a year or two. But it's the classics that live on. So people are comparing the music now (most of this will be forgotten) with the classics and the best in music history. I conclude that music is neither getting better nor is it getting worse, it is staying the same. Styles, artists, videos and editing may have changed but the root of the music, the quality and the feeling when you hear it has remained the same.
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 2: Choose Your Topic

My opponent has unfortunately forgot to define "polygamy" . I therefore have the freedom to twist it in whatever way I wish to. I define "polygamy" as "lots of games", since poly is the root for "many" [1] and "gamy" looks like game.[1] http://membean.com...Therefore I am supposed to support "lots of games should be legalized because it helps with the extra housework created by husbands". 1. Games are fun. Even Obama approves. 2. Fun releases stress. 3. Stress helps along with work, as rest allows more work. Even Justin Upton loafs around when he needs to! In conclusion I have supported my position, many celebrities agree, and becuase such, polygamy should be legalised because it helps with the extra housework created by husbands.
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 2: Choose Your Topic

Be it resolved: Polygamy should be legalized because it helps with the extra housework created by husbands. http://3.bp.blogspot.com... P1: University of Michigan says: Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women. http://www.rd.com... P2: If someone has more than one wife then their wife would have less housework. http://www.brandconstructors.com... P3: Housework makes people sad. http://amymulvin.files.wordpress.com... P4: Less housework makes people less sad. https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com... P5: Less house work = More time. http://stevewright.info... P6: The wives would have more time on their hands for fun stuff. ;)
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 2: Choose Your Topic

Another insanely fast debate. Choose your topic. Rules: -I can troll this if it comes down to not knowing anything of the topic -10 minutes for each round. There are four rounds. -The topic cannot be rigged, truism, or religious or else I can change it. I will be pro on the topic and my opponent will be con. -My opponent will choose the topic in the first round and begin with her opening statements. However, then she must post nothing relevant to the debate within her last round. On the other hand, she may choose to just post her topic, and get the last round for final words and conclusion.
INSANELY FAST DEBATES 2: Choose Your Topic

I never agreed to the ignorance of pro and con sides. It was just the fact that all your arguments were supporting the con case. (my opponent appealed to less house work, thus, she supports the side of polygamy legalising with less housework, rather than more housework) However I successfully refuted all of your arguments. Besides, I had warned "I can troll the argument if it comes down to that", meaning I can misinterpret Poop has DNA to "People order our patties" has "Dynamic Nambian Antelopes". (get the reference, anyone?)Besides, my opponent hasn't defined any words in her resolution and thus her arguments are invalid. Based on the rules, my opponent may not post anything relevant to the debate, since she started from round one.My opponent has made a big mistake.Vote me.
Abortion

I'd like to take the time at right now to point out that there is no "average case" of abortion. Each case is different. Much like each case of cancer is different. That's not to say that abortion is of the same as cancer, it is only to compare how each is different. "According to two different scientific articles, "human life begins at sperm-egg fusion" because when classifying cells it is considered a living organism" I'll concede the point you make. What gives the fetus a right to life? Is it murder for me to refuse someone one of my kidneys, and because of that they die in the process. The fetus is essentially using its mother's body in order to live. A right to life doesn't imply that you get to sustain your life on someone else's body. Murder should be illegal because we already have a right to life, that we do not depend on others for. I don't see how Mother Teresa can speak on acts such as abortion, as she has committed atrocities that are considerably much worse. Seeing how she allowed thousands of people to suffer and die from curable diseases, to get closer to god. She was effectively torturing and murdering people herself. All of the further arguments from authority are rebutted with a right to life section of my argument.
Abortion

First of all I said average abortions but whatever. Normally, I would use the Bible to back my points but today I will try not to. According to two different scientific articles, "human life begins at sperm-egg fusion" because when classifying cells it is considered a living organism. If this is true it"s not a debate about whether or not it is alive but about the moral complications that come with the fact that your taking a human life. If abortion is legal why should murder be illegal. " The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me. There is nothing between. "-Mother Teresa. Also for those extreme cases "Abortion isn't a lesser evil, it's a crime. Taking one's life to save another, that's what mafia does. It's a crime. It's an absolute evil. "- Pope Francis. And for rape "Abortion isn"t a health care, a woman has a right to her body, but that is not her body. What about the baby? "- Alveda King, Personally I am not an extremist for abortion however. Citing . https://www.npr.org... . https://lozierinstitute.org... . https://lozierinstitute.org...... . https://www.brainyquote.com...
Abortion

Why do you think abortion is murder? Many would argue, including myself, that murder is the unlawful killing of another human. When we abort a pregnancy we do it within a time frame that the fetus cannot live outside the womb, it cannot feel pain, and cannot live outside the womb without the mother. I wouldn't constitute that as a human. Abortion is more than just "I don't want to have a kid" in most cases. The majority of women who get abortions do it for medical reasons or because they were raped. Do you think abortion is wrong, even if it risks the life of the mother? What if it risks the life of the mother and child? What if the mother were to have been raped and did not want the child of their rapist? Would it be wrong then? What if the child were to have ALS and doomed to have a life of suffering? Abortion is perfectly reasonable in these instances. The mother is already living and will continue to live with an abortion. If both child and mother are at risk. then it's much more reasonable to save the life of the mother, then let the mother die, and a potential child too. The mother should not have to have a reminder of what could possibly be the worst experience in her life, and I believe that it is morally wrong to damn a person to have a terminal disease, a very painful one, then to get an abortion. If your answer to these is that it is perfectly reasonable, but with proper documentation, I disagree. It's not the government's job to make sure that I'm getting an abortion for the "right reasons." It's the government's job to make sure that someone can get an abortion safely.
Abortion

It is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. This is like saying that a toddler is not a human being"or is less of a human being" because he is not yet an adolescent. Or that an adolescent is not a human being because he is not yet an adult." It may become a human, but if you're going to be scientifically accurate, it's just as accurate to call a fetus a parasite. "In biology, parasitism is a non-mutual relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host." The mother is not physically gaining anything, the fetus benefits at the expense of the mother, and while the expense is not as noticeable it still fits. "Well laws in place don"t relegates these rights, that"s my whole debate that they should." The laws in place don't relegate these rights because it is not yet a citizen. An analogy to this is giving illegal immigrants these rights because it could become a citizen. If a miscarriage happened should that be considered manslaughter? Should a fetus have the right to privacy, to free speech, when it could not yet speak or understand privacy? It's all or none in these types of deals, you cannot cherry pick which laws apply to a fetus and the mother. "A person, as defined by the dictionary, is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of person hood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of person hood, which are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law, has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities." This is exactly my point more or less. A fetus is not living, not without its host. Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood." I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem I have is restricting the rights of women who are already alive, who already have the capacity to feel, to think, to live, all because of potential life. I don't think that every woman who gets pregnant should get an abortion, I don't think abortion should even be the first option. I also don't think that it is your right or anyone's right to tell her what she has to do with it. It should be legal, it should be regulated like it is now. That way, when the need arises, it can be done safely and securely.
Abortion

No. It's a fetus. It hasn't developed organs, it hasn't developed nerves. It can't feel pain, it can't feel anything. There isn't a consciousness." Your right it is a fetus "It is scientifically inaccurate to say an embryo or a fetus is not a human being simply because he is at an earlier stage of development than a born infant. This is like saying that a toddler is not a human being"or is less of a human being" because he is not yet an adolescent. Or that an adolescent is not a human being because he is not yet an adult." - - - "You're right. The only problem here is that you're falsely equivalencing a fetus as a baby. A baby can feel pain, a baby has a consciousness, and above all else, a baby can live without a host. A baby does not depend on its host for oxygen, it doesn't depend on the host for nutrients. A baby can physically do these things for itself." Babies are helpless when they are born. What can they do for themselves, they are super dependent? They cry when they need stuff but that"s it."There isn't a person alive who is radically independent from the universe we live in. We all need food, water, rest, and oxygen. We're all vulnerable to a million different bodily breakdowns. Are those who must rely on kidney machines, pace-makers or insulin shots for their survival less deserving of basic human rights than anyone else?" - - - "I'd like to see the part in the constitution that relegates these rights to an unborn potential citizen." Well laws inplace don"t relegates these rights, that"s my whole debate that they should. "A person, as defined by the dictionary, is nothing more or less than a living human. Anyone who tries to narrow this general definition of person hood does so in an attempt to eliminate a certain group of people who is either getting in their way or has something they want. Creating self-defined definitions of person hood, which are uniquely crafted to eliminate certain individuals from protection under the law, has long been the method of choice for implementing all manner of genocidal atrocities." - - - "To be fair, Mother Theresa also murdered people, or at the least manslaughter, so I don't think she has a right to talk about murder." I said before it"s mainly about the words not the person who said them. She did bad things and good things. - - - "Physical and/or intellectual development has nothing to do with determining personhood outside the womb. It is equally insignificant for determining personhood inside the womb. Children are generally less developed than adults. People with developmental disabilities may be less developed than some children, and those with extraordinary mental capacity are no more human than those with lesser IQs. It is humanity, not brain capacity or arm strength that determines personhood." In conclusion the "fetus" is human and abortion should be prohibited by some laws.