BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Movie Hopping? Is it Wrong or Right Defend Your Answer

Imagine going to the cinema to see a movie. During the movie, about 1/2 way into it, it suddenly stops. The theater goes dark and people begin to whisper and wonder. "What's this all about?" The lights come on and the cinema manager comes out and addresses the theater. "Ladies and gentlemen! I've noticed that you all are very much enjoying this show. So, I'm going to increase the price of it by $5. Those who want to stay will pay. And those who don't pay, please exit the theater and have a nice day." This scenario's unfair. But if movie-goers don't honor their agreement, why should the cinema honor its agreement? Please vote for me because I've shown hopping causes harm and it's unfair to violate the agreement between movie-goer and cinema.
Movie Hopping? Is it Wrong or Right Defend Your Answer

Hopping is harmful. The harm seems trivial. However, upon closer inspection, harm from hopping is real and cinemas are active in preventing it. The most direct harm caused by hopping is the effect it has upon viewing experience. Hoppers cause disruption and distraction when they arrive. Hopping rarely occurs according to the show times because cinemas stagger them. People fussing may seem like a small harm. But if movie hopping was right and without restriction, then more people would do it. When more people hop there will be frequent distractions. Distractions are especially vexing during a movie's first half-hour because that's when important plot details are established. Hopping is an unwelcome distraction. Therefore, hopping is wrong.
Movie Hopping? Is it Wrong or Right Defend Your Answer

Hopping is wrong. Risk. Risk is something that we must live with everyday. It's not always fun, or even fair, but risks are inevitable. The bright side to risk is that intelligent people can understand risks and make choices to limit risk and maximize reward. This is not a mystery. A person looks at the risk, and looks at the reward, and then chooses to take or reject it. Both a movie-goer and cinema business take risks. Both weigh the risks and agree to a contract, the movie ticket, that reflects those risks. No one forces the contract. When a movie-goer hops they violate the contract, avoid risk they agreed to take, and unjustly shift that risk back onto the business. People must keep their word. Therefore, hopping is wrong. Good luck!
Movie Hopping? Is it Wrong or Right Defend Your Answer

Movie Hopping? Is it Wrong or Right Defend Your Answer Let's say you and a friend are going to watch a movie at your local movie theater. The movie comes on and in the first five minuets of the movie you know you are going to hate this movie. So you and your friends walks out and go to another movie that you guys wanted to see. 1. Are you wrong because you did not pay for the movie you are leaving to see 2. Are you right because you have already paid your money for movies no matter which movie you are going to see. Choose your answer, support it, and have fun?
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

"I myself have read the Quran, and in no circumstances does it admit to the killing of other people. " I have already written the verses and cited links to these verses in my sources. This version is the most used English translation of the Qur'an and has a seal of authenticity from the university of Median (the 2nd most important city in Islam). Quran 7:80-84: And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, "Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people. " But the answer of his people was only that they said, "Evict them from your city! Indeed, they are men who keep themselves pure. " So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who remained [with the evildoers]. And We rained upon them a rain [of stones]. Then see how was the end of the criminals. Sahih al-Bukhari (the first hadith book) is considered to be the most authentic book after the Qur'an and is accepted by Sunni Muslims (90% of Muslims are Sunni's). Sahih al-Bukhari 56:226 `Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn `Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet (A018;) said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment. ' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet (A018;) said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him. ' " "They have taken the Quran out of context. " No they have not, the statistics that I have provided prove that Muslims do act on these "holy commands". I would also appreciate it, if you could provide evidence for your claims (see rule 1). "however there is a small minority hat is ruining there reputation" The statistics that I have provided prove that it is (in the case of homophobia and sexism) not just a small minority, but a big majority and in the case of Islamic terror and intolerance towards other faiths a big minority. "No religion agrees to killing" All abrahimic religions support killings and God commands his prophets to kill people in all of their holy books. "You can throw facts around all you want but what you do not realise most of these facts are rigged to the favour of the governments to make the public agree to there actions in the middle east and sending in military force. " The Pew Research Center (from which I got most of my statistics) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, independent fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling.
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

I myself have read the Quran, and in no circumstances does it admit to killing of other people. What you see on the news about theses so called 'Muslims' fighting for Allah are only using their religion to justify there actions and wrong doings. They have taken the Quran out of context. And if you have muslim friends, which I can infer you do not then you will know that they are one of the most peaceful religion, however there is a small minority that is ruining there reputation. No religion agrees to killing, and from what I can see you think Diesh is a representative of all muslims. You can throw facts around all you want but what you do not realise most of these facts are rigged to the favour of the governments to make the public agree to there actions in the middle east and sending in military force.
Islamic culture and Islam are immoral

Rules: 1. Offer evidence for your arguments and counter-arguments. 2. Please refrain from using ad hominem arguments and/or logical fallacies 3. First turn is for opening arguments, second for rebuttals, and third for closing statements. The third round is to be used for rebuttals and conclusions only; no new arguments. Good luck and have fun in the debate! 1. Islam is against religious freedom: [1]: According to the hadiths, apostates are to be punished by death: Sahih al-Bukhari 56:226, [2] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2632, [3] Sahih al-Bukhari 88:5. [4]: 40% of Muslims support the death penalty for apostasy. [5] According to the Qur'an, apostates will be greatly punished: Quran 9:66, [6] Quran 16: 106, [7] Quran 4:89. 2. Islamic culture supports Islamic terror: [8] 28% of the Muslim world population have confessed that suicide bombings are occasionally, sometimes, or often justified. [9] 25% of British Muslims have affirmed that the 7/7 attacks were justified. [10] 67% of British Muslims would not tip-off the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with terrorist sympathizers. [11] 42% of Turkish Muslims believe that Muslims were the true victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack, and 20% remarked that the Charlie Hebdo employees had deserved death for depicting Muhammad. 3. Islamic culture is sexist and a great majority of Muslims are sexist: [12] 86% of Muslims believe that women must always obey their husbands. [13] 27% of Muslims have said that women should not be allowed to decide whether they want to wear the veil or not. [14] Islamic countries have the worst women's rights on earth (Yemen is ranked 144 of 144, Pakistan 143, Syria 142, Saudi Arabia 141, Iran 139, Egypt 132, Turkey 130, United Arab Emirates 124). 4. Islam is homophobic and a large majority of Muslims are homophobic: [15] According to the Qur'an, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Quran 7:80-84 and [16] 6:165-66. [17] The only countries where there is still the death penalty for homosexuality are Islamic countries. [18] According to Sharia, homosexuality is to be punished by death. [19] According to the hadiths, homosexuality is to be punished by death: Abu Dawud 40:112, [20] Sunan Ibn Majah 20:2658. [21] 89% of Muslims believe that homosexuality is immoral. Sources: [1]: https://sunnah.com... [2]: https://sunnah.com... [3]: https://sunnah.com... [4]: http://www.pewforum.org... [5]: https://quran.com... [6]: https://quran.com... [7]: https://quran.com... [8]: http://www.pewforum.org... [9]: http://www.cbsnews.com... [10]: http://www.thetimes.co.uk... [11]: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... [12]: http://www.pewforum.org... [13]: http://www.pewforum.org... [14]: http://reports.weforum.org... [15]: https://quran.com... [16]: https://quran.com... [17]: http://old.ilga.org... [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org... [19]: https://sunnah.com... [20]: https://sunnah.com... [21]: http://www.pewforum.org...
Do we must not eat the junk food.

My opponent's resolution remains unclear and incoherent. I ask my opponent to clarify the resolution in the following round and take a strong position for the affirmative or negative case. What do I think about children eating junk food? It depends on the child and that child's stress level, culture, home environment, physical activity, mental perception, and metabolism. Some children need more junk food in their system, while others need less. Once again, my opponent really has not created a debate. The resolution displays poor use of grammar, and my opponent really has not argued anything. However, I have written my opinion, which is what my opponent wanted. If my opponent wants me to expand on my ideals, he can ask more direct questions in the following rounds. Thank you.
Indians are smelly and deserve to be nuked

Not all Indians are smelly!!! How dumb are you to not know that?? You can also find many smart Indians!! And, going back to "you should GO BACK TO KINDERGARTEN", I'm asking-- is it North Americans that you are talking about, it is the Indians that first occupied North America, and if you're talking about India, that's where Columbus brought silk and spices. Either way, Indians were far advanced in many areas in many areas back then. An 80-year-old (99% its fake) person with an IQ of 200 (That is very rare so you are lying) doesn't know the difference between them? LOL stupid...
Indians are smelly and deserve to be nuked

" you are referring to some Indians, not all" No, i'm refereeing to all. All Indians are substantially smellier than the average human, because Indians are less developed, so they are closer to apes, and apes are smelly and throw their poop everywhere, just like how Indians deposit their waste on the sidewalk, they even WORSHIP cows for Christ's sake, what a bunch of idiots. "every country in the world have some people who are smelly and stuff like that" Yes, but Indians out-stink them by 60% so it doesn't matter. "Go back to kindergarten" I'll have you know i'm a certified genius with an IQ of 257 and could obliterate you with my damn mind, be careful about what you say, kiddo.
Is Cancer A consircay

My wiimote is bigger than your so I am right and you are wrong. Ok So evidence suggusts that Bush was over 9,o0o,000 year old. Bush is aso saud to have had sex with over 30ndinos. HE WAS AROUND WITG THE DINOS!!!!!! HE WAS NUTTING THEM BEFORE U WERE BOOOOOOOOOOOORN! In the end I am right U r wrong suck my dick
Is Cancer A consircay

Alright, this is just ridiculous. First off, cancer was found BEFORE Bush's presidency by THOUSANDS of years. Infact, https://www.news-medical.net... even states 'Some of the earliest evidence of cancer is found among fossilized bone tumors in human mummies in ancient Egypt, and references to the same has been found in ancient manuscripts.', really showing off the timeline that we are up against. Hell, the oldest description of the disease is from Egypt and dates back to about 3000 BC. I'm willing to bet my life that Bush isn't that old. Secondly, why would this disease be used for oil? Oil has literally nothing to do with the condition, and traps??? Please be more specific. Now, if you're stating 'cancer was made to kill oil rig leaders and potentially add more oil to the US's already large reserves', while denying my first fact- you still would be wrong. Cancer isn't contagious (unless you state the cases from having transplants from a cancer patient, but even that's been link to the antibiotics used to prevent the organ's rejection) and if you have ANY cases where cancer was spread from one person to another through the qualities of an infection, virus, or plague to humans (yes, I know about the Tasmanian devil case), please link it. I find your claim to be extremely absurd, though, I expect you are a troll considering your bio says you are 109 years old. Still, I have time on my hands, and i'm intrigued to see what your next claim is. PS- Here's a page to help you realize how cancer works if you don't already know, and how it can even potentially occur/be transmitted https://www.cancer.org... :)
Guns should be more regulated in the United States

Although my opponent has forfeited the round, I would like to use this opportunity to present a brief summary of my stance on this issue: 1) Certain types of guns should be banned outright, as they are not necessary to the safety of the general public. Some guns, specifically automatic and semi-automatic guns, pose a direct danger to the community. 2) Background checks should be mandated for all individuals prior to the acquisition of firearms. This common sense measure is supported by the vast majority of U.S. citizens. 3) A tax should be imposed on certain firearms. This would decrease the availability of the guns that are most often used to harm others.
the hole royal wedding was a overrated

Yes the groom and and the bride well remember it, and there family well remember. But i ment that the people well forget the wedding itself not the fact that William and kate are maried. The price for the weding was mostly taken from the tax payers. The day off from the wedding aparently cost the economy 50 billion USd. Now costing a country that much money for a wedding seam pretty selfish, woldnt you agrea. Also its far to overated, 1 days from now the press wont be talking about it.
the hole royal wedding was a overrated

The Wedding Was Not A Waist Of Time, Whether Or Not Someone Else Will Remeber The Whole Thing, The Bride And Groom (And Parents Of The Bride And Groom) Will Remeber The Wedding The Rest Of Their Life. Most Of The Time The First Time Someone Gets Married, They Want That Wedding To Be The Most Beautiful And Memorable Day Of Their Life. So Unless You Have Been Married, Or Hope To Get Married Don't Judge How Someone Else Lives Their Life. :)
trickle down economics is not the most effective methord of increasing general societies wealth.

I do not believe that trickle down in our modern society is the most effective as the targets who are given the money are the richest of society. These rich people are most likely to consume luxury products, companies who sell such products are owned by the richest in society. Whilst some of the money is spent on business side of life money spent in business is spent in order to gain profit, as a result much of this money will eventually feed back into the hands of the super rich (who as I said spend much of their personal money on each other) who own these companies. Because you are spending money to bale out the big business and on the super rich you are trying to stop these people fail, for a market to not be stagnant people who fail either by pure bad decisions or by putting them selves in a position where the economic market causes the business to fail must actually fail and not have a safety web that keeps these business in the game and their owners still super rich. As a result the argument that it stop stagnation is counter intuitive. It also directly violates pretty much all schools of political and economic ideology be it capitalist or Marxist and communist.
trickle down economics is not the most effective methord of increasing general societies wealth.

Please look to Con as the Pro COMPLETELY overlooks the benefits of trickling down the economy. I agree that trickling down is a very risky move on the part of a government and is a rash decision. However, there are some points in history that trickling down is required. A perfect example is hand outs. When consumers no longer spend on the economy the economy becomes very stale and much of the produce become wasted. At this point in time the goverment needs to make a small push to move supply. To do so hands out occur. However, bear in mind that this is only possible in western democratic governments. Democratic or Democratic-esque goverments in asia usually would not do this because of their races way of thinking and counters their moral. But in western democratic goverments then yes I would agree that trickle down has a benefit. The more general use of trickle down is to move money from the richer part of the economy to the poor. This Robin Hood effect is morally correct in order to create some form of happiness and ease for the poor.
Video game ratings should be revised

It's true. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do indeed have strict policies to prevent AO games from selling on their systems, but even if they change these policies, the retail chains would still have their anti-AO policies. [1] Currently, the need to maintain a family-friendly image is of more value to the industry. More to the point, it does not follow that a proper solution is to revise the ESRB ratings. According to a Peter D. Hart study performed in March 2008, 86% of parents with children are aware of the rating system, and 59% of parents say they "never" allow their children to play M rated games. [2] Furthermore, 82% of parents agree with the accuracy of the ratings whereas a paltry 5% think they are too strict. [3] Finally, the number of mature games have fallen 50% since 2005. [4] All signs point to a large consumer base that invests primarily in family-friendly content. It would be entrepreneurial suicide to neglect them. Why change a rating system that has 82% approval, especially when that approval comes from such a large market? This is why console makers disapprove of AO rated games and why retailers won't sell them. It's taken years to gain consumer trust, and it would kill the industry if that trust were destroyed. The ESRB rating system can only be changed for the worst. If we start allowing AO content into M-rated games, the consumers will cry foul (as they did with GTA's Hot Coffee mod) and the industry loses trust. If we eliminate the ESRB ratings, then the consumers will turn to unofficial content rating systems, eventually putting something else in its place. In short, the rating system is not the problem not is changing it the solution. So, I must stand firm in opposing the resolution. Video game ratings should not be revised. SOURCES: [1] Can't Touch This: AO Rated Games: http://www.splegends.com... [2] ESRB FAQ: http://www.esrb.org... [3] ESRB 2005 Study: http://www.esrb.org... [4] Number of M-rated Games Down: http://www.splegends.com...
Video game ratings should be revised

Being a long time video gamer myself and a father of children, I have a very different perspective on this subject. I am against this resolution and assert that the ESRB ratings should remain status quo. A common complaint against ratings of any kind is that they censor content and indirectly limit consumer choice. However, ratings are in place precisely because the majority of consumers want them. In this case, the majority of consumers are parents. Without a rating system, concerned parents must research the content of video games independently, a task many parents are disinterested or ill equipped to perform. ESRB does this dirty work for them, summarizing the kind of content contained within games and allowing parents to make more informed decisions. Without such ratings, these consumers will begin to distrust the video game industry, a detriment to the industry as a whole. Without ratings, game developers are likely to avoid controversial content altogether to reestablish that trust and maintain a consistent market share. ESRB ratings are not directly efficacious. The ESRB is voluntary and does not force any game to be withheld from the market. The fact that AO games are hard to come by is a result of free market forces. AO games do not make much money because stores won't sell them, so game developers don't make them. The stores, of course, are also responding to market forces, establishing consumer trust by eliminating content consumers generally find distasteful. If selling GTA4 causes concerned parents to reconsider ever shopping again at that store, you can be rest assured GTA4 will soon be taken off the shelves. If anyone is to blame for censorship, it's majority consumer opinion, not the ESRB. In the end, we must remind ourselves that gaming is an industry, not a charity. Games are made for profit first and consumer enjoyment second. Of course, the consumer benefits in the process. As long as the ESRB remains trustworthy in their ratings, consumers will continue to buy into the video gaming market which in turn encourages competition and creativity in game content. If the ESRB ratings are removed, we risk a market full of Pokemons and Wii Musics, a cornucopia of safe games meant to win consumer trust. The game industry is booming and those of us that grew up with 8-bit machines in their living room have the privilege of hi-def blockbuster gaming. We've gone from 2-player Super Mario Brothers to 32-player Team Fortress 2 matches. Yesterday gaming was a stigma, and now it's a professional sport. The industry has grown leaps and bounds, just like the movie industry. And like the movie industry, massive amounts of content must be somehow managed. Ratings have been effective for years in earning consumer trust, and they will continue to do so for years to come. Therefore, the resolution stands negated. Video game ratings should not be revised.
Video game ratings should be revised

Plain and simple Video game ratings are a joke in the US. We should be using a ratings system closer to movies. The ESRB has full control on wether video games are violent and what games get published. The ratings system is as Follows. EC - Early Childhood E - Everyone E10+ Everyone 10 and up T - Teen 13 and up M - Mature 17 and up AO - Adult Only Now let me mention that no console will allow an AO game on their system. Now let me also point out that the age of the average gamer is 35 years old. Why can we not make a decision for ourselves as to what we want to view?