BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I have the right to remain skeptical about the new Transformers movie.

My case for being skeptical argument 1: The 1'st and 2'nd transformers movie wasn't received well by many critics. As somewhat of a movie fanatic i am, i usually try to keep up on the reviews critics have to say about movies out because I'm somewhat cheep and want to get everything good out of my dollars. When i see that the majority of critic sites that i go to rated it somewhere between a 20-40%, it would make sense not to see a certain movie if a majority of the critic community despises it. When it comes to the transformers 3, the the majority of critics gave it some harsh ratings. http://www.rottentomatoes.com...# Argument 2: The only positive i know people say about Michale bays transformers movies are the cgi affects. After the 2nd movie came out to theaters, i usually heard from a lot of people i know that it's a great action movie for its "bada$$" graphics. That was the only real positive thing i heard about transformers 2. If i really wanted to experience cool graphics and fight scenes, i could just download call of duty from pirate bay for free. argument 3: Michael bay directed pearl harbor Title says it all. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
I have the right to remain skeptical about the new Transformers movie.

Did you see the trailer? It looks awesome. The CGI is top notch, killer, destroying all other trailers. http://www.youtube.com... What could possibly go wrong with a Michael Bay film? The music is sick, the CGI is awesome, the Decepticons are fresh! There's absolutely no reason to be skeptical of this movie. Micheal Bay has never made a bad movie, and the two best movies ever made before this movie are Transformers and Eraser, but the third best movie of all time is Transformers 2! http://www.youtube.com...
Anime dubs are better than Anine subs (for real this time)

This round was supposed to be rebuttals, but because my opponent has yet to post his argument, I have nothing to rebuttal. That being said, I think it would be best, IALWAYSWINDEBATES, to post your argument here in the 3rd round. We can do our rebuttals and concluding statements in the 4th round. I hope you don't disappoint, see you in the next round.
Anime dubs are better than Anine subs (for real this time)

Thank you for answering the call of a worthy debate, now, back to business... I will be arguing that anime dubs are better than anime subs. For those of you that don't know of our story on this topic, I will tell it now before my points are made. Once upon a time my friend, IALWAYSWINDEBATES, introduced me to this wonderful website which is DDO. At that time, we were having a real life argument about which is better- anime dubs or anime subs. I took the side of dubs and my friend that of subs, and I thought a wonderful idea for my first debate on DDO was this. Well, lets just say it did not turn out well after that. I accidentally ended the first version of the debate while IALWAYSWINDEBATES was typing up his post. I quickly apologized and sent him a challenge for another dubs vs subs debate. Nothing terrible happened except that my power went out immediately after IALWAYSWINDEBATES posted his argument, after that, I forgot that I had a debate going and it didn't go anywhere... until today. Now for my argument. Reason #1: you can focus on what's happening on the screen One of the main reasons that I prefer dubs is because when you can understand what the characters are saying with your ears, your eyes are free to pay attention to the actions of the characters and the changes in the environment/situation. Not everyone knows Japanese like you do, IALWAYSWINDEBATES, and we can't be bothered to since we have lives. Anime dubs are easier on the eyes than subs are. Reason #2: dubs appeal to the majority of non-Japanese watchers Any reasonable person can tell you that a lot of anime aficionados are not in Japan, there are at least half a million in America alone, and almost all of them don't speak more than a few phrases of Japanese. So to have an anime translated into a person's native language would be much more effective on getting a person "hooked" on the anime, this is also helpful to that anime's producers, who would then have a far wider audience and therefore could sell more of their product. This is also helpful to provide ample employment to voice actors, who are always in need of work. Reason #3: a non-Japanese speaker does not have to look at the screen constantly to know what the characters are saying While a sub-watcher has to constantly read the tiny text at the bottom of the screen, and most likely cannot do anything else while they are doing this. A dub-watcher could simply listen to the words the characters are saying while doing something else- potentially something productive! Like cleaning their room or filling out paperwork. Dubs allow people to multi task. I would come up with more arguments but I am exhausted from doing yard work and can't think at my full potential. Also, I just noticed I misspelled "Anime" in the title the second time it was used. So technically, you arguing that "Anine" subs are better than anime dubs, whoops. I am looking forward to your arguments and the rest of this debate.
Help me out here. The topic is: Is there 1 true God. I need voting privileges. Thanks

Jesus was either pulled of the biggest faux in history, was a lunatic that took forever to catch, or the Son of God. You choose. If he was a lunatic, then how could his disciples have pulled of this conspiracy with so many people, and get beaten and die, yet not one of them confessed that it was a lie(which it wasn't). Thanks for debating with me.
Beyonc" is a femenist icon

In the last round of the debate, I will be discussing how the music industry decides what clothes, music and image of the artist. When an artist signs a contract with a label, they are agreeing to do whatever the label wants to do. This is no different to Beyonc". She looks and sounds like the person the public want to see and hear. If she really was a feminist icon, then she would break away from that scene and follow her own path instead of being a puppet in someone else's show. In conclusion the reason why I believe that Beyonc" is not a feminist is because the industry controls her action and clothing choices. Also, can we really put her in the same category as so many women who have done so much for women's rights. I am not saying that Beyonc" isn't an amazing performer or a spectacular singer, I just don't see her as a feminist icon. Thank you for listening and I beg you to oppose this motion.
Beyonc" is a femenist icon

First off, you are saying she is a feminist icon in this a debate so get your side right, just saying. First off to define the motion, feminists believe that men and women are to be treated equal. If you look at Beyonc" and her songs, she believes in empowering women but that they are better than men. In "Run the world" Beyonc" feels that girls are superior to men. Can we really put Beyonc" in the same category of amazing feminists like Mary Ward, the founder of the Loreto schools around the world. What does singing about how girls are better than boys have to do with giving women the same right to education as men. Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Western culture suffers from a historical narrative of self-hatred.

I haven't read it, so this is my best attempt to BS this, but I would presume that Scott's novel is about European society -- that's why the sultan seems so European. His East is a fictional counterpart -- a utopia. The exotic ('noble savage' / Romanticism / Star Trek) is a fictional device meant to reframe a vision of one's own society without the imaginative constraints of our ideologies. And by the way, conservatives do this too, with an equally fictionalized past (Make America Great Again / the Crusades), which we're always slipping further from. But both the 'exotic' and the 'golden age' are constructs that illustrate an ideal against which we judge the here and now. And both hold that present society is lacking. From there I would argue that on a basis of moral imperative, a doctrine of self-criticism and improvement is of higher virtue that appreciation of one's progeny and accomplishments. Jesus would agree. So does the Constitution, the purpose of which is to establish a more perfect union -- not one better than Argentinean or Kenya. A more perfect Union presumes imperfection, the awareness of which makes progress possible. The journey from a sense of victory and entitlement to one of self-questioning and the role we play in the world is a story of a maturing society. And vise versa. RE: China and Islamic culture You haven't qualified what you mean by cultural self-hatred, or why a Marxist mode of cultural criticism stands out in a relevant way from religious sectarianism or China's class-motivated obliteration of tradition. Or why, to draw from my commentary above, a narrative of America's decade's-long moral decline and "carnage" is not self-hatred. Part of my confusion is how you define self-hood when talking about society. You seem to be assuming that if you locate your problems within yourself, instead of identifying others to blame, it's self-hatred. RE: Charlie Hebdo article The article is not saying that Charlie Hebdo is responsible for radicalization, but that French society in general is forcing traditional notions of Frenchness, which exclude minority groups living there, through things like aggressive secularization that don't fit Islamic lifestyles. If true, a single standard of treatment wouldn't be appropriate because the baseline attitudes and conditions (French people vs Muslims) are uneven -- there's a strong preference for the former. But she also claims that there's something inauthentic about this Frenchness. I think that will always be true of cultures that have to sideline minorities to maintain their traditions. Its no different from prognostications about how technology or the youth are ruining everything.
Western culture suffers from a historical narrative of self-hatred.

Maybe you can pick a specific example and we can argue about that. The Charlie Hebdo massacre isn't a good example for me because my summary of that would be totally different from what you said. I would say that this thing happened and people were quite horrified and generally defensive of the magazine's free speech rights. Maybe you can give an example, one which is fairly well-known, that illustrates political censorship. Also I think its better to argue something specific because a discussion on a global scale is like arguing about which way the wind is blowing. I mean many parts of the world can't Americanize themselves fast enough -- I don't know how much other societies love their cultures.
Western culture suffers from a historical narrative of self-hatred.

Accept. Since Pro has given sort of an argument in overview, I'll present a general argument in response. 1) Check yourself at the door. Is Pro well-informed as to how other cultures view themselves? Sunnis and Shiites don't get along so well. China destroyed its culture during the Cultural Revolution. And what does Pro mean by love? Just another world for devotion or adherence to tradition? 2) Western culture has rebuilt its own societies on the basis of ideals, rather than on the basis of a continuous tradition. Therefore we will judge ourselves against conformity to those ideals, not against conformity to our traditions. Those traditions that fall afoul of our ideals will necessarily be held in disregard. 3) In the modern era, Western culture has been the most dynamic culture in terms of political and technological change. The more our culture adopts new ways, the more differently we will regard our past. Cultures that have changed less will lean more on their traditions. Those who want to change less will see criticism as more dangerous
Western culture suffers from a historical narrative of self-hatred.

We all know the story: Bad, evil Europeans! Crusades, colonialism, imperialism, slavery, genocide, war, fascism, smallpox blankets, patriarchy, ABBA. I pose that European culture is not that different from the rest of the world. However, contrary to the rest of the world, Europeans are not allowed to love their own history. Through cultural marxism the Western tradition of self-criticism has turned into pathological self-hatred. This mode of thinking is part of a political ideology first developed by the Frankfurt School, and is currently promoted by universities and political parties to push a globalist agenda.
Western culture suffers from a historical narrative of self-hatred.

It seems you're equating tolerance with diminishing oneself. Essentially a fundamentalist position. It's like saying that if you can't legally bind other people to your religious outlook, you're religious freedom is being impinged. It only sounds ridiculous to say Beijing is too Chinese because they don't require conformity to an idea of Chineseness to belong and to operate in their sphere. They do block freedom of speech, and this is a flaw, though not one related unique to China. On the other hand, if you came back from the Middle East and said it was 'too Islamic,' that would be taken seriously -- lots of people there hold that opinion. But that opinion is not 'self-hatred' or shame on the part of Middle Eastern Muslims in my opinion. As far as the Frankfurt School, I'm only somewhat familiar. Remember it became prominent as Western Enlightenment ideals were giving way to totalitarianism. Maybe there's something about the Nazis that made some question Europe's cultural supremacy. Go figure. As far as our own alt-reich here in the US, don't think for a second that these self-appointed defenders of 'European Heritage' are the standard bearers of Socrates, St. Augustine, and Wordsworth. They think that stuff is too 'elite' for them -- and they're right. They are interested in a different question: who is entitled to the benefits of a social order? Fascists/fundamentalists answer this by conflating cultural identity with national belonging. Also some parts of your argument are dated ('silent majority'). The media landscape has disintegrated into the opposite of what you describe. It now consists of the original major new networks competing alongside a variety of alternative sources that present wildly different worldviews.
Xbox 360 better for gaming than the PS3!! =)

The GPU has more power, more powerful fillrate and more pixels and vertex processing horsepower in an Xbox 360. The vertex shader on a PS3 will run a lot slower than on the Xbox 360, and the Xbox 360 has a new way of rendering high definition anti-aliased back buffers, but to have the same effect on a PS3 would be more expensive, so many games run in a non-HD resolution on the PS3; basically, you have poor image quality on the PS3. http://www.hardcoreware.net... There are currently 129 EXCLUSIVE games for the Xbox 360 like HALO and roughly around 882 games released; the PS3 has only 109 and a total of 699 games released. To me, it seems like more developers are attracted to the 360 and also the online play for 360 is more attractive =). Also, the 360 has a better online experience and support than the PS3. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Normally, I wouldn't use wiki, but seemed like a good place to find a total number of exclusive sells.
We Need to Build a Death Star

1. Building a Death Star is ineffective Despite the Death Star shown in Star Wars being shown as an all-powerful superweapon, there are many problems with it that make it close to useless a. It's primary weapon, the turbolaser, is ineffective on fleets of ships. -Try shooting a fly. It's not going to be all that effective. Putting so much power into one beam, which has been shown to have a long charging and firing time is a useless investment as most ships, even capital ships would have flown out of range by the time you could see it, aim, charge and fire. And speaking of aiming... b. How would you aim it? -Do you know how much energy it would take to even turn this thing? An unimaginable amount, even in space. c. Why would you put a planet-destroying laser on this thing in the first place? -The only planet you could possibly hit is our own, and trying to aim while in orbit, provided you could at all, you might accidentally hit the planet or at least burn the atmosphere d. It would only aggravate other civilizations into thinking we are a threat e. Conclusion: The Death Star is problematic in its inception 2. The Death Star would be impossible to build and maintain a. We don't have the materials -Estimates indicate it would take 830,000 years of Earth's current steel output to create enough metal for the hull of the superstructure alone. (http://www.space.com...) b. Pollution -Rocket launches to send all that metal and other building materials to space would pollute the atmosphere to the point that anyone left who could use the Death Star would have to live on it " Earth would be uninhabitable. (http://www.space.com...) b. Energy -Can you imagine how much energy it would take to build this and get the materials in orbit? More than we have here on Earth c. Money -The cost is also difficult to bear: $850 quadrillion, according to the White House's response to an online petition to build a Death Star, which is many times the U.S. national debt of about $20 trillion. (http://www.space.com...) d. Getting people and supplies to the Death Star would be almost as unfeasible e. We might accidentally put it too close to the Earth and it would break up (https://en.wikipedia.org...) f. An explosion of the laser or generator would be devastating to life on earth (http://www.businessinsider.com...) e. Conclusion: The Death Star could not be built in the first place 3. Money would be better put into expanding a current starfleet -Things such as the U.S.S Enterprise from Star Trek, even the newest version, would be much more feasible and much more useful (http://www.popularmechanics.com...)
We Need to Build a Death Star

Welcome to this debate. Pro - TheConservativeSocialist - shall debate that the United States government should begin research regarding the construction of a Death Star or Death Star-like device. I am not arguing that construction should begin immediately or in the near future; I am simply arguing that the construction of a Death Star or Death-star like device would yield many benefits, thus I affirm that research into said construction should begin. Con - my opponent - should you choose to accept, shall debate against research into the construction of a Death Star or Death Star-like device.
gcsd

Con has conceded that pupils should take Mathematics and English. Thus he has conceded the resolution. Just to provide an argument in case he rudely attempts to introduce new arguments in the last round; Purpose of education At a basic level the purpose of education to enhance the mental abilities of all students and thus improve the contribution they can provide to society. English and Mathematics are the most important subjects as they facilitate basic communication skills (which unfortunately my opponent lacks) and basic numeracy, which is useful in everyday life. Con has failed to demonstrate why the subjects of English and Mathematics should not be compulsory.
gcsd

My opponent makes two arguments here; Firstly that studying Mathematics and English will make the majority of students unhappy, and secondly that the study of these subjects won't provide any benefit to the learner or anyone else. 1. Happiness Con has failed to provide a source for his assertion that the majority of students are made unhappy by studying Mathematics and English. This may be just because I was educated privately (I had no choice, I swear) but the most students I knew actually enjoyed these subjects. Furthermore, he has not shown that the short term unhappiness of the students is not worth the later boons that it will give in life. 2. No benefit. Studying the English language improves communication skills in English speaking countries, which can help one get a job later in life, write a book or any number of benefits. Secondly studying English can provide a greater appreciation for literature, which can provide great joy for even the most simple of students. With regard to mathematics; nearly every component of your modern lifestyle at somepoint depends on mathematics; for my source here I would like to use the Tom Lehrer song "Thats mathematics". I would reccoment all readers to youtube it. Even the computer you use would not be possible if were not for our understanding of mathematics. In conclusion, con has conceded that these subjects should be mandatory. To what extent they are studied may well be the subject for another debate in the future.
Monarchy and Democracy

The purpose of this debate will be an attempt by me to defend Hoppes thesis in the book Democracy: The God that Failed regarding Monarchy and Democracy; that is that Monarchy is an inherently superior system than Democracy, a position contrary to my own beliefs. The burden of proof is shared. My Opponent acknowledges that they will have to present a case in affirmation of democracy themselves, merely trying to refute my arguments is an automatic forfeit. Round one is for acceptance. I made it five rounds in case of an accidental forfeiture of a round by myself (I have a lot coming up in the near future). If there are no forfiets, round 5 will just be a round without debating. Atempting to argue in round 5 (if it serves its original purpose as an extra round) will warrant an auto-loss of the debate. I would very much appreciate it if my Opponent waits as long as possible to post their acceptance round. The debate is structured so that each debater gets an equal amount of space to argue. That is, if I forfeit a round my opponent can either choose to not argue that round, or not argue round 5. They cannot argue in both.We will be using Hoppes definitions: Monarchy is privately owned government ultimately ruled by one individual who generally gained his status via the position of his birth. Dictators in the modern sense who sieze power without respect to private property, law and order, or social facilitation (as has been the general trend for autocrats in modern times) are not considered Monarchs. Monarchs pass on their kingdom to their heir after they die, and a kings kingdom is his personal property. Democracy is government owned publically. Leaders are chosen directly by the people, or decisions are made directly by the people (my opponent must choose to defend either representative democracy (Republic) or direct democracy), and decisions are made on the basis or majority rules be it a vote in Congress, a public referrendum, ect. The Resolution is referring to rule of large territories in nation-states, advancing an argument such as democracy is better for a small town, or monarchy is better for family units or tribes leads to an auto-loss.Voters on this debate will refrain from voting on Sources, conduct, or spelling/grammar unless I forfeit a round in which case the conduct vote is given to my Opponent. Any points given other than those in the "argument" category will be considered votebombs.
Gay Marriage

First I would like to talk about the point you brought up about common good. I agree that government rewards marriage because of the common good it creates. A married couple creates children, which they raise and become members of the society which benefits the common good. Homosexual couples also meet this common good. There are many homosexual couples who choose to have children. Homosexual couples have children in the same way a couple would if one of them was infertile. They get a donor. Or adoption is also an option. For example, Neil Patrick Harris and his partner, David Burtka. They are a happy family with a set of twins that they got via a surrogate mother. Thus they fulfil the common good for society and make your argument obsolete. And your last bit about infertile couples seems to be disproving yourself by saying that the government is interested in the relationship and not what it produces which is not what you said in the beginning.