BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Ending to Sherlock was bad

I agree this debate did stray a bit from the original topic. XDBut arguing the ending may have been important in determining whether the ending was bad or not. I would condense the base arguments into main points, however the pro already has.1) Lack of MysteryI believe the fact that we could have the majority of our debate revolve around the "true" conclusion reveals that there is quite a bit of mystery to be seen. Both the Pro and myself have presented compelling arguments why our interpretation of the ending is the correct one, in the end though we can't know, and it is this uncertainty that creates mystery.2) Bad TasteAs the Pro stated in his Round 2 the hypnosis was seen in many classic mystery books, including Sherlock Holmes. To say that the ending using hypnosis is bad taste is similar to condemning the original sources as well. My opponent stated in his third round that my argument was that the ending was realistic, this isn't true, throughout the entire debate i haven't argued that it was at all realistic, Sherlock Holmes is a fiction story, I believe it stayed true enough to create realistic drama that made the ending very good. And as I must admit, being a fan of the Sherlock Holmes books, the show does not have the same type of intellectualism, i believe it still preserves it enough to remain true to original, while including enough drama and action to make it a popular show.3) It was badI completely agree with PrivatEye that the subjectivness of the debate itself does make it hard to judge. He says it's bad I say it is good, it all comes down to arguementation.ConclusionIn my 3 rounds I have refuted the Pro's arguments why the ending was bad by providing plausible conclusions to the possible resolutions for the Sherlock season 2 ending and stating why each of those was still a good ending, including the hypnosis ending. Due to this fact, I believe the audience should vote Con.Aside (not to be considered with regards to voting): This was a really fun debate PrivatEye, this is one of the things i really enjoy about mysteries like this there are multiple interpretations and endings. In the end we can agree to disagree on how it ended but we can agree it is an awesome show.
The Ending to Sherlock was bad

I apologize for a subjective conclusion, but it is almost impossible to have a completely objective argument. Refutation of HypnosisThough the Hypnosis argument itself is plausible one needs to take into account Holmes reaction. After Moriarty kills himself, he acts distraught, nearly falling over, but for who? The only two situations where this is nessary are:1. Moriarty wasn't really dead and Sherlock had to convince him that he jumped out of desperation.2. Holmes was truly surprised by Moriarty's actions and after gaining composure, continued on the plan to fake his death.In the first situation hypnosis isn't necessary, and in the second situation the question needs to be asked, why does he act this way if there is no one to see it. Even if a third party was watching, almost everyone assumes Holmes is a heartless machine so, while they would have been suspicious, they would still have seen Holmes jump off which would put their doubts to rest. Why Explanation 1 would still be a Good EndingWhile in my first round, i speculated on a possible explanation of why Moriarty killed himself, it was just one of the many speculations that answer the Moriarty dilemma. In that argument I stated why it would not be a bad ending to the conflict, now i will explain why the only other possibility is also not a bad ending. Something to point out is that Jim Moriarty is almost, if not as, clever as Holmes, he would not pull such an elaborate stunt or decisive move unless it was completely necessary. *Inserting my Opinions on The Holmes-Moriarty Incident* I imagine Moriarty isn't really dead, but faked his death to have Sherlock kill himself. If Sherlock turns out to be really dead, then he was just normal, if not, then the game continues and the next season is filled with drama, secrecy and action[1]. Since we don't know what is happening in season 3 it is impossible to judge whether or not the ending is just a simple conclusion to a extremely well set up plot, or an even more complex hidden story only to be revealed later. This entire debate comes down to one thing, whether or not Moriarty is really dead. The Pro asserts that if Moriarty truly killed himself, the main antagonist killed off in an anticlimactic manner, then the main conflict in is a failure, as i proved false in my first round, if Moriarty is dead then the story is just beginning and even more drama awaits. Refutation of Cadaver ArgumentSherlock as we know faked his death with some help from Molly, and if Sherlock herbology knowledge is as extensive and imaginative the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock, then the hydrated rhododendron(note the plant itself is real, but the effects are not) could have been used to fool the first responders and Watson [2]. The Cadaver argument is completely illogical and is easily refuted. [1]http://cumberqueen.tumblr.com... (plausible explanations that show that moriarty may have faked his death)[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (only mentions the plant and, it's use in 2009 Sherlock movie)Back to you PrivatEyep.s. I thought the video was pretty good
The Ending to Sherlock was bad

Good evening, Debate.org! This is my first debate on this site and I'm rather excited now to be honest. I had actually expected to launch myself straight into argument, but I feel I must first offer up my appreciation for the format, so prolific as it seems in general, and just for the order of it otherwise. I was just making argument on YouTube only moments ago and felt my efforts wasted... So, yes! Thank you!And now onto what I want to debate. I am of the opinion that the ending to the TV mini-series 'Sherlock' is bad. And that's about it. My opponent will be arguing otherwise, that it is good, or at least not bad. bad - https://www.google.com...And that's the parameters for the debate set.Now, let's set the scene:Sherlock and Moriarty's battle comes to its climax atop some roof or other, snipers everywhere, it's all very hectic.Very good. But the table seems slanted for Moriarty's advantage. Sherlock must kill himself - jump from the building - or snipers will kill his loved ones, Moriarty having taken himself out of the equation. But no, that's not how it happens. Instead, Sherlock hypnotizes Moriarty into killing himself, suggesting they're both the same, positing himself as Moriarty's purpose in life pretty much, and then he throws the body he'd brought from the morgue with him off the building, fooling Moriarty's henchmen, and Good Game, Sherlock wins!...booo! *throws tomatoes*I mean, come on... That was some pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t right there. And then where are they even going to go with it? *Next episode, new season* Watson: "Oh Sherlock, you're alive!" Sherlock: "Ya, brainwashed that idiot Moriarty and threw a corpse off a roof YOLO" Watson: "Ya, good episode man 420 blaze it" (LOL) No, but seriously... that sh*t was anticlimactic...Let's further analzye how this sh*t might play out:Scenario 1: see above - YOLO 420 blaze itScenario 2: Holmes the Megalomaniac - "Haha!" laughs Moriarty from Bin Laden's cave which the latter is finished using. "What a f*cking idiot!"Scenario 3: Holmes and Moriarty are both Freemasons. (RIP Bin Laden)Let's consider Doyle's rendition, The Final Problem:It comes down to the primal, both parties having expended their intellectual powers, a brutal and sensible ending. And an actual ending. In conclusion:...the ending was obviously bad. It was just bad. They shouldn't have done it. Holmes said "kill yourself" and Moriarty killed himself... -_-
Article 124A, Sedition Law of India should not be abolished

I will take the Con position and argue that Article 124A should be abolished. I take it from Pro that the burden of proof is shared. REFUTATIONSPro has misrepresented what Article 124A actually says. I will quote it directly:“124A. Sedition. — Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine. [1]"In summary, the sedition law is merely a political tool used to silence criticism or hatred towards the ruling Government (the country itself is not even mentioned in the article itself). Pro argues, "By sedition we mean to say anyone, who by words, written or verbal, by signs or by anything tries to bring hatred for the country and promote violence against one's own country. "Refutation: This doesn't match Article 124A itself and how it defines sedition. If you want to argue whether an article should be abolished or not, you should follow what that article itself says. Pro argues, "In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Freedom of speech has certain reasonable restrictions which include sovereignty, integrity and public order of the country. "Refutation: Based on this definition, there should be no freedom that leads to revolutions or revolutionary changes because the order of the country might be affected. If this was to be taken seriously, there would have been no progress in human history and civilization but a total silence toward backwardness to preserve sovereignty. It is nothing more than democracy to have people who are either anti-government or pro-government. This was only considered illegal by British colonialists who reintroduced the aforementioned article to serve their own political and economical interests. Pro argues, "Freedom of speech implies the right to express one's beliefs but not at the cost of disintegrating the unity of the country. Vandalism is condemnable while sedition is free speech? "Refutation: To think that an act of sedition, that is challenging the government, would make a massive country collapse is an unrealistic assumption that the country is a house of cards. India is a massive political landscape with a high diversity of opinions and attitudes. Trying to make anti-government attitudes illegal and punishable will not unify but extend the fracture. SUMMARYIn conclusion, Pro misrepresented Article 124A and argued against a strawman. I have shown the misrepresentation and argued that Article 124A should be abolished as it is meant to prohibit challenging the government at the expense of human progress and civilization. REFERENCES[1] Textbook on the Indian Penal Code. K. D. Gaur. Fourth Edition. Universal Law Publishing, 2009. Page 226.
Article 124A, Sedition Law of India should not be abolished

Sedition Law Should NOT be abolished. By sedition we mean to say anyone, who by words, written or verbal, by signs or by anything tries to bring hatred for the country and promote violence against one's own country. It is often argued that sedition violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech, but even freedom of speech has certain restrictions. In the words of Dr. BR Ambedkar, Freedom of speech has certain reasonable restrictions which include sovereignty, integrity and public order of the country. Sedition promotes violence, hatred and war against one's own country and government. A person brings hatred for his/her own country and when charged with sedition, claims to exercise his freedom of speech is absolutely wrong. Freedom of speech implies the right to express one's beliefs but not at the cost of disintegrating the unity of the country. Vandalism is condemnable while sedition is free speech?
Brexit was unwise.

It's an honour, Envisage.Yes, this debate format is nice, but a little bit tight, if you know what I mean?Brexit's Disadvantages:Most Foreign Direct Investment comes from the EU. UK's FDI is worth 1 trillion [1]. Foreign investors like investing in the UK because it gives them easy access to the EU's single market (which means less borders in moving goods, less tarriffs, and more profit). Brexit makes it harder for UK to trade with EU. Deals can be made but will probably not be as good as it was before Brexit.Thus, investors look elsewhere than UK. UK loses a varied amount of FDI.Graph:http://tinyurl.com...Any deals made, is likely to be complicated. The leaders of the EU have already said that in order for UK to access the single market, it must allow free movement of EU workers (for them to easily immigrate to the UK). [2]Brexit means EU workers may not meet requirements for working in the UK, especially filling out the infamous UK visa test for non-EU citizens. About 3/4 of EU workers would fail this test, those in the primary and secondary sector (farming, hotel staff etc.). [3]It's not just a problem of foreign workers. It's also the UK's own workforce, which relies on the EU as well. Being out of the EU means British workers need to apply for a work visa to work abroad. [4]Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...That's it for now, due to space, and that I have to refute Con's arguments, as well as refute his rebuttals.(small ad: fanfics are being revived in the Entertainment section. Come check them out!)
Abortion isn't justified

Being a woman is a basic principle to be placed in a Constitutional United State. All woman are created equal by their creator. Woman. Female specific amputation is not pregnancy abortion it is a choice not to accept the idea of officerly stopping pregnancy takes place only after ovulation has been officially stop by fertilization. Abortion is most often justified. The reason there is justification is due to the admission and not accusation it portrays. A woman has a 5th Amendment right to admit wrong. The issue is in legislation as the united state of the wording abortion describes all woman only have the choice to admit wrong. A cool drink, Air conditioning, Or some shade are great for when things become over heated.
Did the US Forces kill Osama bin Laden

The US wouldn't lie about such an event as killing bin Laden in order to be the most powerful nation for two reasons. First off is that it wasn't a lie, we really did kill him and only guys like you who because there's not a mountain of evidence to prove it say its false. Secondly the US already had been getting ahead in this war and even if bin Laden was still alive it never would have changed our position because other events had been shifting our position even before this event occurred. The worlds attention was already pointed as one previously also, as it always is just because we are a key player in world affairs, as are China and England. Obama had no need to see the body because he watched the entire operation in a military base, as the executive office had been in charge of this mission from the Bush administration and was going to see it through to the end. On a live web feed several different members of the the strike force repeatedly confirmed the identity of bin Laden as did several prisoners of the same place he was hiding out at, proving that he was defiantly dead, if the bullet holes weren't proof enough. The reason they didn't bring him into court was because they were attacked on route and in the compound and with only split second decisions to guide them the safest choice was to kill bin Laden, as that is what would have happened in the US anyway, and it was probably for the better because it could have caused an international incident over who tries him and where he is tried for his crimes. It is almost parallel to the Hitler scenario, except that he killed himself in that case, because the criminal was going to die regardless of the outcome it was just a matter of when he wold die and by whose hand. As for the made up attack, I don't believe the US government is low enough to lie about the deaths of several marines, the crashing of a helicopter, the destroyed compound they were fighting in, and all the dead Iranians and Pakistani-ans whose deaths were shown to the world after the attack. Bin Laden was alive up until this point because he's been seen in other places with members of his followers all though the middle east. He's been leading them since the start of the war, and this can be proven. He even went so far as to be seen on films attacking the US that have been seen. The fact of the matter is we out smarted them and won a critical battle; bin Laden is dead and just because you didn't touch he corpse doesn't mean it didn't happen. Question, do you not believe in the space landing either?
Did the US Forces kill Osama bin Laden

The reason why I choose this topic to debate is because lots of people don`t know if bin Laden was really killed or not , as you said, lots of peoples think it may be a rumor. Anyways, the US always wanted to be the most powerful country in the world , so why wouldn't`t they lie to bring in some of the attentions towards them. President Obama keeps on saying that yes , we killed bin Laden but the problem is that president Obama did not even seen the body himself. But if the US wanted to throw the body in sea, I have no problem with that but they should have at least show it to Obama then throw it down a sea near USA.Or maybe they could have done what they did to Saddam Hussein. Bring him back to the US alive bring him in a court room then if he`s charged guilty (that he probably would have been) just hang him. I'm not saying bin Laden is still alive. I also think he`s dead because he was just running away from the US military with not lots of sources to survive with. What if they made the whole Pakistan thing up. What if he was never in Pakistan. Yes, I think bin Laden is dead but long before the US raid. Bin Laden was traveling alone with not much help because he was on the US most wanted list. Listen to what this guy was to say about it http://www.youtube.com...
Did the US Forces kill Osama bin Laden

First off, id like to say that I can't even see why you want to debate this but I'll go along with it anyway. Of course he is actually dead, even though the government lies to us on occasions they don't lie when it has to do with something that will gain them support in the end, that would be idiotic. The only they never brought back the body was because after the devastating attack of the place he was staying the body was to badly hurt to mean anything if it was brought back home. Secondly we were honoring the customs of Muslim culture by doing what we did to his body and avoiding what politicians like to call a international crisis by taking his body and parading it around the United States. And in response to the photos, would like to see hundreds of photos of the president dead all around the world?, and there are several photos that are not reveled to the public because of the high level of clearance that went along with them, but there are photos. Now in response to there being no body found, it is very hard to find a body from in the ocean and probably very few people tried looking as you did say, no one wanted him. Another reason is that it was honoring some type of Muslim culture by doing this and in the end it helped us to not go to a bigger war with all of the Muslim people in the world. Finally, these rumors have been circulating for years that he's dead or he's not actually real and what not. It was also seen a strategy to say that he has been dead so that maybe the US would not try so hard to destroy the entire country and they could then build up an attack against us. So in the end all of your ideas are basically paranoid rumors made up to figure something out that we don't 100% know and although it is not 100% stated it is clear they are likely true facts and can't be argued against.
Did the US Forces kill Osama bin Laden

Osaka bin Laden is still alive because: 1.The US Forces Have no proof. The US Forces might not have killed bin Laden since they have no proof about him dead. They say that after they killed bin Laden they buried him in sea but what they should of done is bring the body back to USA show the body to president Barack Obama and on TV to proof that yes we killed bin Laden leader of al-Qaed. There are photos of Gaddafi dead but no photos of bin Laden dead2.No one found his body Many people explored the sea of where bin Laden was buried but no one ever found his body.Obama stated that reason they threw bin Laden`s body in sea was only because no country wanted to accept burying him but I think that's bullsh*t 3.Iran stats think that bin Laden died before the US raidIran believes that bin Laden died from a illness a few years after the 9-11 incident. Iran is allot closer to Pakistan the USA and know more information about how it is to live there http://rt.com...http://content.usatoday.com...http://www.alarabiya.net...That's pretty much all I got for now
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage should not be legalized. Homosexuals desire to have the privilege to do what no person is allowed to do. For example, marriage has been defined as one man and one woman. Any man can marry any woman who can legally agree to the union but the same man cannot marry another man, whether the men are straight or gay. No man can marry another man, regardless of sexual orientation. The argument that gays are not allowed to marry is untrue. In fact, gays are allowed to marry, of the opposite sex, but not of the same sex just as every other citizen. The same standard applies to heterosexuals, therefore there is no discrimination. The argument is made that gays are deprived of the right to marry the person they love but there are many restrictions placed on marrying someone we may love. For example, a male cannot legally marry his biological mother, regardless of how much he loves her. In fact, the same male cannot legally marry his biological 25 year old daughter, regardless of the depths of their love. The law prevents everyone from entering into this type of union whether straight or gay. Denying gay marriage is not discrimination when no one is legally allowed to marry of the opposite sex.
Obama's policies and ideals

I don't believe Obama is good at all. His idiotic ideals have cause the American people to see change they never quite asked for. I feel as though Obama never knew what he was doing. Thanks to Obama, we have seen a Drone Strike increase. Where dozens of people are bombed at a time and the president hopes that at least one person he hit was a terrorist or connected to Bin Laden. Obama has some of the worst policies, his healthcare reform (Obama Care) makes for a horrible medical supply, not to mention his crummy Welfare system. Since Obama had not lost the 2012 election, his bill forms into place and Obama care is now safe from being repealed until he is kicked out of office. Welfare is a backwards piece of crap, taxes have gone up, Obama lied us into another war. He hates not letting illegals into the country. He is clearly not an ideal fit for president. Sources: Drone Strikes-http://www.policymic.com... Welfare: http://leftsolutions.wordpress.com... Obamacare:http://endoftheamericandream.com... Immigration/Foreign Policy: http://www.mrconservative.com... Taxes: http://www.heritage.org...
cold sores are good for you

"Dehydration is not a good argument, as a headache and dry mouth are signs long before a cold sore" that was the only rebuttal against my whole argument. I didn't need to say cold sores for the fact that i said "main one that i have mentioned" and if you looked at the websites you would have saw it yourself. Also, might i add, in round 2 you didn't even argue my other facts. You just avoided it all together and jumped right into just my one fault. Want to argue at least something now. This however is the last round.