BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Playstation is better than Xbox

Okay my argument is that x-box kinect is better as it develops lesser laziness and has more immersive gaming. Laziness Twiddling your thumbs at a playstation controller, or swinging a remote doesn't provide the same level of activity as moving in front of the camera does. There are even some exercise cds in kinect. Furthermore, it makes exercise easier as people focus more on the game than on their tiredness. Immersive gaming As the character moves when you move, it provides much more immersive and fun gaming than the playstation. It is fun when you can throw fireballs with your hand or engage in a boxing match without feeling the pain. It feels as if we have total control over the character in the game. Sometimes my controller batteries run out or it stops responding, no such problem in kinect. While someone could move in front of the camera, the same problem occurs when someone moves in front of the screen. Playstation is good, but kinect is mostly better.
Teaching children religion is borderline child abuse and should be discouraged.

We, as the USA society, believe in the rights of the individual to decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. No one has the right to tell us what job we should do, whom we should marry, where we should live, what kind of car we should drive, or what religion we should follow. If this is true and we consider children to be persons with the same rights, then we should not be forcing them to adhere to a particular religious belief which they will most likely be stuck with the rest of their lives. However, because of traditional thought, we somehow think it is acceptable to tell our kids how they should believe about supernatural beings. This is wrong on a number of levels. Children are not mature enough to critically analyze the topic of religion. They are gullible and wired by nature to take everything their parents tell them as the absolute truth. They are easily intimidated and coerced by their elders. They have a right to decide on their own what they chose to believe. We don't (for the most part) tell our children the MUST be doctors when the grow up, even if we encourage them to do so. We don't insist they become republicans, even if it is likely they will. We don't arrange marriages for them (at least in this country). And we don't condone those who teach their children to be racists. Then why do we consider it a parents right to predetermine what a child should believe?
Riddle Challenge

All 3 were wrong. Riddle 1 The answer to this is that 20 foreheads went underwater not 24 heads (they sound the same). Riddle 2 833.Riddle 3As the lier knows the door to life is that but he lies so he will say about the door at his back only. And the truth speaker will say correct but he also knows that that guy is lier, so he will also answer the door at the back of that lier. Thus don't go with the door they both tell and take the another one. Think on this answer you will get the correct thing
Riddle Challenge

Here are the riddles. They should be answered by my opponent in the next round.Riddle 120 people go into an empty swimming pool. The pool is emty and no-one can come and go in. They all go under water at the same time. 24 heads pop up. How is this possible? (They all have 1 head)Riddle 2 You have been given the task of transporting 3,000 pears 1,000 miles from Pearland to Peachville. Your truck can carry 1,000 pears at a time. Every time you travel a mile towards Peachville you must pay a tax of 1 pear but you pay nothing when going in the other direction (towards Pearland).What is highest number of apples you can get to Bananaville? Riddle 3 There are two doors, one is the door that takes you to hell and one takes you to heaven. Your goal is to go through the door that takes you to heaven. But they are identical. There is a man standing in front of each door. Both men know which door is which but the man in front of the door of Hell will always lie and the man in front of the door of Heaven will always tell the truth. You can ask one question to each of them but it has to be the exact same question and it has to be a yes or no question. How do you get through the door of life? (dont cheat and ask a question like "is it 5:00 right now because you have no sense of time and you do not know anything at the moment. The question must be related to which route you take). I will cite my sources in the final round. Otherwise my opponent could just check them and find the answers. Each riddle is slightly altered so that my opponent cannnot look them up on the internet.
Riddle Challenge

My opponent must answer 3 riddles. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Riddles by me and answers by my opponentRound 3: Answers revealed If my opponent answers 1 or less riddles correctly they lose this debate. If my opponent answers 2 riddles correctly they tie this debate. If my opponent correctly answers 3 riddles then they win this debate. If my opponent trolls or forfeits they automatically lose this debate.
Counter-attack using different w3apons.

Since nothing beats God I win, I still win no matter if anything could posseble beat God's transfinite hand, because I said "Sir, since nothing beats God I'm sure I win right here and now.” And my opponent said, "EXACTLY." So that concludes my opponent agreed that I won. XD Thank you for listening to my debate round, I hope it was satisfying and you learned a lot. XD
Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

Sorry for your loss. Maybe it will get old, but it isn't old yet. Besides, it's not the same look. Every animator is slightly different, and the movement and facial expressions vary in style from film to film. "4D, 5D, 6D, etc." The fifth and sixth dimensions are parallel universes, so I highly doubt this is the route animation will take. Besides, if it did change in these ways, it would negate your point that the animation will get boring. There are no limits in computer animation. You can design anything, even if it's something you can't draw. 2D animators trace. A lot. Besides, any face you can draw, you can create on a computer. Talent and skill are indeed two different things, but it doesn't matter which one a creator uses if the product is good. Really, it's better if it only requires skill so that we can have more animators. And I highly doubt everyone in your class got the same grade. Some of them are better than others. Besides, watch two films, and things will be different. You still incorporate your own experience with emotion. I'm glad you have skill; there's no reason to understate that. It's cool. And if you add something special, maybe this will be a talent, too. The two sisters don't have to interact for the rekindling to realistic and flow naturally. Their thought processes are still evident. You do see important happenings. You just don't see things that are boring and don't matter. Otherwise, the film would be five hours long. I'll acknowledge that the movie has things more interesting than sisters. I don't see how that's something bad about the movie. It's still a great film. Her actions at the beginning are mostly her solving her own problems, but that's more than she did before. And talking to a family member you're no longer close to is exceedingly difficult. That doesn't even consider the courage it took to go into a huge ice palace. Just walking through the cold for as long as she did is a feat, considering that Anna grew up indoors. Anna wasn't into Kristoff at the beginning. That's the point. With Hans, it was love at first sight, and that ended badly. With Kristoff, she fell in love slowly, which was an accomplishment for her character. Just because a theme isn't shoved down your throat doesn't mean it's "made up [in your head]". They're harder to see, but that means they are more deeply and naturally imbedded in the film. This also allows the themes to be more adult without distracting children.
Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

Disney's Renaissance animation was certainly remarkable for the time period, but modern animation has improved upon these methods by leaps and bounds. Firstly, it's false that older Disney animation was not repetitive. Beauty and the Beast, a movie you mentioned, contains a recycled scene from Sleeping Beauty: http://images.techtimes.com... 101 Dalmatians (1996) also stole from The Jungle Book and Cinderella. http://rebloggy.com... https://youtu.be... Really, repetitiveness is just a drawback to animation in general, so we really can't hold that against newer movies. Besides, the problem isn't as persistent as you claim. The color schemes in Tangled and Frozen are completely different, with Tangled having warmer colors. That's an appropriate touch! Big Hero 6 is missing the fairy-esque-quality that Frozen and Tangled share. As for character design, modern characters aren't all the same. Check out the actual contrast between Anna and Rapunzel. https://foxhugh.files.wordpress.com... Source: https://foxhugh.com... Regardless, internal character development is what really matters. It's untrue that Elsa's character change is without transition. She starts off the film as a carefree child, who then experiences a trauma, which forces her to become reserved. Trauma does cause very fast change. Then, Elsa snaps when put in a highly stressful situation. This is also realistic, as she was confronted with a crowd of people she doesn't know how to lead; her sister, who she hasn't seen since the aforementioned trauma; and the real threat of exposing her powers: the source of her debilitating shame. Consequently, she experiences an awakening (Let It Go). This is not her true character change, though. In reality, she's just recovering from the trauma. The changing happens later, (and more slowly), as Anna helps Elsa deal with the self-hatred her powers caused. She learns that magic can be good. Her character settles back into a balanced state. Anna also had to cope with the consequences of an unhealthy childhood. She was lonely enough to fall for someone upon just meeting him, and then learns throughout the film how to have a healthy relationship by interacting with Kristoff. The music in Frozen is very necessary. Frozen Heart opens the movie and gives us the setting. It also foreshadows the motif of ice, and the involvement of Kristoff. Do You Want to Build a Snowman sets up Elsa and Anna's conflicts to be resolved. In Summer is indeed mostly just for fun, but that's not necessarily a problem. Kids love it, and these movies do have to appeal to children. It also sets off Olaf's character as a sidekick, which is necessary to give Disney its fun atmosphere. Fixer Upper is an excellent showcase of Kristoff's character and his relationship with Anna. It also creates contrast and shock when Anna collapses. (BTW: Just to clarify, I'm assuming you have the burden of proof here? So, it's your job to prove that Renaissance Disney was better than modern Disney, and I have to refute what you say. Or should I be actively trying to prove that modern Disney is better?)
Were Disney Movies Better In The 1990s? I SAY YES!

During Disney's Renaissance days, their movies always had beautiful animation that captured human emotions in unique ways. They had touching musical scores that served to tie in the story line and great voice actors and actresses. All the movies had their own original and distinct animation styles separate from each other, setting the atmosphere for us to follow. Look at the distinct difference between Hercules animation style VS Beauty and The Beast VS Aladdin...all of them distinctly different in animation. http://images5.fanpop.com... https://katejohns619.files.wordpress.com... http://www.musogato.com... And most importantly, the movies had excellent stories that served to evolve the characters. None of the characters were perfect, but they evolved throughout the story, learning their lessons and becoming better people. And each of the characters whether it was a carpet or tea pot served to help the main characters evolve. Movies like Tangled, Brave, and Frozen don't do it. Not even Big Hero 6. All of the animation is repetitive with no animation identity. Anna looks like Rapunzel with red hair. There's hardly any distinction between the animations. This is Tangled VS Frozen VS Big Hero 6. http://cdn.avsforum.com... http://www.rotoscopers.com... http://womenwriteaboutcomics.com... They all look like goofy big headed freaks. Tangled and Frozen look like they are the same movie in a different setting. There's no emotion behind the way these characters were made. They are just there. And as far as character evolution, none of their side characters help the character evolve in any way. As far as story, the stories seem unoriginal neither are they creative. Frozen didn't honestly have a story. It had a good idea, but it didn't have a story. There was no direction, no character evolution, all the characters pretty much remained the same. The only one that changed was Elsa, and her "change" happened very early. There was no transition. None of the songs served to tie in the story, except Love is an Open Door, For The First Time In Forever, and Let It Go. The rest were just random songs for no reason. There used to be a time movies would focus on making the best story lines and giving a setting that would serve to help the characters evolve. Now, it is all about how things like CGI, silly humor, and social agendas. These things, in my opinion do not make a movie timeless. These kinds of movie cannot resonate in the hearts of people thousands of years from now. They will only be trends until something better comes along.
Life and why we are all Tywin Lannister

I will gladly accept this challenge. Before i continue i would like to define a few things. Tywin Lannister - fictional story character found in the Game of Thrones books. In the TV adaptation of the book, the fictional character is being played by Charles Dance Define: we = used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together. Define: identity theft = the fraudulent acquisition and use of a person's private identifying information, usually for financial gain Google: Dunbar's Number I won't go in much detail since i hope it is self-explaining but in the case that it isn't i will explain myself in the next round. :)
Life and why we are all Tywin Lannister

As a student, I find myself surrounded by people who, not only seek to oppress and bully the people who are open and serious about their sexuality, but also label others as gay etc based on their outward appearances. why? it isn't like that when we grow up, is it? get jobs, start families? are we oppressed throughout our whole lives unless we go with the crowd? if that's the case and I, as well as other young people from all walks of life, am destined for, then why shouldn't I declare myself a different breed of human, go live in a forest somewhere and live off of crops that I grow, no electricity, no complications. why is it that we are all stuck in this dredge of human existence? never to experience beyond the normal goals: grades, jobs, families, legacy. we are all Tywin Lannister. (footnote: if I was Tywin, I would be pro-incest, because Tyrion is adorable!)
is chess a skill that all people should know

Likewise, actually, contrary to what you have said, just about anyone can paint! Even elephants paint flowers and self-portraits of themselves: http://www.youtube.com... There are people with no arms who can paint: http://www.google.com... You mean that we might not all paint as well. Well maybe but art is expressive and subject too so it depends. But even still, whether you are good at painting or not, the skills and the therapy from painting are still useful in many ways, similarly in principle as you have suggested chess. I could go on and on like you have about how some of us can't play chess, are any good at chess, etc., like you are about painting.
is chess a skill that all people should know

Sure, I of course agree with you. But then I could say that when you make a mistake in painting that it helps people let go and not take life too seriously. I could say how perfect painting technique teaches discipline. How using different color paint creates a synergy that nothing else can create and it teaches people a lot about themselves, other people, and that these are important life lessons. But, nevertheless, I will not want others to be forced to paint or say it is a necessary skill, etc. I might consider your idea as training for a vocation as a military commander or surgeon etc. but not especially for a scientist or musician..
is chess a skill that all people should know

I understand that using the idea that it uses different parts of the brain can be applied to everything but in chess unlike painting you can take the lessons and apply it to all aspects of your life. The skill of chess really has a meaning of thinking above the one piece but also to a big picture. Teaching not only that but many other lessons like when to sacrifice things for the greater good. Every person should know the skill also does not mean you have too but more on the recommendation to benefit and enrich your life.
Multipe Fire Drills at Schools do more good than harm

It is most unfortunate that our diligent instigator could not pick up his sword and continue this one on one duel of ours. Such a pity. Alas, he hasn't respond, therefore, my previous arguments go unquestioned. BOTTOMLINE: The contender wins this debate not only because the instigator had ended up agreeing with the enormous good multiple fire drills do in school during the previous round, but also because none of his reasons can be considered as truly being harmful; if anything, his reasons are positive attributes that favor my side of the resolution. Thus, it would be within your best interest to vote in favor of the contender. Thank you.
Multipe Fire Drills at Schools do more good than harm

Thanks for taking this debate, First I will rebutt my oppenents points "If anything though, you students are in the mode of following the "fire drill" code of conduct, are you not? In other words, you are all well used to walking out of the building every time a fire drill occurs. If this is indeed the case, then wouldn't having multiple fire drills only make you more well prepared on how to respond to a real fire drill?" Since we are in the mode of following the fire drill code of conduct then everytime the fire alarm rings, we think it is still a fire drill because we are so used to following the fire drill code of conduct. Also everytime we go to line up all of us are talking walking in a blob etc. because none of us are taking it seriously as a real fire. On the other hand, if you were to have a fire drill every once in a while, you wouldn't be as familiar with how to deal with a fire drill. In other words, things are less likely to go as planned when there are not multiple fire drills. Rather, anarchy amongst your ranks is more likely to occur as you students wouldn't be as nearly as familiar in actual dealing with a so-called "fire." Actually we would be prepared for the fire becasue of the couple of fire drills we had but also would be more serious because you never know if its a real fire because it doesnt happen often, or if its a fire drill because we have a couple during the school year so your always on your toes when the fire alarm sounds. Thanks,
Multipe Fire Drills at Schools do more good than harm

Greetings to my fair audience and to my diligent opponent. In response to the instigator saying: "I would like to start off by saying that multiple fire drills at schools do more harm than good because every time a fire alarm goes I know me and my classmates will go "Oh another fire drill" Since we have done so many fire drills none of us actually think that it is real just a drill so we never take it seriously." If anything though, you students are in the mode of following the "fire drill" code of conduct, are you not? In other words, you are all well used to walking out of the building every time a fire drill occurs. If this is indeed the case, then wouldn't having multiple fire drills only make you more well prepared on how to respond to a real fire drill? On the other hand, if you were to have a fire drill every once in a while, you wouldn't be as familiar with how to deal with a fire drill. In other words, things are less likely to go as planned when there are not multiple fire drills. Rather, anarchy amongst your ranks is more likely to occur as you students wouldn't be as nearly as familiar in actual dealing with a so-called "fire." I'll have more to my case when my opponent answers my questions. END OF ROUND 1.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA championship this year

My Case: BULLS gonna win. I. Comparison DEFENSIVE STATS: Rebounds Per Game: Chicago (1st) Boston (30th) Opponent Rebounds Per Game: Chicago (3rd) Boston (10th) Blocks Per Game: Chicago (3rd) Boston (6th) OFFENSIVE STATS: Points Per Game: Chicago (18th) Boston (26th) Opponent Points Per Game: Chicago (1st) Boston (2nd) FG%: Chicago (12th) Boston (5th) 3-point %: Chicago (3rd) Boston (7th) INFRACTION STATS: Turn-overs: Chicago (6th fewest) Boston (17th) Fouls: Chicago (2nd fewest) Boston (18th) DQ's: Chicago (11th fewest) Boston (25th) Record: Chicago: 50-16 (1st) Boston 39-27 (9th) Win Percentage: Chicago: 76% Boston: 59% Playoff Win Percentage: Chicago: 100% Boston: 0% Games Back: Chicago: Best record in NBA. Boston: 11 games back. Road Record: Chicago: 24-9 (73%) Boston 15-18 (45%) Record when scoring above 100: Chicago: 22-0. PERFECT RECORD. Boston: 14-4. Record when opponent scores above 100: Chicago: 8-5 (2nd) Boston: 3-6 (8th) Chicago: 16/17 Boston: 1/17 So in EVERY category except field goal %, Chicago is superior. Now Pro's entire argument rests on Boston being better than Atlanta. This is flawed in two ways: 1. To win the championship, they will have to better than ALL other teams, not the 5th seed in the east. 2. Atlanta has won every playoff game against Boston thus far. Also, Rajon Rondo, the only person carrying that team, is suspended for Game 2.
The Boston Celtics will win the NBA championship this year

I take it my OPP was taken away by the Boston Celtics and their slick moves on and off the court. Other points I would like to add to prove the Celtics will win the NBA championship, the Chicago Bulls are one of the weakest number 1 seeds out their currently especially with D. Rose not at his best. Miami has lost to the Boston Celtics 3 times this season and only during one game they did not have Lebron, Wade, Bosh out on the floor. Atlanta may have locked up an extra home court advantage, but this season the Boston Celtics have proved they can win either at home or onto road