BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Novels are better than the movies based on novels

Well bravo to my opponent.I'm a little pressed on time due to a final presentation I'm putting together, but Jonelle never forfeits (anymore)!So I'll focus on the important stuff.THE IMPORTANT STUFF:My opponent has presented several great reasons for why he feels novels are better than the movies based off them. Of course, some of these are correct, but let's not underestimate the power of entertainment. Afterall, can your mind realy create all of the aesthetics so simultaenously that you're able to feel the scene from the book the way you do from the movie?They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This is true if you have a good photographer. This is why movies need to hire good videographers (Ahem... I'm talking to you Battleship). Anyway, the point I wish to make is that movies and shows have the capability to do these things and often utilize them. Especially with the advancement of cinematography in general. However, I think the movies can and do often times do a better job at engulfing the audience into the story in a way that feels almost effortless to us.Movies have gotten a bad imprn the eyes of many for this awkward cash-grabbing phase they've been going through, but if you look to emerging directors and screen writers, you can see a positive wave that may take us beyond the storywriting quality of old movies with the cinematic quality of the latest technology. In fact, I believe movies will make a signficant improvement, and I won't need to rest my case on movies from back in the day like the Shining.Thank you for reading!
Novels are better than the movies based on novels

I still hold my opinion that the best character is the character created my the audience themselves, personally. Though there are exceptions like the one my opponent mentioned and Heath Ledger (THE JOKER! ( Yeah, Graphic Novels! )). This debate has been about which among the two, novels and movies based on novels are better. I say novels are better, and my opponent has just substantiated my point. I never said that movies aren't good, they are just not as good as the novels. They don't hold so many advantages as the novels hold. And comparisions are held with respect to the majority of the stuff, so, the few exceptions that do exist don't really make a big difference while deciding which of the two (Novels and movies) is better, from an overall perspective. The few movies that do come out to be better than the novels have to be super splendid, or the book has to be super boring, or maybe both. So, I reach the conclusion that even though some movies are awesome, if they have a novel counterpart, its probably a good idea to read them, and they will come out to be better than the movie most of the times. That doesn't mean, obviously, that movies suck. Movies actually can be very good and awe inspiring. But the novel has more wide spread advantages, and definitely is better. I think I have been successful in proving my point. I would like to thank you a lot for reading this far, if you did, and I would definitely thank Jonbonbon for this debate! Its nice to see things from the perspective of a different person! I would like to see if the conclusion my oponent draws is similar or if there still are some differences among us. :D
Novels are better than the movies based on novels

My opponent here basically summed up that all movies might not be better than their novels, but some exceptions are there. She also gave some excellent examples making this debate all the more interesting. I agree that there are movies in which the director has done a wonderful work. I myself am an emotional person and might get my eyes watery and a lump in the throat *sigh* while watching a really heartbreaking scene, accompanied by a good music, but not all, not even 50% of the movies based on novels are that good. Besides, novels are better than movies in other grounds too other than just entertainment. Books last longer and are more detailed, while movies have a fixed time. Reading lets the story mingle for a long time and only a good movie can compare to that. My opponent says, 'If the actors are good, they can be the character better than your mind can. ' I disagree. No matter how good the actor is, or how hot he or she is :p, they can not be everyone 'perfect' character in the audience. The actor might be appealing to some people, fifty people? Maybe a 100 people... But that's sill less than 10% of the audience. Let me elucidate what the other benefits of novels are over movies. 1.) Books are portable - To read a book, you don't have to carry a laptop, or strain your eyes looking at the smart phone screen, although you might choose to read an e-book. If you want to read an e-book, you can simply zoom in so the text is big enough not to strain your eyes, but you can't zoom into a movie because it is constantly moving and the images are changing fast, so you will miss most of the things even if you find a way to zoom into a movie. 2.)Books improve your vocabulary, and they are cheaper. To me, it seems like books are just promoting the need to at least learn to read. Learning to read basic English will not take more than a couple of years, and won't cost much either in today's technologically advancing world. Notice that I am only saying this for learning BASIC English. Novels are cheaper than movies almost always, so they are better economically too. 3.)A lot of movies are made just for money, lowering the quality by a lot, But the movie can still get successful, even if it is just a waste of time and money, because it has a good handsome man and a gorgeous woman acting in it. This is because more people care about the attractiveness of the people acting, than caring about the story. This can't be with a novel. If a novel is bad, good acting or something like that can't save it from going down. So you almost never waste time and money on a novel. You are getting what you paid for. Sources - 1.) http://www.thetoptens.com... 2.) Personal experiences through life Thanks a lot for reading. Have a good day!
Religion only brings negative things to the world.

I have to say this was absolutely unexpected, considering the accusations you've made of me. "... you clearly aren't listening... refuses to read what I'm saying."Am I arguing pigeons have cocks? To come up with the arguments I did, I was required to read and assess your arguments without which I couldn't come up with a bull."...you can't understand what I'm saying"Oh. Ok."I hope you will some day be free of your religious chains, you should read what I've written again maybe you'll get it someday."Getting a little personal, are we? Too bad I'm not religious, myself. Maybe you should read what you've written again, and see that this deviation was completely unecessary.One would think by the fourth round you'd be ready to wrap up your arguments.As a former policeman, I'd suggest making a case, and not baseless accusations.
Religion only brings negative things to the world.

Right then, you clearly aren't listening to what I'm saying and I don't see any point in debating with someone who refuses to read what I'm saying. It's just a waste of time, I'm sorry that you can't understand what I'm saying, especially when I'm writing such "simple" english. I hope you will some day be free of your religious chains, you should read what I've written again maybe you'll get it someday.
Religion only brings negative things to the world.

Don't think this debate needs 5 rounds.Here go my arguments:1. It doesn't. You state in your resolution that "religion only brings negative things to the world", which you disagree with when you state "...in my perspective it's mostly a negative influence". If religion only brings negative things to the world, it's influence would be wholly negative, not even slightly positive or non-negative. Your resolution argues for an absolute, while you argue otherwise in your rounds, thus revealing the contradiction and the unreliabity of your sources.2. Someone in the comments did mention this. Your resolution argues that religion can't possibly bring anything non-negative in the world, which you contradict again with your statements. Take note, you're arguing for an absolute, that is, religion only brings negative things to the world, and not "religion has more negative influence on the world". Argue accordingly."...if you have 100 good people, 99 theists and 1 atheists, then obviously it would look like the theist do more good because they are the majority"Again, this has absolutely no bearing on religion having a slightly positive influence on the world, which you have admitted (a contradiction again) making my task easier. You're not arguing "non-religious people have a more positive influence on the world than religious people", which is something I agree with.3. Basically the same blabber again, so I won't go about marking your contradictions yet again, seeing as I have to attend to a wonderful job, and a wonderful (Christian) wife." I look up to historical figures like Einstein, Newton, Churchill, Copernicus, Kant, Nietzsche etc. They are all people who inspire me and make me dream and think and wonder and wanting to know more."So do I. I also look up the my beer-mates, when my wife's unwilling to have sex with me. What's your point?4. "So no, being an atheists doesn't mean that I can't team up with the theists in our neighbourhood to do some good."Okay. So? You go do that, doesn't mean those Christian Churches can't congregate your neighbourhood peeps to a mass and help them in some way."You can easily find a list of the biggest atheists charity organisations online."I can also find you a list of the best hookers in town."Your links still don't disprove me"They do. Unless, you could make a case arguing how 'religion can only bring negative things to the world.'Here's the second link, by the way:https://www.uwgb.edu...My hope is it is abundantly clear to you, what my 'misunderstanding' has been.By the way, I don't mind your language, since it's extremely easy to understand you.
Religion only brings negative things to the world.

Your resolution argues that "religion (can) only bring(s) negative things to the world."Yet you state the following: #1. "...in my perspective it's mostly a negative influence since religion"Your perspective doesn't comply with what you've stated in your resolution which means it's contradictory, thus unreliable.#2:"For example, atheists can have hope, do good, be happy etc without a God"Doesn't mean religion cannot or doesn't do any good. For example, religion is responsible for wide-spread cooperation across the globe. [1]#3:"It seems that the only thing we actually gain from religion is negative things since we don't need religion for any of the good things"What seems to me, is that that statement is factually incorrect which may or may not be true until I state this: Religion can have a positive influence as it inspires people to higher ideals of morality with mention of important historical figures such as Mother theresa. [2]#4: "Name 1 good thing we can't do without religion."It is logically impossible to donate to a charitable Christian organization without religion.Thus, I've refutted your resolution.[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] https://www.uwgb.edu...
Religion only brings negative things to the world.

Religion has a huge influence on the world, in my perspective it's mostly a negative influence since religion gives us nothing we can't have without religion. For example, atheists can have hope, do good, be happy etc without a God but you don't see a person killing in the name of a God they don't believe in. It seems that the only thing we actually gain from religion is negative things since we don't need religion for any of the good things. Name 1 good thing we can't do without religion. I would like to focus mainly to the religion surrounding the bible.
Jesus did not dismiss the Old Testment laws.

(Here is my argument) Here are actual quotes from Jesus, to support my claim: "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17) "For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:18-19) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17) "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) Note: When Jesus said "until all things have taken place." In (Matthew 5:17), he is referring to the rapture. When Jesus was criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating, Jesus defended himself by telling them that they follow the tradition of the elders and not the commandments of God. Jesus said "For God said 'honor your father and your mother.' And 'whoever curses father or mother shall die."(Matthew 15:4), this is an Old Testament law. It seems clear, Jesus wanted us to follow the Old Laws, for they are from God, and no law will pass until all is done. It was Paul who thought the Old Testament should pass after Jesus had come. But, Jesus was more on the side of keeping the Old Testament till the end of times. Here is a Christian website that supports what I have claimed. https://carm.org... I am quoting Jesus, not what Paul wrote. If Canyouguessmyusername would. Please, give me quotes from Jesus, saying when he sacrifices himself to save us, the Old Testament will pass as well.
Creationism as truth should not be taught in schools (Contender: Con)

As the rise of the highly contradictory theory of evolution reigns in today's society, should we still teach creationism as actual truth in schools? Creationism as actual truth: implying that creationism was the real answer to the origin of species. Contender will argue that creationism should still be taught as actual truth in schools (Con). I will argue that creationism should not be taught in schools at all (Pro). Good luck.
Can women be in higher positions of force oraganisations

Cons of Women in Combat A number of arguments have been raised in defense of military policy that bans women from combat roles. Below is an overview of, the pros and cons, the key arguments put forth in support and against the enlisting of women soldiers into combat units. CONS Overview: There are female servicemembers who have proven themselves to be physically, mentally, and morally capable of leading and executing combat-type operations; as a result, some of these Marines may feel qualified for the chance of taking on the role. In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration? " Captain Katie Petronio, US Marine Corps, served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq Physical Ability. While the majority of jobs in the armed forces are open equally to men and women, there are some to which women are just not physically suited. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. In addition, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men"s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. Efficiency. Some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. While integration of women into combat is possible for those qualified, the small number versus the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integration do not make it a worthwhile move. Morale & Cohesion. Having women serving in direct combat will hamper mission effectiveness by hurting unit morale and cohesion. Military readiness. Pregnancy can affect the deployability of a unit when the unit has a disproportionate number of women or is understaffed. Tradition. Men, especially those likely to enlist, maintain traditional gender roles. In some situations, men are may act foolishly to protect women in their combat units. Harassment and resentment of the presence of women in a hyper masculine military subculture would likely become a problem. Abuse by Enemy. Both male and female prisoners are at risk of torture and rape, but misogynistic societies may be more willing to abuse woman prisoners. Career advancement. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations.
Religion in society

There is not a single religion whose doctrine commands the violent treatment of those who disobey it. Ask any non-terrorist Muslim to show you the scripture commanding non-violence and no killing of human beings. Therefore if any society were to base its law around it, being violent and aggressive would only display their incapability to read and fully understand their scripture (as many Arab nations have failed to do to the Qur'an).Instead, there would be prison sentences and other humane methods of punishment based around what would be applicable to a modern day society (since following a religion is no excuse to not consider international relations and world standards of human rights). It is thus that I conclude that if a nations were to elect a religion to base its law around, it would be incorrect for them to sway form it in any way.Whilst the Bible and Qur'an have stoning involved in punishment processes (the bible only having such i the old, and often disregarded, testament) it would clearly be a reason for the UN to step in and violently stop the violence (ironic but true). So if you want to pick at random quotes from certain texts feel free to do so but often that was only applicable to the primitive cultures merely beginning to form as the religious texts were written.
Religion in society

Thank you for accepting and giving your thoughts. Well, if a society were to follow a religion, I agree the scriptures should not be contradicted. But if an individual were to disregard those scriptures, even accidentally without thinking, like some people do, then would the price to pay be fierce? Seeing as if a society were to follow a religion, much like Americans or Europeans follow governments, then we could safely say there WOULD be terrible consequences for accidentally placing your feet in the wrong hole. How would this affect individuality? Or the worship of a separate religion as in America? Would they be held to trial, or simply deported/ "disappear"? People would be sent into an isolation phase where they couldn't say anything in fear of saying something wrong or disgraceful. Also this doctrine you speak of; would it be much like a monarchy Unitary System of government? So the "greater power" would be God of course, but the leader of the society, I assume the position is known as Pope, who is to say might become power hungry and use the word of God against anyone who questions him over making laws or forming a government, or even controlling lifestyle by extremes? We all see how many and terrorist groups perform and are corrupt. I believe it possible that that society would be so enveloped with the doctrine that they take drastic strikes at other religions or groups. The mentality is all the same, support your cause by any means necessary even if it means dominance by violence.
Religion in society

I want to have a debate about how religion affects our society. Should religion have an affect in our political decisions? Lifestyle decisions? Split second decisions? Please feel free to pick one or all of these questions, or elaborate on your own thoughts. Again, I am only looking for a friendly debate about religion within society. Round 1- challenge, choose a topic listed or give your thoughts w/explanation Rd 2- Debate start, rebuttal's Rd 3- Rebuttals Rd 4- Rebuttals Rd 5- Conclusion/Final points This Debate is just to get thoughts flowing. Please no profanity or discrimination
How an accurance happenes in a religon to where it can change the face of that religon.

My opponent opens the second round by pointing out that I misunderstood what he is arguing. I will now do my best to frame his new argument and reply as best I can. My opponent rephrases his initial contention: "I mean horrible diocesans made buy a head / representative of such religion ! " To rephrase this as best I can, I believe my opponent is saying the following: The ‘horrible' bishop of a diocese (diocesan) [1] could potentially purchase an authority of a particular religion. I accept my opponent's rephrasing of his resolution and will attempt to offer a point of view countering his arguments. My opponent begins his arguments in support of his resolution: "The biggest example is 9/11 it is one of the worlds most known events to happen" I'll concede that 9/11 is one of ‘the most known events to happen'. My opponent will still have to show how it is an example supporting his resolution that bishops may purchase religious authorities. "Because of that Muslims world wide are known as ' Terrorist's " which in my opinion is being a hypocrite ! " My opponents has the burden of proof to show that Muslims world wide are known as terrorists, as opposed to terrorists being known as Muslims, and further how this affects his resolution, and who is being hypocritical in the formation of any such opinion. Further, should my opponent's resolution ultimately be that Islam at large should not be misperceived as ‘sympathetic to any terrorist entity', he must show public perception to Islam before and after 9/11 to use this argument. My opponent continues: "Most of the % of the non Muslim world do not know the first thing about Islam ! " This may be true. How it affects the resolution depends on how my opponent expands upon it. He expands upon it: "All they Know is that they believe in Allah ( S. W. T ) and Allah means God ! It is just the Arabic language name for God ! " This would seem to contradict my opponent's previous statement that most non-Muslims don't know the first thing about Islam. The first thing being, in my opinion, that Muslims believe in Allah, and Allah means god in Arabic, which my opponent believes is all that non-Muslims know. I have seen no example or evidence of a bishop purchasing any religious authorities. All contentions have therefore been resolved and the resolution in negated. Vote Pro. [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
How an accurance happenes in a religon to where it can change the face of that religon.

But You see that's not what I meant ! I mean horrible diocesans made buy a head / representative of such religion ! The biggest example is 9/11 it is one of the worlds most known events to happen. Because of that Muslims world wide are known as ' Terrorist's " which in my opinion is being a hypocrite ! Most of the % of the non Muslim world do not know the first thing about Islam ! All they Know is that they believe in Allah ( S.W.T ) and Allah means God ! It is just the Arabic language name for God !