BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Movies should not be banned.

(There's spoilers for the Avengers movie in here! I'll put that in a different font.Con, where is your proof for this? Where is any proof that movies should be banned? Also, banning movies would be a direct violation of the 1st amendment. Banning movies would simply be tyrannical, and I doubt any police or governments would choose to follow that movement. Also, theories do go out of date. Theories that have gone out of date: Tomatoes are poisonous. Cigarettes are healthy. Also, they're just theories. Not proven facts, but theories. I could make a theory that water is poisonous for the human body. It's just a theory. Of course normally drinking water won't harm you. Watching movies is not as vital as drinking water, but it certainly won't harm anyone. You made the point about Avengers. The Avengers is a movie about CRIME-FIGHTING people who want to save people. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a person who would watch the Movie about the Avengers and then procede to make a Tesseract, contact aliens, then bring them into New York to invade Earth. Movies use something called a THEATRICAL element. Also, since you said that people learn crimes, wouldn't we have to ban all forms of entertainment and news? News tells about crimes and usually how they were committed, so we'll have to ban that too. Most plays have some "Crime" in them, so lets ban them all too! In total, Con wants to ban: Movies, Radio, News, Television, Plays, Newspapers, and anything else that mentions a crime in them. Con, I hope this shows you how ludicrous and impossible this plan would be.
Movies should not be banned.

I have a question for you pro. Don't you know that theories are never outdated, Criminologists are always updating previews theories. Let me tell you something Pro, I think you are just repeating what you have already said before, so I think you are out of point. Let me say this, Don't you know that the police exist since before the advent of modern technology i.e industrial revolution and don't you know that people give charity long before Movies were made and don't you know that their have being Disneys on stage long before Movies were invented. Let me tell one more thing, About 90% of movies now a days contain 3 or more out of this elements: 1. Sex 2. Drugs 3. Trafficking i.e Human 4. Money Laundry 5. Corporate Crime 6. White Collar Crime 7. Victimless Crime 8. Violence Can't you see, if a lot of movies will contain this several element, how can you say that movies bring more good than harm and that movies should not be banned. Let us take a look at popular movies which a lot of movie watchers have watch eg fast and furious - this movie shows how laws are break by driving recklessly on the road which when real life people see the tend to be curious in learn driving and drifting cars which might lead to murdering some one while driving like those guys in fast and furious. So, Pro tell me one good lesson drive from fast and furious? None. Take a look at the Avengers, their is nothing good to learn in that kind of movies but violent act. Pro if you will say that you will learn saving life, I will disagree because life are saved long before such kind of films are created. Let me add, this you talk about police films, in police film, is either you choice to behave like the bad guy that the police are chasing or to become a police and if you take a look at the society know a lot of people don't even care to work at the agencies, so they would learn the technique of committing crime which the saw in the movies. So, I think your preview argument is wrong Pro. Try harder next time.
Movies should not be banned.

The theory that you cite from Emile Durkheim is clearly outdated, as you say yourself that it was written in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century, people believed that cigarettes were healthy for you! Also, since Con claims that the Criminal Behavior is learnt by association with people through society. The problem with that is that they didn't have is TVs, Radios, or Social Media! Con has disproved their own theory, because if the theory was written in the 19th century, and the people who wrote it didn't have TVs, Radios, or Social Media, then how would they know if those came under that stereotype. More importantly you only mentioned cartoons like "Tom and Jerry," yet Con wants to ban all movies? What about police training movies? What about old Disney movies? What about advertisements for Charity? Yet again, banning those movies would violate the 1st Amendment, the freedom of speech, in the United States. Plus, what would happen if people were discovered watching movies? Would they get the same crime that the characters in the movie committed? I believe that someone would be hard-pressed to find a person who believes that you should do everything you see in movies. Con's arguments really don't have much structure or proof. Your Move.
Movies should not be banned.

According to Emile Durkheim(A Criminologies) Differencial Association, he said: Criminal behaviors are learn by association with the people in the society through either by communication or learning the technique and the processes of committing criminal act. This theory was develop in the 19th Century, at that time, their was no means like movies, social media, films which shows deviance behavior, so the theory of Differencial Association only assumed criminal behavior as a process of learning through communication with criminal. But as time move on this theory was constantly upgrade to the point that it put watching films as a process of learning criminal behavior. You gave an example about "mulan", take a look at cartoons like tom and jerry, some children usually like tom more than jerry because they want to know more about how criminal act are being planned by tom. Sometimes, Tom succeed but other time he fail. So this give children a vision that criminal behavior should be well planned before they are committed( The rational theory of criminology). And you make and example about watching a horo film, horror films at least if it doesn't teach you criminal act, it shows you how they are committed which in the end you may end up adapting to those criminal acts that you saw ( Social Learning Theory). A lot of films now a days have some element of good and bad sections, if you have watch a series called person of interest, you will see that the protagonist i.e the actor, a genius programmer created a machine that can detect crime before it occurs and to stop the perpetrator from committing the crime while in the series as well their is a machine like his own who's main objective is to turn the world upside down. So this movie a person may be interested in the machine who put the world at turmoil than the good one which may lead to him wanting to be come a computer hacker for that reason. It is important to note that all film have some element of bad and good action and the objective for the person watching the film is to either stick to good part or the bad part. If movies have good and bad part, their is probability for a person to take the wrong side which may lead home into committing criminal act because he learned it from the movie he watch. I hope this is enough to convince you that movies should be banned.
Movies should not be banned.

I saw Con's post in the opinions and thought this would be a good thing to debate on instead of people voting on. Movies have not been shown to increase crime rates. Where Con got this information from is unknown to me. You say that ALL movies are bad. So, consider this: A young child is watching the movie "Mulan." After watching this movie, (according to Con's "evidence") the child would now go out and tie someone to a rocket, before launching him into the sky. This is incredibly unlikely, in fact, the only person who would even probably consider this would be someone with a severe learning disability, or a isolated rich adult who believes he can do whatever he wants, which could also be called a learning disability. Once more, Movies are mainly intended for entertainment. Watching a horror movie would not make me, nor probably anyone else, want to go on a chainsaw-murder rampage. I look forward to seeing your points, and I hope you will respond to this.
Interracial Dating Destroys Diversity - Interracial Dating is Wrong

I appreciate your response, and I - for the most part - agree with your explanation of genetics; however, there is nothing, outside of theories, to suggest that the racial differences are merely based on geographical separation. Even if there were such evidence, let's assume there is, the product of said geographical separation, is "difference", and difference is worth preserving. Your critique of the "dye" analogy is false, as we DO in-fact lose the colors red and blue, to make purple. For the sake of simplicity, suppose there are two people remaining on earth - a White person and a Black person. If a White person mixes with a Black person, the product is a mixed child. Once these two parents die off, the only race left is a Mixed race, having gone from two races, to one. This Mixed race child cannot create a purely Black or purely White child; it can only create another mixed child. Now, suppose there was an Asian person for this Mixed person to mix with. Now, the Mixed person mixes with the Asian, and creates a Mixed child who is Black, White, and Asian. The two parents die off, and now Asian is lost, and the only remaining product is a Mixed child. In effect, we've just lost 3 races, for the creation of 1. If you're arguing that interracial mixing is okay because despite those that mix, there are those that don't mix and thus preserve the "stock" of each race, you're basically arguing my point; my point is that interracial mixing steals from the racial diversity created through homogeneity, and if it were self-sustaining then why does it depend on homogeneity to exist? It's the equivalent of my child telling me, "I can squander your money, because I always have you around to make more of it". That child is engaging in an unsustainable practice, and the only way he can engage in that practice is because he is leeching off of another sustainable practice, which has the potential to compromise the sustainability of the sustainable practice. Interracial mixing is said "child". It is deductive in nature, and "spends" (if you will) the racial diversity wrought by homogeneity. It's a concept that - if left to stand alone - destroys itself, as it inherently depletes racial purity, the very racial purity that makes interracial mixing possible. In essence, the relationship interracial mixing has to homogeneity, is conceptually parasitic. Interracial dating isn't possible without homogeneity; seeing as, if you mix the original colors, there becomes no original colors to mix. Such a deductive act only destroys homogeneity, the same homogeneity that is the source of all diversity. I'm not arguing the genetic construction of humans, although, as a Biochemistry Major, I could. I'm not arguing the genetic history of humans, although I could - this isn't about that. It's about preserving difference, and interracial mixing destroys the very difference it is alleged to create. A visual of the deductive nature of interracial mixing can be found here - https://ibb.co...
Interracial Dating Destroys Diversity - Interracial Dating is Wrong

People being at liberty to choose which partner they'd like, does not mean it is ethically or morally right; it simply means that by law, they are at liberty to choose which partner they'd like. Furthermore, just as two dyes - when mixed - create one dye at the expense of both dyes, interracial dating does the same. The very thing that interracial dating seeks to promote, which is diversity, it destroys. Such is to say, if one's reason behind dating outside of their race is an attraction to a different race, a partner of a different race is only available to them because that partner's parents, chose not to date outside of their race - proving interracial dating is unsustainable. When it comes to sustainability, any practice, any species, any thing that cannot sustain itself, dies off, as it is inherently unsuited to survive as an idea or being. To be laconic, interracial dating destroys the possibilities for interracial dating. If someone cites "expanding my options" as a reason for dating outside of their race, they must first realize that the only way they are able to do so, the only way they have the many options available to them, is because people have NOT dated outside of their race. For that reason, perhaps the biggest proponent of diversity is homogeneity, or rather, inner-racial dating. Unsustainable practices are fundamentally flawed, as they simply cannot sustain themselves. Because of this, why should we endorse and/or legalize a practice that is unsustainable, and erases the genetic diversity - the uniqueness - of pure races, the pure races that give such cancerous practices the opportunity to initially thrive? In essence, in no other aspect of life, be it the life of humans or separate organisms, do we promote and/or legalize practices that pose a threat to the existential nature of the pure organism. This says that we value difference - we value diversity, and diversity and interracial dating are fundamentally mutually exclusive; for this reason, interracial dating is unarguably wrong.
Anything you disagree with me on

For the third round, I will respond to my opponent's opening arguments."Women are an extremely valuable resource, arguably and in my view THE most important and valuable. If the women of the tribe no longer sought to reproduce, the tribe would die. No generations to carry forward, no men to provide, to women to carry children = no tribe... The only way to fix this, is a form of social redistribution of the female resource. Marriage. Lock one man to one woman (at least publicly) and you have the family unit."My opponent's entire argument encompasses the idea that, because homosexuals don't have children, they shouldn't be married. He defines marriage as being a union between a male and a female created for the purposes of reproduction and creating a family. He proceeds to argue that, because homosexual men and women cannot conceive naturally, they cannot, as my opponent claims, "provide the natural familial structure and upbringing that is demanded of the natural world... even if they were somehow come into possession of a child."Firstly, I'd like to address how my opponent argues that homosexuals should not be married because they cannot procreate. There is something known as artificial insemination, where a man can donate sperm, and a woman can yield a baby. Some lesbian choose to do that. So should lesbian women who choose to get pregnant be granted the privilege to marry? Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?Secondly, as I have addressed in my argument, according to studies and psychologists such as Abbie Goldberg, homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Goldberg claims that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average because they chose to be parents."
Anything you disagree with me on

Yes! Absolutely. Thank you for taking me up on this, Mr. CosmoJarvis! So, I'm against gay marriage as far as state recognition is concerned. This comes from my view of society at large and what is necessary to maintain structure. I'd like to preface this whole thing by stating I'm not against homosexuals having human rights and being treated like humans, with respect and all that. I am against "gay" rights, and I shall explain later. Now, I'd like to use the analogy of the tribe mainly because humans are tribal creatures (tribal meaning pack/pride oriented). A tribe is as successful as its men. The male sex is the competitive sex, so it is every man's purpose to seek out resources and provide and protect the tribe. The female sex is designed to carry and raise children, so it is every women's role to maintain the structures of civilization and rear and raise children. If one tribe conquered another - killing the men - the women were the spoils. Women are an extremely valuable resource, arguably and in my view THE most important and valuable. If the women of the tribe no longer sought to reproduce, the tribe would die. No generations to carry forward, no men to provide, to women to carry children = no tribe. Being that women have the choice of mate and by and large don't have to compete for mates, they express hypergamous traits. Men, being that they don't carry children and therefore aren't physically incapable for up to a year or more, express polygamous traits. Hypergamy and polygamy - what a terrible combo. The only way to fix this, is a form of social redistribution of the female resource. Marriage. Lock one man to one woman (at least publicly) and you have the family unit. The family unit, being the foundation of civilization, must be supported and aspired to - lest the tribe dies out. Due to this, the state (as the apparatus of a society) should reward, heavily, the family unit with tax breaks and other privileges. If two men or two women were to cohabit and unify, that does nothing for society's future. They cannot conceive naturally and even if they were to somehow come into possession of a child they couldn't provide the natural familial structure and upbringing that is demanded of the natural world. The end result is this statement: gays don't have children, so they should NOT receive the same privileges as married couples. If you'd like to argue for civil unions with no tax incentives then sure, but my response is why does it matter if the state recognizes your love for each other?
Anything you disagree with me on

Abortion--------Con Affirmative Action--------Con Animal Rights--------Con Barack Obama--------Con Border Fence--------Pro Capitalism--------Pro Civil Unions--------Con Death Penalty--------Pro Drug Legalization--------Pro Electoral College--------Pro Environmental Protection--------Pro Estate Tax--------Pro European Union--------Con Euthanasia--------Pro Federal Reserve--------Con Flat Tax--------Pro Free Trade--------Con Gay Marriage--------Con Global Warming Exists--------Und Globalization--------Con Gold Standard--------Pro Gun Rights--------Pro Homeschooling--------Pro Internet Censorship--------Con Iran-Iraq War--------Con Labor Union--------Con Legalized Prostitution--------Pro Medicaid & Medicare--------Pro Medical Marijuana--------Pro Military Intervention--------N/O Minimum Wage--------Und National Health Care--------Und National Retail Sales Tax--------Con Occupy Movement--------Con Progressive Tax--------Con Racial Profiling--------Pro Redistribution--------Con Smoking Ban--------N/O Social Programs--------Pro Social Security--------Pro Socialism--------Und Stimulus Spending--------Con Term Limits--------Pro Torture--------N/O United Nations--------Con War in Afghanistan--------Con War on Terror--------Con Welfare--------Con
is justice justified

Extend all...And I may as well put a final point forward. The whole of you "killed him you won't be better than him" line of reasoning is highly flawed. The villain in this type of scenario can be easily compared to a rabid dog, and there is no cure; letting them go free results in them continuing to kill people; whereas you putting them down, does not result in you killing anyone else. Let's consider when Batman brought the Joker back to life after Nightwing beat the clown to death. No good resulted from that stupidity. Besides, the basic problem as described by TVTropes.org, it ignores "there being a sharp moral distinction between killing the innocent and killing the guilty" [1].Sources:[1] http://tvtropes.org...
is justice justified

I will make this short. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Justice is "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair." Justified is "to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable." Justice is by nature Justified.As for the eye-for-an-eye revenge, it is not guaranteed to always be justice, but when it is justice it is indeed justified. When it is not justice, it may still be justified (yes an action can be reasonable without being fair).
Men are always hungry for sex

Thank you for accepting.The major problem with my opponent's argument is that it is absolutist in nature, claiming that all men want sex all the time. My opponent does not have the necessary knowledge to make such a claim. This is not because she is not a male, as some in the forums claimed. It is because she is not privy to the collective consciousness of humanity. If even one of age male does not desire sexual pleasure at all times her argument fails. In an article in the Huffington Post titled "Sex Confessions: 13 Women Who Want Sex More Than Their Male Partners Share Their Stories," a respondant stated:I've been married 5 years to a man that's 12 years older than me (he's 40, I'm 28) and sex has nearly always been an issue ... At first I thought it was my orgasm issues, then I thought it was his anti-anxiety meds, but he's been off those for over a year and there's been no change. I'm not sure how quickly we got here, but for at least the past few years I'm lucky to get lucky twice a month. And that's with begging. BEGGING. My husband has nearly no interest, does not notice if I'm naked, states he doesn't ever think about sex, refuses to see this as a legitimate problem, and if I'm to try to get him there, there is a laundry list of factors that have to be aligned for him: tired? work stress? comfy bedding? smelly breath? kids distracted? There is no pornography issue, he's only had three sexual partners in his life, he's fantastic at sex, says I'm very satisfying -- but he only needs to be satisfied once a month. Even when we were separated for 6 weeks (job move) and reunited, I had to ask for it. But he was tired ... So I do my best to trust in a higher power and purpose and not feel despair at the very real thought that by the time I'm 35, I may never have sex again.[1] But let us put this testimonial aside for a moment. It is impossible to find out whether or not every single man on the face of planet earth constantly desires sex, and because she has the burden of proof her argument therefore fails.My opponent has tried to argue that because evolution favors organisms that desire sex, it is natural and obvious that men must desire sex all the time. However, this argument is flawed on two counts.1. Women with strong reproductive desires are also favored by evolution, so by Pro's logic all women should desire sex all the time, a claim she has not made.2. Aberrations of evolution exist. Although a certain trait may be favored, that trait will not always appear in members of the species.I will close by pointing out that asexuals, men and women who have no sexual desires, exist.[2] My opponent seems to be unaware of this. This alone destroys her argument.Sources1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...2. http://www.asexuality.org...
Men are always hungry for sex

Zaroette (formerly known as Caploxion) recently posted the following statement in a forums thread titled "Rape" (http://www.debate.org...): "Men are always hungry for sex. If you get into a relationship, you're an idiot if you're not expecting him to want sex, especially if he treats you very well. If you feel like you're getting raped, then suggest some ways in which he can help you both enjoy the experience, instead of complaining. It's not like sex can't be enjoyable, in fact, if you're in a relationship, it should be, or else you're probably going to be miserable." She failed to properly defend this misogynistic generalization with evidence of any kind, insisting that her claim is logical and needs no proof. I am hereby challenging her to defend the "logic" that is so apparent to her and yet not to any other member of the site. The first round may be used for either acceptance or construction. Also, no insults, please. Try to avoid using such classic Caplox-isms as "It is safe to say that you're a f*ckwit that has sex with rams and goats for the fun of it. This comes from your traumatic experience during your younger years, wherein your dad came into your bedroom at night and fingered you."