BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Frozen is the best disney movie,after The Lion King

I see your point,but Pirates of Carribbean and Star Wars:the force awakens are films.I am talking about animated films.In your opinion,Frozen shows man as a murderer e.t.c but what about Snow White -Evil Queen tried to kill her,Cinderella - Evil Stepmother,Alice in Wonderland-Queen of Hearts wanted to kill Alice,Sleeping beauty-Maleficent cursed her to die,The little Mermaid-Ursula too many to write ,Tangled -Mother Gothenburg killed Eugene and wanted to keep Rapunzel as a prisoner,most of Disney Animated films,woman is antagonist if everyone would take it so seriously, Disney would never become so famous. You say there's a lot of singing,well because it's a MUSICAL.You say that no one would burst into singing in real life ,that's the word in Real Life.Thank God you haven't said that people are not likely to have snow powers-this only happens in fairytale ,obviously not in real life. Also,it depends on what language have you watched Frozen.It really matters, because in Spanish and some other versions Frozen becomes something but not Frozen.I watched Frozen in English and after I heard some other translation ,I watch it ONLY in English.As example,there's a big difference between let it in and let it go.On what language have you watched it? Sorry,but I hate all the trailers that are laughing from Disney.Such trailers are making me really angry,let's imagine a person who didn't see Frozen.That person will probably think that frozen is so bad-that's not true Frozen is heartwarming,amazing ,spectacular,wonderful and let's say is the first Disney Animated movie that shows that princess doesn't need a prince to safe the day.I wonder if watched Frozen Fever cause it's shows Elsa in a different way and it's really funny.I reccomend you to watch it.
Frozen is the best disney movie,after The Lion King

I'm leaning towards the first Pirates of the Carribeans as better then both Frozen and Lion King.Frozen is way to girly, it kind of paints us guys like we're disgusting loners, greedy murderes, or manipulative sociapaths. Also there is a ton of singing in it, it's more of a musical... It's kind of unrealistic to watch a group of people break out into singing.the first Pirates of the carribeans (2003) is better in many aspects as it doesn't have the Cliche Disney princess. It doesn't have a ridiculous amount of singing in it. Come to think of it, I don't think any of the music had singing in it, it was all orchestra. So less distracting. It's live action instead of a cartoon, so a little bit more realistic which is a plus.However, there is one disney movie that does surpass all the above mentioned, and beats all other disney movies. Star Wars: The Force Awakens. It's just AWESOME!Also, if anyone that is voting hasn't seen Frozen, or have and after some facts about it, check out the Honest Trailer done by screen junkies. https://youtu.be...Seriously, watch that link.
Frozen is the best disney movie,after The Lion King

In response to your first point. Pixar was bought by Disney around 2006 (1). Incredibles was co-produced by Pixar and Walt Disney Pictures (2) Incredibles is a disney movie, as well as a Pixar movie.Now that we have that out of the way. I'll continue on.Okay, letas go with ratatoullie instead, I really don't care what disney movie, just about any are better in my book. I don't remember the movie itself having painted the male gender so poorly as in Frozen. To me, both the incredibles and Ratatouille are better because of this.in response to the second point. To be honest I actually do listen to some "musicals", but it's more towards content that makes fun of itself. For example, avbyte did a song called GTA the musical (3) and Derpina (4) which made fun of derp memes. So it's not that I dislike musicals, I just like things that makes fun of soemthing (Parodies, RAP Battles, etc), The kind of musicals that frozen did seemed to be aimed at kids instead of me. Take Fixer Upper (5) for example, Okay, if you don't like the action in the incredibles there plenty of other disney movies to chose from (like Toy Story, Hercules, Hunback of... Et cetera). As I mentioned earlier, even the Lion King is still a better movie then Frozen, so frozen can't be the best since lion king is still better then it. Frozen simply misrepresents the male gender.Also just saying... Your commenting on incredibles on being fightsy and all. But frozen does have murderous men and sociopaths, just saying.In response to your final point. Well, I think your judging it "better" based on popularity, I'm judging it based on the content found in it. From a guys point of view it comes out as a girly movie, so I wouldn't find it a better movie. But then you might also say that about the incredibles. So I'm looking for a flaw in frozen that we can both agree on. We both seem to agree that it painted men as murderers, disgusting loners, and sociopathic... My point is that this misrepresents guys, not all men are like this. Incredibles doesn't paint either gender this poorly, hence why it's better. Though in response to those numbers and such. I don't think we should judge based on the money. As I think this simply means that there was a better marketting strategy, not the contents as being better. It can be easier selling to a targetted audience, Frozen is easeir to sell to girls... Incredibles are targeted to a family audience... the thing is, there are more girls in the world then there are families. kinda like there are more fingers then hands in the world. So it makes sense that the incredibles would have a different return on investment then Frozen, that kind of makes it unfair to judge the two because they have two diffent audiences and a little bit different marketing scheme. -----------------(1) http://money.cnn.com...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://youtu.be...(4) (5) https://youtu.be...
Frozen is the best disney movie,after The Lion King

First of all, Incredibles is a Pixar movie not disney.You will say that it's disney-Pixar movie.If I would talk about disney-Pixar ,I would choose Inside out or Ratatouille. Secondly why all guys want to see an animation with fights,action etc.Why you can't watch a musical?I find it really relaxing.There's a lot fights,wars in our world.Believe me ,I know how it feels when you look outside and you see only destruction,nothing else.I don't want to see same things in animation,movie whatever. Thirdly,I was thinking about burst into singing,so now I can say that actually we do it everyday.It's like when you do something and suddenly you start singing.In our situation ,most of the people sing let it go.It can be any song you like.As for me I can burst in singing during the lesson,when I do chores,when I walking on streets etc.I don't think that I'm the only one.Everyone does that sometimes. Finally , if you say that Incredibles were so good ,then why no one cares about them right now.It's not a question of time , I care about cinderella (1950).It just Incredibles weren't such phenomenon as Frozen.As I already said more and more kids prefer Elsa(100%)or Anna(90%)than any other disney princesses.That's really true.In Spain each girl and even boys have birthday in Frozen style.They have Frozen costume ,Frozen bags,Frozen tiaras,Frozen toy s,Frozen accessories etc.Also let's mention the box offices Frozen 1.276 billion and Incredibles 631.4 million.Oh yeah,what that movie thing, if I would talk about Disney movie I would choose Tim Burton' Alice in Wonderland cause it was really spectacular.
Frozen is the best disney movie,after The Lion King

Ah, okay so we're limiting here to disney's animation, which kind of changes the challenge by narrowing the definition of "movie" in the resolution to be defined as "animation". While Disney's live action movies tend to be better than Frozen (with a few exceptions), I think I can still accept the challenge insetead of protesting the changing of the resolution from movie to animation. After all, i still got plenty of options that are easily better... Like Toy Story, Incredibles, Bolt, Tarzan, Tressure Planet... From my point of view, i'm like what disney animation isn't better then frozen , Well, with those movies it's more girl on girl instead of guy vs girl. Like Arieal Vs Urlsala, Alice Vs Heart queen. Aurora Vs Maleficent, et cetera. So having a woman villain doesn't make you feel that all women are bad simply because the main character is a woman. With Frozen it does the opposites gender clash instead of the same-gender scheme that disney typically does (there are some exceptions like Sky High, as the villain was a woman and the hero was a guy) But the problem it paints the other gender poorly. I've seen it in english. Well, yeah its a musical, but there are problems with it being musical. It simplyy makes it feel more "kiddish", as in appealing to a younger audience. Which i'm not a younger audience, hence why I don't find the movie appealing. Granted it seem to be meant for young teen girls which i'm not.Tale other disney movies like the Incredibles, I don't feel that it painted the genders to poorly. Sure, Mr. Inredible did play the "damsel in distress" in the middle of the movie by being held captive, and his wife taking the "rescuer" role, But I didn't feel that it damaged the gender by turning him useless because he with the aid of his wife played a key role in taking out the villain at the end. This is why the incredibles is better then Frozen, simply because it doesn't paint either gender overtly crooked or useless, but well balanced. I'd go so far as to say that the lion king is still a better movie then Frozen, simply because it doesn't paint the genders as bad.As the first disney princess to make to not need a prince to save the day might be techniclly true. In cinderella the fairy godmother saved the day, not a prince. In Enchanted Giselle slew the villain, not the prince. While it's technically accurate neither were a princess at those moments, but i'm kinda like "meh, whatever" it's just trivial. It's not the first time Disney has it where the girl doesn't need a guy to save the day.
Video Games do more harm than good

I agree with my opponents view on what this debate is about. I would like to provide definitions; Good - according to context two definitions; morally right; behaving in a way that is morally right having a useful or helpful effect on somebody/something Harm - damage or injury that is caused by a person or an event *In this case event would be video games.* ------ I accept my opponents introduction. I will be favoring the side of Videos do more good than harm.
Video Games do more harm than good

This debate is part of Social Pinko's debate tournament.== Rules ==This is a 4 round debate, with following rules - in addition to standard debating rules which apply.1. BoP will be shared. I have to prove that Video Games do more harm than good. Phoenix Reaper has to prove that Video Games do more good than harm.2. First round is for rules and introduction.3. Final round is for summary and conclusion. No new arguments in the final round.4. In case any of the rules are considered as inappropriate by the Con, he is free to discuss them in comments - and when we come to a consensus, he may make the suitable amendments in his first round.4. We debate in good faith. No semantics or syntactical argument. We will make full effort to have an informative and enjoyable debate.== Introduction ==This debate is about the benefit vs. harm of video games.By video games we are referring to the computer games, which are typically played on a display device in which images are controlled by electronic controller connected to the computer such as joystick, Wii or even keyboard or any similar device. The players may play against the computer or with each other; present at same location or over the network.Games like soccer, cricket, hockey and tennis are sports which are not considered as video games even though computers may be involved at some stage. This because the computer is not involved in the playing of game itself but in decision making or broadcast.We are debating the video games as they exist today. We shall be looking at what loss they have caused and what benefit they have made to the society till this date. If the video games are going to destroy humanity in future or they have the potential to solve all our problems in few decades; arguments like that are irrelevant to this debate.We shall be looking at both qualitative and quantitative aspect of the benefit and harm. So if a particular video game can give a particular benefit, we will have to see if the benefit is widespread and common before accepting it. Otherwise it would be treated as an anecdote rather than evidence.In this debate, I am not discussing the solutions. I may support some regulation or self-regulation from video game industry, however that is not a subject of this debate.Let us get this debate started.
Should there be support groups for stressed out students in school>

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that support groups should be mandated for every school to assist stressed out students who don't feel comfortable talking to their parents. " Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define what you mean to be support groups, who they will consist of, will it be anonymous, will the support groups consist of adults or students, will it be a paid position or will it be volunteer to be in the support group, etc. Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why the student might not want to talk to the parents, guidance counselor, close friends, community help centers, local religious leaders, etc. and why such a support group would be beneficial. By including such information, I, the con in this debate, will have a chance at arguing against your reasoning and providing strong counter points to dis-affirm, or disprove your contentions/supporting info. Thanks and good luck on the debate!
The Qur'an Has Scientific Errors

1. No, I am not mixing it up with the Earth. I am saying that the Sun has no fixed course, because it doesn't orbit the Earth, but that the Earth orbits the Sun. 2. It is not a Scientific miracle because anyone in the 7th cetury knows that. This is like saying, "An Arab from the 7th century knew how to make babies... How did he know that?! It's a Scientific miracle!" 3. You didn't answer my questions about Al-Marwazi. I asked when it was first recorded in history that he made those calculations, or, in what time of history was it first discovered. 4. It means that Ibn Hazm had no Scientific miracle on his part, because it was already known the Earth was round. 5. I was asking when Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi's predictions were first recorded in history. I.e., in what time of history was it first discovered that he made those predictions. Con hasn't answered most of my questions. Vote who you think won.
The Qur'an Has Scientific Errors

"36:38 sounds wrong because the Earth orbits the Earth, not the other way around. The prostating has nothing to do with it." - ”And the sun Runs its fixed course For a term (decreed).” (36:38) => Pro must be confused about the verse 36:38, there is no mention of the Earth in the verse at all! "There is nothing Scientifically wrong, but anyone could interpret this way. "God set a certain orbit for them and they obey God." isn't a Scientific miracle." - What is a scientific miracle?! This is an oxymoron! "Showing Scientifically accurate things in the Qur'an doesn't show there are no Scientifically inaccurate things." - Of course not! That’s the BOP on Pro > to come up with scientifically inaccurate statements in the Qur’an, which Pro so far failed to provide. - I don’t particularly understand the point of all this, but anyhow: "When are the first records of Al-Marwazi's predictions/calculations?" - Estimations based on methods of measurements* "It was discoverd the Earth was round long before Ibn Hazm." - Yes? And? Ibn Hazm was speaking about the Consensus of Scholars (Islamic Scholars: Jurists, Theologians, . . .) about the round shape of the Earth, from the time of the Companions to the Successors. . . etc. before even al-Marwazi did his first estimations. (as did Ibn Taymiyyah & Ibn al-Munadi). "When are the fist record of Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi?" - I have provided the dates of death of all those I mentioned (d. = died in): > Al-Marwazi (d. 869) > Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) > Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi (d. 947) > Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) "They figured out that the Earth was round, and figured the rest of the planets were." - Point?
The Qur'an Has Scientific Errors

1. 36:38 sounds wrong because the Earth orbits the Earth, not the other way around. The prostating has nothing to do with it. 2. "Considering all the verses & narrations I have cited, it becomes crystal clear that, according to the Qur"an, the Sun, heavenly bodies, whatever is in the heavens & the Earth, all are in a state of obedience following the Decree of Allah in the course that He has set for them: "And to Allah prostrates [in obedience] whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth of creatures, and the angels [as well]" (16:49). & all are in that state of obedience under the Throne of Allah." There is nothing Scientifically wrong, but anyone could interpret this way. "God set a certain orbit for them and they obey God." isn't a Scientific miracle. 3. Showing Scientifically accurate things in the Qur'an doesn't show there are no Scientifically inaccurate things. That's like asking. -When are the first records of Al-Marwazi's predictions/calculations? -It was discoverd the Earth was round long before Ibn Hazm. -When are the fist record of Abu al-Husein Ibn al-Munadi? -They figured out that the Earth was round, and figured the rest of the planets were.
The Qur'an Has Scientific Errors

Rounds: 1 - Accept and First Argument 2, 3, 4 - Rebuttal 5 - Conclusion Sura 18:83-86 says, "And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, "I will recite to you about him a report.". Indeed We established him upon the earth, and We gave him to everything a way. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, "O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness." Dhul-Qarnayn found the place where the Sun set, yet the Sun doesn't even actually set. It's in Space, and the rotation of the Earth only makes it appear that th Sun sets. Secondly, the Sun is too big to set in a spring of dark mud, It's millions of times bigger than Earth! There's also a people living there: They would be too close to the Sun and it would burn them. My opponent may repeat Zakir Naik, and say, "When we says 'Sun set', it can be taken for time. If I say, 'The sun sets at 7 P.M.', I'm using it for time. If I say, 'The sun sets in the west', it means I'm taking it for place. He didn't reach the place of sunset: He reached the place at the time of the sunset. The problem is solved." Yet, there are two problems with this: 1. The Qur'an is supposed to be a very clear book (Sura 3:7, Sura 11:1). Why would Allah say one thing and mean something else? 2. Muhammad himself interprets it differently. Sunan Aba Dawud 3991says, "I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (A018;) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah)."
Microsoft Windows operating system is better than Linux

I want to point out first that generally speaking, the majority of computer OS users are more familiar with Windows, be that from the current version all the way down to 98 even. They are more likely to find Windows as easier to use and sometimes refuse to try Linux. For the cost it's worth, most people find using Windows OS to be easier and friendly. Windows is used by at least 90% of the market: (1) . http://www.netmarketshare.com... I look forward to your next argument.
Microsoft Windows operating system is better than Linux

Although Windows is certainly easier than Linux, easy is not always the way to go. Linux's superior security, reliability, and configurability are worth the extra effort. Linux is also much cheaper than Windows. Some versions can be downloaded for free, which has the additional advantage of not giving a wad of cash to a giant corporation. Windows was originally designed as a simplification of UNIX OS, that could be profited from and copyrighted. Linux, as the prime inheritor of the BSD freeware movement is less corporate, more democratic, better positioned to adapt to changes in technology, and clearly positioned to outlast Windows in the future. Look forward to your arguments. Good Luck!
Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.

I hope this response will suffice. as for my opponents request the reason I believe this is because first for the reason of debate and second because I and most college students go to college for the purpose of making more money after graduation. But this has little to do wit this debate. Pro goes on to say that education referees to high school as well as college, and it should be free, what he does not see is that goes beyond what you pay and also refers to opportunity costs. the added cost of using resources (as for production or speculative investment) that is the difference between the actual value resulting from such use and that of an alternative (as another use of the same resources or an investment of equal risk but greater return. http://www.merriam-webster.com...... this shows that regardless of what you pay there are still cost to education. Back to the resolution educations main purpose is to gain a better job than you could gain without it. The result of this could be mental and logical growth but this is not its main purpose.
Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.

.. thought provoking argument. But, I would like Con to clarify WHY he thinks this, not just an argument based purely linear logic that diminishes the depth this argument could go in. First off, I don't think education should have to be paid for. .. .ever. But, that's another topic. Con -"People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people" Yes, in order to be seen as "productive" in this society you must have a "job" that you routinely carry out daily/weekly etc. So it is a product of education that enables you to carry out tasks, but, in my opinion, it isn't the most important value of learning. I could spend 8 hours a day diagnosing patients based on my studies telling me "Symptom A signifies Ailment X", and "Ailment X requires Treatment B" so that I'm not a lazy bum sitting around the house all day getting money people don't think I deserve; it's just that I believe the mental/logical growth we learn during our time of studying is more beneficial when it comes to persevering through our daily struggles that actually enable us to GET through the day, so that we may do these "jobs" society requires of us. And by "education", I meant not only college but high school. Maybe this will instigate some more in depth arguments?
Education's main purpose is life knowledge, not the programming of a mind to work a specific job.

The main purpose for education is to gain knowledge so as to be able to get a better job. The cost of a four year college will cost any were from 3,000 to 33,000 per semester. There are very few people who could afford this kind of money for fun, or to be better human beings. People pick a major so as to tailor there education for there future job, not to be better people. Now I pose the question to you and the voters. If you could not get a better job by going to college would you pay to go? http://www.collegeboards.com...