BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dr Stranglove is Stanley Kubrick's best film

For the sake of my opponent, I will argue the merits of Full Metal Jacket. STORY The scenes played by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman are legendary. Many of these lines are still copied and repeated as sound bites. It gave a realistic view of military training, especially in a volatile era, in a non-partisan manner. It explores some of the challenges of various personalities enduring basic training together. From the seemingly incompetence of Private Pyle through the transformation after his "code red" to his near graduation. The eve of graduation shows PVT Pyle losing it, and graphicly blowing away Hartman. For a moment, there is unertainty whether or not he will shoot Joker as well. He opted to spare Joker and turned the M14 on himself. The movie then fast forwards to Viet Nam where Joker is serving as a reporter for the Stars & Stripes. He reunites with Cowboy. The quote from the crazed doorgunner also remains the punchline of many jokes, "How can you shoot innocent women and children?" "Easy, you just don't lead them as much" HUMOR: Lee Emery is among the most popular actors and still appears in film, most recently the Geico commercial. Leonard "Private Pyle" Lawrence is non other than Vincent d'Onofrio, who plays the lead role as a witty detective in Law & Order Criminal Intent. VOTING POINTS: 1. That my opponent rejects the opinion of contemporary critics toward his movie selection does not negate the fact they DID choose another movie over his. 2. The best movies are still subjective, and are completely the opinion of the individual. There is no clear objective material to distinguish between which is better. In other words, there is no weighing mechanism. Therefore, it is still undecided as to which Stanley Kubrick film is the best. 3. Based on the above, my opponent has not offered evidence that proves the resolution. I remain unconvinced, as likely other people, that Dr Strangelove is in fact the best movie made by Stanley Kubrick. 4. My arguments were barely touched, while his arguments were inadequate and lacking at best. For these reasons, I request a negative ballot.
Dr Stranglove is Stanley Kubrick's best film

I can't believe it but I believe I have found the most illogical argument ever. My expectation of an argument was from someone who actually watched a Stanley Kubrick film to choose a film and argue the points of it. Please feel free to do so though. Barry Lyndon, Spartacus and several others are available on youtube or netflix instant queue. For the moment I will refute your statements and curse the fact your entire real argument is the last word. //While you may have a strong approval rating of the film Dr. Strangelove, another person may have an entirely different opinion and could not be dissuaded without extreme measures. For example, after reviewing the works of Mr Kubrick, I would have to say that Full Metal Jacket is much more entertaining in my opinion. // Although it is true opinion is relative there are some things (especially in film criticism, something I did for a living briefly) that philosophically through aestheticism are better. And sometimes certain views are overall wrong (ex. very few people who think critically and beyond explosions think with praise of Transformers 2. ) I think the following quote puts it best. "Anyone who has sampled Hershey's and Godiva chocolates can tell which is better. " Source: Mental floss's condensed knowledge (book) by various authors //Dr Strangelove was nominated for 3 academy awards, as were 3 other of his films. Unfortunately for Dr Strangelove, and your case, the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey" is the only one to actually WIN an academy award. By motion picture standards, this would imply that 2001 A Space Odyssey was the better film. // Contemporary criticism doesn't mean anything. The wizard of Oz at a time got negative reviews and was viewed as unimaginative. Citizen Kane, now considered best film of all time, lost the academy award. Overall Academy Awards are biased by budget, mainstreamness, what was popular back then and are not accurate barometers of quality. Only two films on your favorite films list won academy awards and one of them was even nominated for two razzies.
Dr Stranglove is Stanley Kubrick's best film

Further, I can appreciate his regard for Stanley Kubrick. Frankly, I had no clue who Stanley Kubrick until I started doing some research. I stand in negation of the resolution, "Dr Stranglove is Stanley Kubrick's best film. " Contention 1: Subjectivity There is an old adage that says "One man's junk is another man's treasure. " The inverse is also true. While you may have a strong approval rating of the film Dr. Strangelove, another person may have an entirely different opinion and could not be dissuaded without extreme measures. For example, after reviewing the works of Mr Kubrick, I would have to say that Full Metal Jacket is much more entertaining in my opinion. Contention 2: Award Recognition Dr Strangelove was nominated for 3 academy awards, as were 3 other of his films. Unfortunately for Dr Strangelove, and your case, the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey" is the only one to actually WIN an academy award. By motion picture standards, this would imply that 2001 A Space Odyssey was the better film. Further; his film "Barry Lyndon" is the only film to win "Best Film" and Mr Kubrick won the "Best Direction" award for this work. He did not win any awards for "Dr Strangelove. " CONCLUSION: After pondering and weighing the researched information, the resolution is negated. While I certainly admire my opponent's appreciation for this work, it is merely his personal preference, not that of respected film critics. I am not convinced that Dr. Strangelove is the best film made by Stanley Kubrick. For these reasons I respectfully request a negative ballot. Thanks sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dr Stranglove is Stanley Kubrick's best film

First I warn my opponent not to choose Eyes Wide Shut as it is the only Kubrick film I can't get my hands on (unless con chooses to do Lolita and in that case good luck.) For now while I wait for the opposition to pick a film I will tell why my movie is the best. Story: This is truly a magnificent story. In most comedies plot is an afterthought but considering it was first a drama it's one of the best films of all time. This story is almost themed around miscommunication and really captures the cold war era precautions of every situation and unfortunately Marshall's law comes through for the one situation they couldn't plan for. The characters are vibrant with three sets of stories you get extremely emotionally involved in. My emotions were soaring past the healthful limit while waiting for that bomber to be shot down. Which makes it all the more funnier when it all gets blown to pieces. Humor: Do you remember those old three stooges episodes where crap gets broken and despite immense pain and injury while these poor beggars try to move a piano you laugh at their misfortune? This is that with nucleur weapons. If you don't believe me see the video below. http://m.youtube.com... Wait for more.
Lincoln was the most 'liberal' president of all time; his supporters are NOT conservatives!

First, the definition of "liberal" from the perspective of this debate. 1. Growing the government. 2. Centralizing control in Washington, as opposed to decentralization (federalism) where power is in the hands of the states and the people. 3. Instituting new taxes and raising existing ones. 4. A Keynesian monetary policy -- i.e. manipulation of the currency, as opposed to a hard-money, commodity standard. 5. Antipathy for free-market capitalism. 6. Bastardization of the Constitution and its original intent. Secondly, by accepting this debate, you must not resort to "Lincoln was not quite as liberal as FDR, Wilson, or LBJ." You must argue that he was in fact a conservative, or at the very least, no more liberal than average. To support Lincoln's political philosophy, to embody it, is NOT conservatism. Conservatism is the opposite of all the points listed below. Instead, a minimalist government; states' rights and federalism; free-market capitalism with a hard-money standard; and support for the Constitution and its Original Intent are all hallmarks of traditional American conservatism. It is my assertion that Lincoln embodied all six elements of liberalism, as above. Your task is to either suggest that he didn't, or to spit in the face of the founding fathers by suggesting that in destroying everything they stood for, Lincoln was "conserving" it. This, of course, is Lincoln's own assertion, indicative of his deceitful and/or insane nature. To be conservative in America is to preserve our traditions of limited government, federalism, free enterprise, and the Constitution. Lincoln was opposed to and/or abused all of the above. He was the biggest liberal in our history, because he made possible the abuses by later tyrants such as Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ. To call oneself a "conservative" and support Lincoln is no less illogical than to call oneself a Jew and support Adolf Hitler.
Mary is NOT Immaculate Conception ( Scriptural Argument)

1))According to Catholic theology, saving grace is upon Mary the very moment of her existence. Based on this, we can conclude the following: 1) Mary wasn't saved from hell but from inheriting the original sin. 2). The rest of mankind ever born was saved from hell. The Scripture indicates that salvation done by Christ on the cross is for (1) those infected with original sin because (2) it is from hell they're saved from. 2)) According to church fathers (i.e. Augustine and Ambrose to name a few) original sin is passed on via male progenitor and female progenitor both who are infected with sin. Jesus did not inherit original sin because his flesh is not made of both male and female progenitors of sinful nature but only of Mary. Mary's original sin was not passed on her offspring because Mary's egg wasn't fertilised by a sperm cell of a Male progenitor with original sin. Philippians 2:6 said that the Son became in the likeness of men. Why likeness? It is because he is not infected with original sin. Romans 8:3 says that God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Mary has " the flesh of sin" ( i.e. She's infected with original sin). Jesus is the "likeness" of the flesh of sin. Therefore, he could experience the effects of sin ( i.e human pain and human death) without having the original sin. Premise 1: Jesus is in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Premise 2: Mary is Jesus' mother Conclusion: Mary has the flesh of sin and Jesus is her likeness. The Ark is not made of incorruptible wood per se in the sense of " unable to destroy or breakdown". The LXX renders " acacia" wood of Hebrew scripture as " incorruptible" in the sense of its " lastingness" because we know that acacia trees . won't last for all eternity.Hence, my previous argument about Mary as the NT Ark who is contaminated with original sin stands.
Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

This is ridiculous. Why would a child want to learn about religion? I don't. It seems like a waste of time. What makes you think that parents would accept this? If they don't practice any religion then why should their kid sit through a class about it? Also, if they are against one of the many religions that you listed, what makes you think they would allow their kid to sit through it? you have a very detailed plan, very impressive, but it may not work. i don't think that a parent would make or even allow their child to take these courses. why are they necessary? that seems like a fair question. answer that and i'll come up with a better argument next time.
Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

Alright here is your challenge. Obviously taking the time to teach every religion in school would be far to time consuming. So here is what I propose: Begin educating about religion in school starting freshman year of high school. This education will contain equal parts Hindu, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, and Agnosticism. Each of the above 6 will be covered for an equal part of the school year, a 7th and 8th session of time will be spent studying a combination of: Chinese universe, Buddhism, Taoism, Ancient Greek and Roman, Paganism, and True Satanism (no this has nothing to do with believing in the devil). This education will of course compromise one class during each school year. Thus each segment will be given a half a year of attention as there are 8 semesters in the typical year. This will be modified depending on the situation/school. Furthermore, new religions will be considered upon request. This system will not be set in stone. Mindsets and times often change. Your turn.
Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

The parocial schools thing is good. If a parent does want their child to learn about religion, then they can send them to parocial school and they can learn about THEIR religion. In 7th and 8th grade i learned about religion in my social studies classes. So, you do learn about them. Your whole plan is basically forcing religion on these students. You're teaching them about religions. Some kids are easily influenced. They might go to a religion that their parents don't approve of. Did you consider all of these things when you started this debate? Just because you screen teachers doesn't mean it will work. When a student reports something like that, what is the statistics of how much it works? Teachers are not always as "honest" as they seem. And, some people don't always believe students. Did you consider any of this? I'm agnostic but i think that a child should be able to learn and decide on THEIR OWN. if they want to believe in something, then they should be able to decide it by themselves. You don't need a teacher to do that for them.
Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

Alright, I am going to go argument by argument. "If children want to learn about religion then they should go to parocial school." >>Except for the fact that Parochial schools are only going to teach you one religion and give you a very very biased opinion at that. "In public schools,you learn about religion, just not detailed. Why does it need to be more informative then that?" >>Our public schools are on a slow decline in all types of information. We're getting to be the lower percentile in everything. If I have the time I will make debates about the other subjects of school also. As far as you saying that we learn religion in school, not really, I learned greek + roman mythology and the only reason they got away with that is because the school system considers them to be mythology. "I never said you were going to favor one religion, but the thing is that teachers may give their beliefs on the matter then what? did you think about that." >>Considered the possibility. Teachers would have to be screened, we can only do our best in this aspect. Every bodies opinion is going to be a little biased for something; so while finding the totally unbiased teacher may be difficult we can find nearly unbiased teachers. If the students feel the teacher has a substantial bias they will be reported and reviewed. Religion is a touchy subject, nobody is going to want their religion biased against in a classroom. "it is also unconstitutional, if you didn't know." >>This point is debatable but at the same time holds no ground in THIS debate. My resolution says "should be taught" it does not dabble into the realm of constitutionality. My resolution is purely a hypothetical, it only deals with what should be ideally. "i don't mean to cut this short, but i'm at work. my next argument will be better." >> I implore that your next argument is simply a rebuttal and summary of all points you have already made as I will have no chance to respond to them. However if you would like to bring up a bunch of new things I suppose I have no ability to stop you. I just ask the voters to judge on what I had the ability to respond to. Conclusion: I advocate learning about religion in school because no one else teaches about it (to this extent). I see, under my resolution, a United States that is educated on the facts of religion and chooses wisely what religion to have. Not a United States that blindly lets religion lead their views on everything. And no, this isn't everyone, but like I said in my first speech on christianity, "how many of them truly have read the bible." I myself am an atheist but I believe religion to be a wonderful thing that has helped many many people. I just want everyone else to realize exactly what it means to be whatever religion they are. The United States consists of people, not mindless drones.
Major religions should be taught in school. Minor religions should at the very least be covered.

If children want to learn about religion then they should go to parocial school. In public schools,you learn about religion, just not detailed. Why does it need to be more informative then that? I never said you were going to favor one religion, but the thing is that teachers may give their beliefs on the matter then what? did you think about that. it is also unconstitutional, if you didn't know. i don't mean to cut this short, but i'm at work. my next argument will be better.
i will present a society (pro)and you will represent your society idea(con)

In my society govermet still exist but the people elect them not as representatives but as protectors an assembly hoes only purpose is to command the armed forces to protect the people and enforce the laws.The armed forces would be controlled by an assembly to eprevent a coup.the people would lead the countrie in the right way making laws that woud help the majority.but for this to work their must be some things like free education having children learning how to lead the country .A media network like facebook but controlled by the people were the people play the reporters that way the truth woud always come out in this woud make media manipulation impossible and that the people making reviews get money for their reviews making the people demand quality products making enerprieses compit with each other for better products .Laws shoud be maked for regulating praises and quality. the only way to sell products in my society woud be to offer higher quality products what woud end in high advancements in my society.The state woud defend the people from attacks from the exterior,enforce the laws dictated by the people and defend the people from corrupt media and bad products from companies tryng to exploit the people . Imagin there is a video game that is in development and the game is full with glitches and bugs.the game does not work well reviewers come and revive the product they notice the failings and advert the public bevor they buy it.(in my society reviewers get ascess to the product bevore the public gets their copie of the game)that woud force the game studio to postpone the realease date and improve their product when they decide that it is ready to realease reviewers woud review the product again and decide if it has the quality that it needs. The game devolleper can ignore the advice of the reviewers but than the public woud be advised so they now what they are buying. Other things crucial top my society free :water (no exaggeration),food (only the nesacerie),free healthcare ho must be good quality,housing(nothing special),clothes (no quality just the most impotant)
i will present a society (pro)and you will represent your society idea(con)

I admire your reasoning, yet I still seem to observe a few flaws in the acts of your "vision of the perfect society". In all, the perfect society needs not only the actions of a leader but the voice and support of its subdued. The perfect society entails the need for a more actively led central government, with a more inert relationship with its civilians/citizens. With a more active role of the Central Government, it will allow the government to further protect its citizens from criminals and terrorist actions. Not only will this create domestic and international security for its citizens, but also create a more economic stability. This is possible with the capabilities of more a free movement of creating equal laws that do not benefit only Large Business ( on Wall St) but also those Small Business ( on Main St ). What I am not saying is that there won't be any representation on behalf of the people but a new agency, an agency created to overview the works of the Central Government to question and to justify acts of the Central Govt.
i will present a society (pro)and you will represent your society idea(con)

I see my system supiriour to yours because(not that i have something against communism in the contreary.) -my system allow the people to make politics by theme selfs and let the people decide.but in your system you are imposing communism on the people,Not letting them choose their own goverment . -And becausse we have unchengebel laws that not allow the example on the video to happpen.like human rights. I believ if the people makes the law trough proposing laws and voting the most popular ones and taking their votes away from unpopular ones we will have a system how benefect the majority with out dicriminanting the minorities. In this system we do not vote for representitives we the people represent our self and propose our one laws and vote them. in my system we are ruled by laws not by men.we vote laws with the alternative vote how is suppiriour to the first past the vote post system .we can take our laws away at any moment from a law.making poletics always represent the people. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
i will present a society (pro)and you will represent your society idea(con)

In my society , I would prefer a more communist uptake. The people are entitled to the rights they are brought into this world with : The freedom of speech, thought, and opinion. However, it ends there, a congress will be brought together to represent each state, but will have no authority to create the laws, only suggest possible actions. The only people given the authority to make bills into laws will be the military, governors, and the Executive branch.I will also create a judiciary similar o the ones present in America, that will review to distinguish a correlation between the laws and our constitution. All the citizens of this society will be entitled to 2 years of volunteer service in the Armed Forces, to create a sense of national pride. WIth a stricter control over Economic Trade, it will ensure more of an economic stability , like those of Russia and China. Since it will be a military - like takeover , it will also ensure teenagers in this society are educated to higher academics ( college degrees and master diplomas).
i will present a society (pro)and you will represent your society idea(con)

This debatte will be two debatters tryng to decide what the best form of governing is . Votes will be cast for the society tath they represent . my society is a democracy were there arent any parties,or representation of the people by poleticians. All people are citezens have two rights for making laws . all citezens can propose laws . all citezens can vote law projects and widraw there votes for a law in any moment . if two laws contradict each other in on one or more points the law with more votes gets respected and the other laws point get suppresed. some law are unchangebel like: -human rights exept the right to have partiess or elected representatives. this goverment is really only by the people ruled for the people and by the people.