BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Disney is better than Universal.

(All the data gathered in this argument was based on the Orlando version, Universal, and Disney) "When it comes to employees. They pay them crap money because they know that they are down and out" Well that is true, but guess what they pay them that little because most of them are not college graduates, jobs there require next to no training, unless you need experience to know how to push a button. Disney also has more than 60,000 "Cast Members" and Universal has 12,000 and BOTH of them pay on average $8,00/hour."Star Wars is a perfect example, it was great, the 6 movies were set in stone, unchanging and classic." Are you so sure about that? Star Wars 1, 2, and 3 were horrible The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Return of the Jedi were rated 57%, 67%, and 79%, while A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back were rated 94% and 97% (based on rotten tomatoes). So as you can see things only got worst, and in case you don't know those were made by Lucasfilm in an association with 20th century fox. A few years ago Disney bought marvel and everyone thought Disney would make it all horrible and disney-fy the films. but they didn't one of the best Marvel films (according to rotten tomatoes) was released during disney`s reign."The animated cartoons that people made out of the books that Star Wars fans made" if you're talking about Star Wars: The clone wars, those shows are not in anyway related to disney."Universal studios make original movies that don't screw everything up" I'm not going to reply so I'll just leave you with this list: Cowboys & Aliens, Land of the Lost,WWolfman, Babe 2, Howard the duck, Ed, Virus, and last but definitely not least, Jaws 2, aka. the huge screw up.Disney has definitely also had it's share of CRAP nut also definitely not as bad as Universal, Disney was founded on 1923 and every since then it hasn't only been bringing entertainment but also scientific inventions to film making and science. Disney was the pioneer of technologies like anamatronics and surround sound (FantaSound). Disney Theme Parks has rides for all sorts of ages, such as: its a small world for toddlers, haunted mansion for children, space mountain, tower of terror, big thunder for children-seniors, rock'n Roller coaster, star tours, tower of terror, mission space, and Mt. Everest for people looking for a little adventure. they also have shows, such as the American adventure. Disney is what I would consider to be a lot more patriotic, they have flags and rides, and songs, and references to the country in almost every ride. and that's important to any American.
Disney is better than Universal.

I will absolutely take this debate. Universal makes good movies, they have mostly been good, and unfortunately for all of us, Disney movies went downhill after the classic age. They are all of a sudden taking other films and series and turning them into a sick and twisted deformed monster. Star Wars is a perfect example, it was great, the 6 movies were set in stone, unchanging and classic, that was it. Then there were the animated cartoons that people made out of the books that Star Wars fans made, they added onto the storyline almost perfectly because they could be ignored if the viewer wanted to ignore them or they could be added onto the storyline, making it even more cool. But now that Disney ran out of ideas, they bought Star Wars and turned it to crap, specifically, ANIKAN NEVER HAD A PADAWAN!!! There are nearly endless errors and double-negatives in the Star Wars legacy now, thanks to Disney. As far as the theme parks go, they are basically like a Walmart with rides when it comes to employees. They pay them crap money because they know that they are down and out, like kicking a person society has already beaten up. In comparison, people in Universal studios make original movies that don't screw everything up. There are some extremely stupid movies that are cheesy and gay that they made, but others are actually really good. They made Kick-A*s (No profanities in debates), and Ted, and they made children's movies too, Despicable Me and some of the Veggie Tales movies.
Police Should Not Racially Profile

I would first like to address my case, then I will move on to my opponents case, ending with several reasons as to why I have won this debate. My opponent begins by saying that racism is not morally incorrect. This is outrageous. In the history of the United States, we have fought against racism with great vigor. So, in making this argument, my opponent is in fact supporting racism. If we go along with my opponents proposed path of racism, it will only lead to increases in racism and more acute cases of racism, which will eventually send the US into a backwards spiral contrary to everything we have worked for. My opponent completely misunderstood my mention of lynching, which did not say that police should lynch members of a certain race, but said that people HAVE been lynched on the matter of race, which shows that it is a more defining characteristic of a human being in this case. My opponents entire case bases around his statistics argument, which states that the police should be able to use any statistics to aid them. Using these racial statistics massively inconveniences all members of the race that has a statistic stating that it is more likely to commit crimes. Police are going to stop members of this race more, they are going to commence more searches, etc. This is a blatant case of racism, because they are discriminating against the race with more criminal statistics. Innocent civilians of this race are being held accountable for something that other members of their race are doing, which is wrong. I would also like to remind the readers of our US constitution, which guarantees equal treatment to all US citizens. In this case, the constitution is not upheld when the police discriminate against members of a certain race. There are two main reasons as to why I urge a vote for Pro: 1. I have shown that racial profiling is a form of racism, and that racism is an incorrect action to take. The Constitution reinforces this and shows that my position on racism is in fact the correct one. 2. My opponent has taken a pro-Racism stance, therefore supporting discrimination. I quote my opponent: "Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect? " It is morally incorrect in the same way that slavery is morally incorrect, and this is a fundamental part of American philosophy.
Police Should Not Racially Profile

Okay so obviously my opponent misunderstood my arguments so I'll clarify by addressing his points. "it is still racist and a morally incorrect action to take. Say that a dictator kills ten people to attempt to squash a revolution and scare the people into submission. While this may be beneficial in enforcing the law, is it morally correct? The obvious answer is no. " Why is racism (predisposition to a certain race) bad when it is statistically proven? Why is it morally incorrect? Also, that analogy is blatanly fallacious, and we are not dealing with anything even close to that analogy, so I must ask that the analogy be ignored. "Racial profiling is not simply searching for only Asians when the police receive a description of the culprit saying he is Asian. " Of course racial profiling isn't this. I'm saying that since police start off with a statistic (such as that African-Americans are 8 times more likely to rob someone than other races), police should start off with that in mind. Essentially, the statistic is this "information" that police are receiving. "So what essentially happens is that police go after, say, an African-American living in a poor region of town ahead of a Caucasian criminal. This in fact hinders the law enforcement officers because they first go after members of a certain race before others. " Why is going after members of a certain race before others bad? It is a statistically sound approach that will produce better results. For the sake of argument, say the only two races were African-American and Caucasian. If African-Americans are more likely to commit a certain crime than Caucasian, then by going to the African-American first the police *will* see a net decrease in the amount of time it takes to find a criminal. "My opponent also states that I am in fact being racist by stating that race is a more important aspect of a human then all other aspects. This argument is once again based on his false perception of racial profiling, which I have already addressed. " No it is not based on a false perception of racial profiling. Take this example: John Smith is a 6'3 Caucasian man with blue eyes, brown hair, long arms, long legs, and a tattoo who belongs to a gym and weighs 200 pounds. If a person was more likely to commit a certain crime based on non-racial attributes, it is considered acceptable for the police to utilize this information. Why is it different for race? Why are you placing race above other characteristics? "I will also add that people have not been lynched and killed based on height or eye color, so this is a very offensive subject for those that have been subject of racial discrimination. " I am not saying that police should lynch those of a certain race, I am saying that they should direct their searches in a manner in accordance with statistical proof.
Police Should Not Racially Profile

So, my opponent begins by saying that racial profiling is beneficial when enforcing the law. Even if this were true, which it isn't, (addressed later) it is still racist and a morally incorrect action to take. Say that a dictator kills ten people to attempt to squash a revolution and scare the people into submission. While this may be beneficial in enforcing the law, is it morally correct? The obvious answer is no. I also want to address a key point in which my opponent is gravely misinformed. Racial profiling is not simply searching for only Asians when the police receive a description of the culprit saying he is Asian. What Racial Profiling ACTUALLY does, is categorize people into racial groups before any crime is even committed. So what essentially happens is that police go after, say, an African-American living in a poor region of town ahead of a Caucasian criminal. This in fact hinders the law enforcement officers because they first go after members of a certain race before others. My opponent also states that I am in fact being racist by stating that race is a more important aspect of a human then all other aspects. This argument is once again based on his false perception of racial profiling, which I have already addressed. I will also add that people have not been lynched and killed based on height or eye color, so this is a very offensive subject for those that have been subject of racial discrimination. My opponents false perception of racial profiling has already lost him this debate. Thank you, and vote Affirmation (sorry about the Negation typo in my first speech :D)
Police Should Not Racially Profile

Before I begin, I would like you to consider this theoretical situation. Say (and I am completely making this up) that new research has proven that people with blue eyes are 8 times more likely to rob someone than those with brown eyes. After a new robbery is discovered, should the police have a higher suspicion towards blue eyed people? Since the police would enforce the law faster and more effectively, they should. My main argument for this debate will be that racial profiling is beneficial when enforcing the law. To understand my argument, I would encourage all to look at race as simply a feature of a human being. If statistics have proven that a certain race is more likely to commit a crime such as a robbery, then police should work off of that information. For example, new research has proven that African Americans are 8 times more likely to rob someone than people of other races [1]. After a new robbery is discovered, should the police have a higher suspicion towards African-Americans? Since the police would enforce the law faster and more effectively, they should. Consider this second analogy: If the police obtain information informing them that the suspect is probably over the height of 6 feet, should they spend less time looking for people under 6 feet and more time looking for people over 6 feet? Of course they should. This can be directly translated to race. Say the police receive information informing them that a Caucasian is probably the culprit. Should they spend less time looking for people of other races and more time looking for Caucasians? Yes, they should, because they would more effectively enforce the law. Simply put, since race is merely a characteristic of a human being, it is logically and morally sound that police should use statistical information to aid them in solving a crime. Now, to address my opponent's (first) contention: "Today, the vast majority of the US views racial discrimination as morally incorrect." In essence, this is the only argument part of my opponent's contention. The surrounding few sentences are merely an explanation of racial profiling, albeit in a disapproving tone. Anyway, if it is morally correct to use information pertaining to a certain characteristic (such as eye color, hair color, height, etc), why is it not morally correct when one looks towards race? Essentially, by saying race is a more important attribute of a person than anything else, then the argument is actually racist. In short, what I am saying is that the police of the United States *should* racially profile if it is statistically backed up. Exempting race from other attributes of a person is racist, and will only hinder the efforts of the police in enforcing the law of the United States of America. [1] http://www.nc-f.org...
Police Should Not Racially Profile

It is sure to be intelligent and revealing. Let me jump right into my first contention. 1. Racial Profiling is a form of racism and discrimination Today, the vast majority of the US views racial discrimination as morally incorrect. Racial Profiling is directed specifically at African-Americans and other minorities, because these people are supposedly more likely to commit crimes. This assumption, that African-Americans are more likely to commit crimes, is a disguised form of racism. What the police are doing when they racially profile, is looking at minority groups and flagging these groups over others. I will offer up this first contention as the primary argument for my case, and will introduce further arguments in my second round. Thank You, and vote in the negation
Police Should Not Racially Profile

Unless my opponent has any objections, for this debate we will use the following definitions (both according to Dictionary.com): Racial Profiling: the consideration of race when developing a profile of suspected criminals; by extension, a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups when seeking suspected criminals Racism: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit As my opponent is Pro and has the burden of proof (that is, if the reasons for and against the resolution are equal, then Pro should lose), I will allow him/her to go first. I would ask that Pro not post an argument in Round 4 to make up for this. In this way, this debate is a traditional 3 round debate. Note: In the resolution, "Racially Profile" is referring to racial profiling.
The government is out to get us

He completely drops theJFK accusation. Also, it doesn't matter what he BELIEVES< it matters what is true so you can go ahead and extend the fact that governments have little incentive to intentionally harm us as the resolution suggests. Also, the 9-11 wasn't a conspiracy, there is a ton of evidence supporting terroist organizations, people simply call it a conspiracy as an excuse of overthrow the bush regime and portray him as an evil tyrant. True the government does want money, don't we all? However, the government also knows what point to stop because they know completely disreagarding the people's needs is detrimental to their own welfare as well.
The government is out to get us

The government is "out to get us" all because of money. The JFK incident happened because the changes he was making would leads us against "government" therefore less dough for them. Let's face it there is a lot of information being with-held from us.. Why do you think that is? Because the truth is the government chooses money over people. Also, many believe that 9/11 was framed. I do not have a lot of information about this theory, but I would still like to present it to the voters. Voters: The government is against us! Time and time again have our best interest been over looked simply because of the American government's greed. Think about the outrageous percentages of tax that they take out of your pay check.. GREED GREED GREED!
The government is out to get us

Ok on your JFK claim, where is the source for this because I have never heard of this? Furthermore, my opponent still has not addressed a very important point, which is that the government simply has no reason to "get us" because they are not stupid, even if they were completely evil they would still be concerned for their own welfare and the only way they can achieve welfare is through the people. Furthermore, it's not like the government said they would never release the info about JFK they said they would release it eventually. Take for example the martin luther king. Martin Luther King was similar to JFK, however the government actally PROTECTED his reputation by sealing an alleged tape of him having an affair with a woman.
The government is out to get us

I disagree with the wording of the resolution. BY "get us" you mean the government is specifically trying to harm us. I contend this is simply false because there is no reason to do this. Yes, the government might not be our best friends and they might not really want to help each individual, but it is illogical to say a government specifically wants to "harm" us. The people represent the government, and they generate revenue for the government. In fact, even if the government was a complete selfish jerk they would still care about their own prosperity. The way they can achieve this prosperity is through the people. Also, I say that the resolution is not always true. Governments do not ALWAYS care about themselves.
One Global Government

Firstly, I would like to to point out that my opponents most previous speech has very low relevance to the overall topic of' One Global Government'. My opponent has stated that it would be "unwise" for countries to come together after two largest allies do so. However this evidence lacks relevance to the resolution, Again, As my opponents entire speech does. Just because something is "unwise" that does not mean that it will not occur. I believe common sense can tell us all that. My opponent has also said that history shows that one individual can indeed represent a whole country. This is not true or logical on any level whatsoever, Due to the fact that one person has never ruled the whole country by themselves (in the United States) without a governing body that they had to pass their laws through and follow other policies. This proves that my opponents argument has indeed fallen, As it lacks logic, Reasoning and EVIDENCE. My opponent has not provided any evidence throughout the debate so far, Which proves to me that he/she is not educated on the topic. Also they go on to state that the American Federal Government System that has rules and regulations in which assist restrict the power of individuals or branches of government (checks and balances, Term limits etc. ) however, We are not talking about the American Government in this debate, We are talking about why or why not all 195 countries on earth coming together as one to rule the entire world as one governing body. EVEN if one global government did happen in the future, There is no evidence to prove that the global government would follow American policies. Also, My opponent goes on to state a brief plan for assisting the global government with not going down the road that the United Nations is currently going down. However they fail to realize that the United Nations already has strict policies and rules to follow, It's just simply the fact that they are avoiding resolving the life threatening international disputes. We as a country can not state that we want/wish to have a global government in our future and not even ATTEMPT or at least put effort towards assisting international conflicts. Let's look at the global governmental stability to prove the centralized government would indeed fail. According to PBS News, "There are over 25 failed states, Failed states are countries in which could not uphold their own, Which leads to their government failing. There are over 175 countries that have been labeled as 'Fragile States'. Fragile states are countries in which are on the fence of governmental stability, But mainly leaning towards the failing side. " This is clear and conspicuous evidence that proves that there are already a number of countries in which have either already failed, Or are very close to failing. Let's keep in mind that there are 195 countries on earth, And 175 out of the 195 countries are at a large risk of failing. So how do you suppose those failing countries would be able to accept entering a global government? The stability of a global government would be so low, It would almost definitely fail.
One Global Government

Ok, So lets go a line by line to help disprove my opponent they say that it would be impossible to have all of the courtys come together to even form a central and that war would be necessary to even get this achived witch they did say in their second speech, But this simply is not true, According to multiple news sources, Including new york times, Alliances between countries will choose to stick together rather fall apart. Think about it this way if American and their best ally Canada, Accord to a survey done by the new york times in 2017, Were to come together then it would be unwise for an ally of both America or Canada to not join, As they would more than likely loss that alliance and the gain a powerful enemy in either the American or Canadian population and that would continue until all of the countries agreed to join so my argument still stands that this will solve more war than it will solve. Then my opponent goes on to say that one person can not support the entire contry, But historical we see this with the presidents of the United States which represents the country in my foreign affairs that just have people to back him, Or her, Up, Which is what a representative would have to have to thrive. Then my opponent goes on to say that when people get power they tend to try to want more, Which is true, But again we can look back at the American federal government system that has rules and regulations in place which help people get rid of power hungry officials when they go mad, That would have to be put into place. Then my opponent goes on to talk about the UN and the amount of time that they take to help solve these terrible and awful problems that infect this world. Yes, This extreme halt of progress is insane, But there is an easy way to combat this, More clear and set rules on voting on proposed plans that can help solve this problem that would state that a certain percentage of votes for yes or no has to be met before the law or bill is passed. So is it possible for a centralized government to thrive in the future, Yes!