BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In acting, a person cannot truly become another person.

This will likely be my last opportunity to do so, and he has put up an excellent fight. Second, I would like to make my final argument in this debate. Point 1: My opponent's description of the Stanislavsky technique seems to imply support of the Con position. To quote him directly, "the method that Day-Lewis uses comes from a man who postulates that an actor must. .. use their own emotions" (ErikMontague). By basing his argument upon this method, he is seemingly attempting to draw attention away from the fact that there are other methods, some of which may not require an emotional attachment to the character. Point 2: "I challenge my opponent to find one actor in the world that doesn't somehow attach themselves to the character emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually. The fact of the matter is he can't and won't be able to. If one were able to completely detach themselves from a character, then it would be possible for two different people to give the exact same performance of character, which is downright impossible. " (ErikMontague) I do not believe in impossible things. Merely things which are highly unlikely and/or improbable. Also, I would like to bring to light that it is difficult to adequately complete this challenge, because Pro's contention, "A person will never truly be able to reflect another character without involving some part of them into the performance", specifies the time period as not the present, but the future. As I am sure most everyone agrees, no one truly knows what the future holds. I am no exception. It is very well possible, I believe, that someday, an actor will achieve such a feat. Finally, I ask the voters to make their decisions, and I thank ErikMontague again for a great debate.
In acting, a person cannot truly become another person.

Great debate thus far! Second, I'm going to make my final post and argument in a style of cross-reference. *1. I would like to rebut my opponent's main argument, and actually flip it to support the Pro's side. He uses Daniel Day-Lewis, two time Academy Award winner and well renowned actor. I would like to quote an article as Day-Lewis as the focus: "He was trained in the Stanislavsky technique and is well-known for his exploration of ‘method acting'" (Emily Parker, Wall Street Journal. ) *2. I would like to define the word method acting: "An acting technique introduced by Stanislavsky in which the actor recalls emotions or reactions from his or her own life and uses them to identify with the character being portrayed" (Princeton Dictionary). *3. As a final point, the definition of method acting shows Stanislavsky, a well-known actor and acting philosopher, as its founder. Here is a direct quote from Stanislavsky: "An actor must discover what his character wants, what is preventing him from getting it, what means he will use to achieve his goal" (Stanislavsky). *In conclusion, the Con's usage of Day-Lewis actually supports the Pro because it's proven that the method that Day-Lewis uses comes from a man who postulates that an actor must analyze the character intellectually, and use their own emotions from their lives to portray the character, thus involving themselves in the piece. I challenge my opponent to find one actor in the world that doesn't somehow attach themselves to the character emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually. The fact of the matter is he can't and won't be able to. If one were able to completely detach themselves from a character, then it would be possible for two different people to give the exact same performance of character, which is downright impossible. They HAVE to be different in some way. I urge a vote for the Pro, and I thank my opponent for his time! Great debate!
In acting, a person cannot truly become another person.

Thank you again, ErikMontague, for offering this debate. I certainly agree that it should be fun to debate a fellow actor. For clarification: I am arguing the point of con, that a person does have the potential to reflect another character without invoking any part of themselves in the performance. In layman's terms, A person can portray a character without involving themselves in it. This takes talent, but, it is indeed possible. Beginning actors usually don't attempt such a thing, and probably will be unable to do so. Thus, when learning, they are instructed to use themselves as a guideline. This is not the only way to act well, but merely the easiest. The primary aspect is to learn about yourself, and learn about the character. This is especially easy in historical fiction. I cite Gangs of New York as an example of this phenomenon. According to Liam Neeson ("Prince" Vallon), Daniel Day Lewis (Bill "the Butcher" Cutting) was able to not only get completely into the mindset of Bill, but to stay in character from the beginning of filming, to the end. He even referred to Neeson as "Priest" ("The Real Gangs of New York").
In acting, a person cannot truly become another person.

It will be fun debating a fellow actor on this topic. So, to repeat the topic in specificity: A person will never truly be able to reflect another character without involving some part of them into the performance. In layman's terms, it basically discusses the idea that a person can never portray a character without involving themselves into it. Fortunately enough, I am reading a couple of texts from famous and well-renowned people in the field of acting. First is Charles Waxberg, award-winning playwright, director, and actor who currently teaches in New York Universities. In his book, "The Actor's Script," he talks about the main objectives of the actor, and how they must pull from themselves to unlock the character: "You must bring yourself to the script" (45). Obviously, he talks about the fact that a person must bring themselves to a piece, and reflect their ideas, emotions, and feelings to help them portray the character. To further elaborate on this idea, he continues with: "Ask yourself and try to recall what the greatest pain you ever experienced was, whether it was physical, emotional, or spiritual" (46). To refute future points of the Con, why would Waxberg call upon the actor to look upon themselves (physically, emotionally, or spiritually) if the actor has the ability to do it without having to involve themselves into the character? Even bad actors make some sort of intellectual choice, therefore they involve themselves in some way to the character, whether it be through their choices, or other means. I will include more references if needed during my rebuttal, but I made the character limit short, as to make it easier on the debaters, as well as the readers. I will end my first argument with one final thought: If a person cannot pull from themselves to generate a character, then what, pray tell, shall a person derive their ideas from? I look forward to a great debate!
The Bible is morally wrong.

I am sorry, but I must admit that I wasn't ready to debate morality in itself since I thought I had stated what morality includes in my first statement, however, I probably should have said it better. I wanted to debate whether or not the bible is immoral in a mutual and in a way, universal, agreed upon definition of morality. I apologize to con for not being specific and also I appreciate the interest in my debate of such a seasoned member. Cheers.
The Bible is morally wrong.

Thank you, & welcome to DDO. In this debate, I will probably address the issue at hand, by discussing what morality is & isn't, rather than go through each example that my opponent provides individually. This will be done for a number of reasons such as; to avoid the trap/pitfall of gish galloping, it requires less characters, it's easier for people without a background in anthropology or multiculturalism to understand, analysis of what the bible really says in the original translation will not be appreciated by those without a background in those languages, and finally because I felt like it (likely for the above reasons). First, definitions: The term "morality" (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") can be used either; 1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion, or accepted by an individual for her own behavior. 2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. (1) I will, as of now, primarily be arguing from the Moral anti-realism POV (as opposed to Moral realism POV (with the exception of divine command theory & ideal observer theory)), and be using the following theories of metaethics: Moral nihilism (/error theory), moral relativism (/emotivism & ethical subjectivism), & finally, divine command theory / ideal observer theory. Very basically/broadly, in very simple terms, this means: 1) Morality doesn't exist - Moral nihilism. (Unless dictated by a divine being - moral command theory.) 2) Even if it does, it is not empirical absolute universal truth, but rather subjective personal taste/opinion. Thus it cannot be said that a particular moral model is "wrong". - Moral relativism 3) If is real/absolute/universal/objective, we cannot/do not have a way of determining what is moral, and what is not, independent of a divine/ideal being. Thus we cannot know what is morally right or wrong. - ideal observer theory (/divine command theory). (1) http://plato.stanford.edu...
The Bible is morally wrong.

Hello, I am new to Debate. org and I would like to debate in favor of the motion that the bible is morally wrong and that it shouldn't be, as some people say, "a guide on how to live". I will demonstrate that the bible is morally flawed, and anyone who follows it completely would not be deemed moral by the majority of the population. In this debate morality includes the principles of freedom, equality, fairness, the right to live and opposes killing and other issues that directly oppose this principles.
Islam is NOT a Religion of Violence

1. The root word of Islam is "al-Salaam," which is "peace" in Arabic. 2. The Quran places men and women on equal foundation before Allah. Each person is judged according to his or her own deeds. Women have equal rights under Islamic law. 3. Since the Arabic word, Jihad, literally means "fight" or "struggle," it refers to an "inner struggle" rather than holy war.
Choose a politician of your choice

Bolivia was one of the poorest nations prior to Evo Morales' policies. Prior to Evo Morales, Bolivia had a GDP growth of less than 3%, however, GDP growth soared under the socialist policies of Evo Morales and the Movement for Socialism to an average of 5.2% growth in the years between 2006 when Morales too office and 2009, and Bolivia has had the highest amount of GDP growth of any other country in the western hemisphere [1] In addition, Bolivia's federal spending went from a deficit of 10% of the GDP, to a surplus as over 5% more than the GDP [1] The total GDP of Bolivia went from under 10 billion before Morales took office to over 32 billion, so it has more than tripled under Morales. [2] The poverty rate has also gone down from over 65% of the population before Morales took office, down to less than 40% [3] Socialism has been a great asset to Bolivia in most recent years, as the GDP has soared, poverty has declined significantly, and a federal surplus has been created. In comparison to Benito Mussolini, during his rule in the 1920s, the Italian Lira began to decline. He responded with returning Italy to the gold standard, which resulted with the money supply declining, interest rates rising, and a recession to occur in Italy [4] In addition, between 1929 and 1939, Italy's economy only grew by a total of 16%, which was half of the economic growth they had under the previous government [4]. The rate of gross investment also fell 4% under Mussolini's policies and attempts to modernize agriculture and industry were mostly failures [4] Therefore, Morales' Bolivia has had more success than Italy under Mussolini. Sources: [1] http://cepr.net... [2] http://www.tradingeconomics.com... [3] http://data.worldbank.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Choose a politician of your choice

Thanks for accepting, and I look forward to hearing your arguments. Mussolini's achievements include the fact that through wit and skillful political maneuvering, he made Italy strong. Mussolini was also loved by his people, for a time, because he strove to recreate the Roman Empire. Mussolini also raised the Italian economy, which was weak compared to other European nations, by introducing new government programs to aid people. Mussolini's programs brought Italy out of the ruined state of World War 1, into a new and fledgling empire. He also invaded Ethiopia, and successfully held it until his defeat. Mussolini was only betrayed because Hitler declared war in 1939, and the Italian military was not prepared for this sort of war. Mussolini tried to keep the military together, but it ultimately failed, and the fascists lost power. https://www.reference.com...# http://www.adviseamerica.com... https://www.enotes.com...
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

court ordered desegregation plans do more good than harm because th court mixing the whites and black students is making it worse for the students to focus on school. so schools should stay with their own color and race because it it better for them in 1974 court-ordered busing was the only strategy that should have desegregated boston"s public schools because neighborhods were segregated by race and the kids went to the neighborhood schools. Also boston had built new schools but they were still segregated and things got worse even after the law said schools had to be segregated. it would have been a better quality education that was needed for the black community. ace should be use as a basis for school assignment because its a good way to for combating in the racial segragation. bck then 80% of students went to a school where most white students went to. they also didnt treat the black students the same as the white students .
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1. In September 1965, black parents in Roxbury begin Operation Exodus. More than 400 students are bused daily from overcrowded black schools to under enrolled schools in predominantly white communities within the city of Boston. A year later, the metco program begins to bus minority students in Boston to suburban schools 2. Because we been trying to desecrate for 50 years 3. They could base it on something else other the race like their ability to learn or what the parents want them to loose
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Debate: court-ordered desegregation plans do more harm than good. Questions about schooling should be left to communities to sovle. In 1974, court-ordered busing was not the only strategy that should have desegregated boston"s public schools. Black communites were worried Education was still unfair Races should not be use as a basis for school assignment .desegregation does not speak to drop out rates that hover hear 50 percent .the national center for education statistics reported that the average white students attends a school that is 80% white, white 70% of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and hispanic .American"s public schools have been growing more segrated even as the native has become more racially diverse
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Affirmative assertion #1 : Courts order busing was the only strategy that could have desegregated Boston public schools in 1974. Evidence: "Neighborhoods were segregated by race and kids went to neighborhood schools. "Boston built new schools but they were still segregated "Things got worse in Boston even after the law said schools had to be segregated Affirmative assertion #2 : Students and social benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools . Evidence: "School students are more likely to feel safer, less bullied when they are in diverse schools "If they had ethnically diverse classrooms and schools , it would decrease bullying "Schools continue to be educated largely in ethnically segregated schools Affirmative assertion # 3 : To create a desegregated school system, a judge should be able to tell parents where their children must attend school Evidence : "If students go to school closer to home, the schools might resegregate "The judges plan was to create schools that included kids from several neighborhoods "The new plan would make kids go to bad schools in their neighborhoods
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

My opponent therefore loses conduct points. I will not be responding to my opponents opening arguments and will pretend that she just accepted the round instead. This is the argument from my former account xXCryptoXx. This argument was not plagiarized; for it is my own work being used on this account that I created. Cell Phones Are Great For the Ease of Students This is obviously going to be the biggest argument and it is quite simple. It is common knowledge that people are busy. Allowing students to have cell phones with them allows them to schedule things and make important contact with extreme ease. For example if your parents thought they needed to pick you up at 3:00 P. M, but didn’t know you had to stay after school to finish a test; that could have been a problem easily solved if the student had had the ability to contact his parents in order to tell them he would have to stay after school a while. Its also not limited to the student, if the parent is running late or cannot pick their child up from school for any reason, or even if there is a family emergency they should be able to contact their child. Cell phones allow a huge burden to be taken off parents and students, by allowing them to schedule things and contact others quickly and efficiently; something that could not be done without cell phones. In the case of an emergency, such as medical problems, a school shooting, ect. students will be able to quickly and efficiently be able to contact authorities which allows some order to the chaos around them and can save lives while increasing the chance that the perpetrator is caught. Gives Students Choice and Responsibility By allowing students to possess phones during school, this gives them the opportunity to mature and learn responsibility. With the ability to possess cell phones, punishment for using cell phones during inappropriate times will be active. This gives students the choice to either use or not use their phones during inappropriate times. If they are caught and reprimanded then it gives them a chance to grow in maturity. Allowing cell phones forces students to be responsible with their phones, and learn from mistakes they make. This allows students to mature and grow in responsibility. All The Benefits Without the Consequences If it is found that students cannot be trusted to use their cell phones appropriately then school rules can be placed in order to deter cell phone use during class. For example, students may be forced to turn off their phones and place it on their desk during class. This takes away the problem of students playing on their phones or being distracted by their phones during class, while still providing the benefits of students being able to use their phones after school or in the case of an emergency.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Children having the ability to use their cell phones at school is not a good idea. When a child uses their cell phones at school it takes them away from paying attention to school. When children are using their cell phones in school it can cause problems with other students and get them in trouble with the facility. Cell phones can be a very dangerous weapon. They can ruin your reputation. When you are using it at school it just makes school pointless. Research shows one third of children are caught cheating in school. That is not even including college students. Students need to pay attention to school and learn what they are suppose to so, when they go to college the classes they took in high school can help them through those college years. I mean you would not want someone who even though they went to college to be a doctor and you needed surgery and, all they did was cheat or just not pay attention because they was on their cell phones all the time then you would not trust them to do surgery on you because they would not be well educated. Yes, I know there is people who can be distracted and still make good grades and understand everything but, no one is perfect and even though they make good grades does not mean they are capable of performing tasks they may involve stuff they would have learned. But, they would not have fully learned how to do the task due to them messing with their cell phones and not being able to focus properly. So, In conclusion the use of cell phones should not be uses at all unless it is strictly necessary for the learning of your education.
Should America try to overthrow Kim Jong Un

Afghanistan is not a comparable situation. The Taliban occupation of Afghanistan was an incredibly low-tech regime which relied upon fear rather than ideological brainwashing. The majority of Afghanis did not believe the Taliban to have an inherent right to rule Afghanistan. KJU and his predecessors, however, have used television, radio and tight state control of education to create generations of loyalist KJU lovers. I already gave my reasons why a nuclear strike on the US is unlikely, here are the reasons it is unlikely on the closer US allies: 1. NK is aware that nuclear blasts have large ranges, and that strikes on SK could hurt them. 2. KJU is aware that retaliation is certain. 3. NK gains little from a nuclear strike. It makes sense to threaten it, but not to actually do it. Again, KJU is a very smart man. He was privately educated in Switzerland and was taught to be a leader from birth. At this point I will make the additional argument that it is likely KJU's reign comes to an end this generation. As Cuba has shown, it is possible to create entire internet networks completely away from the greater WWW using old hardware and USB sticks. As drones get more adept, and defectors teach the world more about life in NK, it is likely that the US, NATO, UN or any other body can distribute anti-propaganda messages to NK's people via unmanned craft and USB stick in order to create an ideological revolution against KJU and genuine desire for democracy. This is likely to be far longer lasting than artificially enforced democracy upon an unwilling people.
Should America try to overthrow Kim Jong Un

Look the well being of the people of North Korea will greatly improve if we overthrow Kim Jong Un. We have done it before think back to after 9-11. We did overthrow the taliban and established a democracy in Afghanistan. So if democracy comes to North Korea. Then there government will work hard to make life better for the people of North Korea. And they might not be a threat for Americans. But they are a threat for other us allies. The largest city in the world Tokyo is in North Korean nuclear range. So is seoul South Korea. That is also a large city. And we are always putting sanctions on them, but still they still testing them nukes. So that is how overthrowing Kim Jong Un will improve they quality of life for North Koreans. And they are still a threat to innocent lives.