BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
kabluey movie remains the greatest

Hello everyone, it is I, Chicken. Now, before we begin, let's clarify the Resolution:VOTING GROUND:1) Burden Of Proof is on Pro, to prove that "Kabluey" the movie is the greatest movie of all time.2) Con must refute Pro's argumentation.3) KFC is deliciousREFUTATIONS:"For being a low budget movie, one doesn't expect the thrills and spills of the typical mainstream family comedies out there. A friend of mine recommended this as a great movie in which he 'laughed the whole way through. ' I decided to check it out for myself. Optimistically, I sat down looking forward to a classic, but after 40 minutes of slow paced bad acting my patience was starting to grow thin. I thought the blue suit idea had a lot of potential and would take the main character on all sorts of wild adventures with all kinds of characters, however many dragged out boring scenes of the same characters (mad woman driving past in Ford Capri trying to run him over), which were unfunny in the first place consumed a fair proportion of this God-awful movie instead. This left me really frustrated and I've lost count of how many times I had to sit up to stop myself from falling asleep. For the entirety I gave the movie a chance to get better, but it never did pick up. For being a comedy movie I was shocked,. .. I did not laugh once, nor did I find anything funny about the film. The storyline was boring (Father goes off to Iraq and brother takes care of his kids and his wife gets him a job, because she is fed up with him) and the acting was atrocious"My opponent as Pro has already lost the round for two reasons. TURN Entire Round 1 Pro onto the Con Side.1) BOP is on Pro to affirm the resolution, however according to this statement he is actually negating, and upholding my side of the debate, this can be seen as a concession.2) Pro's entire argument is for the opposite side, giving me the automatic win due to a double negation in the first round. Pro must now bounce back from a huge blow, and without me ever even puttng up an argument.
kabluey movie remains the greatest

For being a low budget movie, one doesn't expect the thrills and spills of the typical mainstream family comedies out there. A friend of mine recommended this as a great movie in which he 'laughed the whole way through.' I decided to check it out for myself. Optimistically, I sat down looking forward to a classic, but after 40 minutes of slow paced bad acting my patience was starting to grow thin. I thought the blue suit idea had a lot of potential and would take the main character on all sorts of wild adventures with all kinds of characters, however many dragged out boring scenes of the same characters (mad woman driving past in Ford Capri trying to run him over), which were unfunny in the first place consumed a fair proportion of this God-awful movie instead. This left me really frustrated and I've lost count of how many times I had to sit up to stop myself from falling asleep. For the entirety I gave the movie a chance to get better, but it never did pick up. For being a comedy movie I was shocked,... I did not laugh once, nor did I find anything funny about the film. The storyline was boring (Father goes off to Iraq and brother takes care of his kids and his wife gets him a job, because she is fed up with him) and the acting was atrocious
Modern Music makes no sense and has a bad influence on todays society

Music is subjective to ones taste, however i believe with the recent stuff that's being released today, it's starting to have a bad influence on the modern society. 90% (exaggeration) of the music that's being released now mostly talks about relationships or something alluding to some form of relation whether it may be sexual, a genuine relationship or a breakup. It's mostly about having the best music video instead of actually going through a whole thought process on whether their music actually sounds good or makes sense. It's like the music "artists" just said screw it, lets release this song. Isn't it also a coincidence that every musician looks good and there's not one dude who actually makes good music and looks ugly at the same time. The genres i am pertaining to, is mostly pop and rap.
Modern Music makes no sense and has a bad influence on todays society

My argument, is that music is not as sophisticated as it used to be. In Pop, most of the time the topic of the song is about relationships or alluding to some form of a relationship whether it maybe sexual, a genuine relationship or a breakup. It takes almost no talent to make and some songs are solely comprised of auto-tune and meaningless lyrics. As for the instruments... or should i say instruments?? everything is digital nowadays, but that doesn't mean songs should be heavily modified with simplistic beats and simplistic tunes. Artists in the 80s actually used their instruments and played it with passion, and tunes were often instilled so much emotion that it would be moving. An example of this would be Gary Moore's The Loner (a song). He was renowned for being a virtuoso and you can clearly see that in his songs. Lyrics in most songs in the 80s not only spoke about relationships, but wars in the past and famous events that had also occurred in the past. An example of this would be Metallica and Iron Maiden . Their lyrics would not state directly the event that they are singing about, but they would allude to it and have their listeners thinking about the lyrics. Music today is often comprised of simplistic lyrics and it takes more than one writer to create a "song". Beyonce's "All the single ladies" took around 6 writers to make and the lyrics were way too repetitive. Bohemian Rhapsody was written by one writer which was Freddie Mercury. With such complex lyrics, i'm surprised that he managed to do that. Since Freddie Mercury actually worked hard to create that song, his result was one of the most famous songs in the world. Music today also practically encourages kids to go out drink, smoke and engage in other activities which has led to juvenile activities.
Contraception is a right.

Contraceptives encourage sex with many multiple partners which is unsafe. Ask Charlie Sheen. It gives a false sense of security. People believe suddenly that they are safe. Then...they have an STD. Then...they pass it to someone else. * Pop a birth control pill and your baby-maker isn't the only thing that's getting the treatment. That's because each of those little pills contains hormones and changes the hormones in your body, according to Toni Stern, M.D., Chair of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Coney Island Hospital. The Pill may hurt- LibidoOC's slash libido-friendly testosterone in two ways: First, they quiet the ovaries, halting their production of testosterone. Second, the liver pumps out a protein called the sex hormone-binding globulin, which gloms onto sex hormones ,including testosterone, like bargain shoppers on Black Friday sales. But while OC's lower testosterone levels in all women, they lower libido only in some. And even if the Pill does affect your mojo, plenty of other factors like anxiety about getting preggers affect it, too. You may have serious problems below the belt. Blood clots- Chances are, you've heard this warning speed by during more than one birth control pill commercial. But before you reach for a bottle of Bayer, let's put things into perspective: Each year, 7 in 10,000 women experience blood clots. Birth control extremely enhances your chances, while pregnancy and childbirth raise your chances even more. But if you experience any signs of a blood clot, such as chest pain or a swollen leg, immediately stop the pill for God's sake. http://www.parents.com... * This is why passing out contraceptives is not only wrong, but it is deadly. Of course Liberals, generally don't care about long term results, just temporary satisfaction. This is how children think.
Contraception is a right.

Pro: "This debate is about contraception being a right." And I have proven it is not a right. It is a left. Pro: "Contraception is a right because women own their bodies." It may be that they own their own bodies, but free contraception is from the left and not the right. -"Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, dismayed at liberal criticisms of the restrictive reproductive policies favored by some Republicans, mused on Monday that there was not a "rubber shortage in America." www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/30/ted-cruz-defends-conservatives-views-on-contraception Here is an article named, "The Republican War on Contraception". http://m.motherjones.com... Here is another speaking of the stance from the right on contraceptives. http://m.huffpost.com... Here is a quote from the article: "These are people who have never, ever approved of birth control, and they saw an opportunity to take it one step further." Here is an article named,"Liberals Obsessed, Look for Another way to make Free Birth Control Available to Women". http://cnsnews.com... * Left"Right politics The left"right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... * So obviously, contraceptives are not a right, and they are obviously a left.
Contraception is a right.

Contraception is not a right. It is a left. -The left"right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies, and parties. Left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another. In France, where the terms originated, the Left has been called "the party of movement" and the Right "the party of order." The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Contraceptives are an issue of the left and not the right. http://newsbusters.org... http://freedomoutpost.com... If there was a fork in the road you'd have to go to the left. Going right would get you no contraceptive. If you asked for directions and asked,"Which way to the contraceptives?" the person giving directions would undoubtedly say,"left." Contraceptives are a left and not a right.
Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law

Ok, there is no way for me to lose this round due to the fact my opponent makes no rebuttal, but I will go over some points. 1) It does not matter when the criminal is "suspected" if there is no vigilante there is anarchy since my opponent does not say how we can enforce the law. 2) I prove that the only way to acheive justice is through someone expressing their automic power. 3) My opponents VC is human rights but the best shot to protect those are through a vigilante. 4) The vigilante does not have to be just, just justified. My opponent does not contest this. So the vigilante is the best alternative and is permissable. 5) Just because you have one vigilante you should not just just rid of them. Like the Police there are corrupt policemen, so should we have no police. My opponent advocates a state of anarchy 6) my definitions of vigilantism- one with definite goals NOT WITH THE INTENT OF RANDOM VIOLENCE. 7) In my SBB Steinhem says, (just look up top). It does not matter if the vigilante breaks the law, because that might be the first step toward changing it. So is vigilantes commit violence they are justified nevertheless. And they will stop corrupt laws if they are in place. 8) You can look to my Brazil example on how the government has failed to enforce the laws and less than 1 percent of robberies are even investigated. The way to protect from this happening is through vigilantism Quick summary - The only way to acheive justice in the resolution is through preserving autonomy - Without the vigilante crimes would not be punished. (Look to my Brazil example.) Vote Affrimative because the only way to acheive justice when the government has failed to enforce the law is by someone expressing their automic power. Thank you!:)
Eating animals is immoral and wrong

Animals don't have an established irrigation system so it would be impossible for them to adapt a vegetarian/vegan diet. What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? If that's the only way the animal can live than I think it would be justified, Which is why I am fine with still developing countries eating meat as more often than not they don't have an established farming system and are living in poverty. Okay. Keep in mind, Humans are technically animals. However in a 1st world country like America and Canada where we have an established irrigation system and aren't living in poverty, There is generally no reason to eat meat. Are you saying 'not living in poverty' should lead to eating non meat and vegetarian things only? There are a lot of reasons to eat meat. Beneficial reasons. One would be for proteins as proteins are a necessity. If every human on earth became vegan/vegetarian then that wouldn't be good, It would effect the earth and environment. There would be serious drawbacks.
Eating animals is immoral and wrong

" Is it immorally wrong for a predator to hunt and kill it's prey? That's the only way it will eat. " - Animals don't have an established irrigation system so it would be impossible for them to adapt a vegetarian/vegan diet. "If humans eating animals are wrong then is animals eating other animals in the wild wrong? " - If that's the only way the animal can live than I think it would be justified, Which is why I am fine with still developing countries eating meat as more often than not they don't have an established farming system and are living in poverty. - However in a 1st world country like America and Canada where we have an established irrigation system and aren't living in poverty, There is generally no reason to eat meat.
Eating animals is immoral and wrong

" What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? " - If the animal needs meat to survive for dietary reasons or food source reasons than it is justified. However animals that are already herbivores scavenge for their plants. Besides without an established irrigation system there would not be enough plants for the majority of animals to eat as a good chunk of animals depend on meat. " There are a lot of reasons to eat meat. Beneficial reasons. One would be for proteins as proteins are a necessity. " - Actually there are plenty of vegan foods humans can eat to obtain protein such as tofu, Lentils, Beans, Or green peas. All of which are either vegan or vegetarian. SOURCE, Https://www. Healthline. Com/nutrition/protein-for-vegans-vegetarians#section8 " If every human on earth became vegan/vegetarian then that wouldn't be good, It would effect the earth and environment. There would be serious drawbacks. " - Actually this is completely false if just 1 person went vegan we would save 4, 200 liters of water, 20. 4 kilimeters of grains, And save 2. 8 meters of squared forested land. We would save this many resources if just one person went vegan for one day, Imagine how many resources we would save if just the united states went vegan? SOURCE: " What about the case for animals that are herbivores or omnivores? "
The human race seriously needs to die out.

I will hand it to my opponent, he/she has done their research. The survival of the fittest is indeed a factor but people dont need to inflict pain and suffering on others to add to a bank that is already full. I can justify someone hunting local wildlife to provide food for their families but stripping millions of animals of their skins every day is greed. To be fair surviving for another day doesn't require slaughtering animals who DON'T pose a threat. If a Bear threatens your home, by all means eliminate it, But it is unacceptable to seek out animals who have done nothing and inflict your malice on them. No it is not immoral for a bear to eat a fish or a lion to kill a gazelle. It is immoral however to bludgeon animals into a state of stun and skin them alive. http://www.youtube.com... Evidence of attrocities commited for greed. Ps. I am not associated with PETA. Ive enjoyed greatly hearing what you have to think on the matter.
The human race seriously needs to die out.

While I do agree with my opponent that SOME, definitely not all, humans pursue actions that endanger the lives of innocent animals, humans also help the animals being abused. Such organizations, such as the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) help prevent these actions from occurring. "The ASPCA works to rescue animals from abuse, pass humane laws and share resources with shelters nationwide" [1] Although my opponent's argument about animal abuse and that humanity is the main cause of it, is strong though my opponent relies solely on that single topic. After being refuted, my opponent would have no more arguments to push his case. I enjoyed this debate, and to close, I would thank my opponent for this very interesting debate. Vote con. [1] www.aspca.org/
Liberal/Conservative Government.

A liberal conservative coalition government would be terrible as it completely deludes the meaning of conservatism, how are people supposed to recognize the true conservative stance in the UK if the only ones putting forth is this faux conservative coalition. Also as the two political parties are almost completely opposite the coalition government would remain divided and ineffective. Not to mention it would also denigrate the position of Prime Minister as Nick Clegg will always be there to steal McClaggen's tunder. Thank You. Next.
Does the Universe Have a Purpose

Considering the premises above, I will be giving arguments for the probable existence of God, thus if it is probable that God does exist then the universe has a ultimate purpose. The point of picking this specific topic is that my opponent must present evidence for why it is more plausible that God does not exist, so I await his evidence or reasons why God does not exist. Argument 1: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being. Argument 2: 1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist. 2. The universe, the actuall collection of beings in space and time exists. 3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. 4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time. 5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time. Argument 3 1. We have ideas of many things. 2. These ideas must arise either from ourselves or from things outside us. 3. One of the ideas we have is the idea of God an infinite, all-perfect being. 4. This idea could not have been caused by ourselves, because we know ourselves to be limited and imperfect, and no effect can be greater than its cause. 5. Therefore, the idea must have been caused by something outside us which has nothing less than the qualities contained in the idea of God. 6. But only God himself has those qualities. 7. Therefore God himself must be the cause of the idea we have of him. 8. Therefore God exists. Argument 4: 1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy. 3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire. 4. This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever."
Should the drinking age stay at 21

The whole reason behind putting an age limit on alcohol is because age signals maturity. Usually the older you are, the more mature you are. Therefore, by putting the age limit at 21 policy makers hope that people make wiser decisions based on their maturity level which is signaled by increasing age regarding the use of alcohol. The age of 21 itself is arbitrary. Also, maturity levels can be VASTLY different in individuals of the same age. I'd propose no age limit to the use of alcohol but rather a mandatory test to show that you have adequate knowledge of the effects of alcohol, a brief history, statistics concerning alcohol-related incidents, and the health-adverse effects of alcohol, and a multiple-choice test for ethical use of alcohol in differing situations. Now, you might be concerned that young kids would be able to drink alcohol if there's no age limit. But to pass this test the individual must be mature. Maturity is signaled by age so the person taking the test would probably be around the drinking age regardless.
Halo is better then N.O.V.A.

"Do you even know what we are debating about? "Of course I do. .. I stand to speak that Halo and its counterpart NOVA are equal. See, Both are first person shooters with "distinct but based on the same concept" weapons. Plasma guns, machine guns, pistols,grenades etc. .. Both the FPS games are good and have vivid characters and environments(a). A comparision of both of them will lead to nothing but the conclusion that both these games are equally good. I know that the argument is short but as CON, I have nothing to rebut to. (a). http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk........................ Pro ought to have proved that HALO is better rather than questing the Con.