BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tangled is Better than Frozen

The full resolution: Tangled is a better movie than Frozen, quality-wise.Round one is for acceptance only.Just in case it's not clear, this is Tangled: And this is Frozen: Burden of Proof is shared.If my opponent manages to beat me, she will have the option to challenge me to a much better movie IMO versus Frozen, if she wishes to.Good luck and have fun, GodChoosesLife!
Tangled is Better than Frozen

My apologies for my FF, I had an emergency situation going on and couldn't exactly respond although I tried to remember to get to it. Since this is the last round, I am obligated to semi-FF although my opponent allowed me to have further extension in my rebuttals, but it would be unfair. I have not had a chance to do any searching around to answer his arguments either to refute them. But thanks again for this fun debate and sorry I didn't put much time into it. Best of wishes to you!
Tangled is Better than Frozen

Hans: this was so darn random, it's like the creators just put him in within the last second! Hans even smiles after falling out the boat! http://disney.wikia.com... Plus, Hans does not seem nearly as manipulative as Gothel, because Gothel uses the crown in addition to revenge on Flynn to entice her " henchmen". LOVE: um, Flynn loves Rupunzel. OLAF: the come- alive part was random. New argument: Flyinn is a better character than Kristoff. Frozen could have worked without Kristoff, while Flynn was crucial, a stepping stone for Rupunzel and helping her along, as well as learning that he did not have to be the villain and live a good life. Kristoff has nothing. In addition Tangled songs are better, holding more meaning and a solid track top-to-bottom....From the Dream song to the Light song, everything is executed the way it should be-- even the mini Flower Song is mysterious, gloomy, and contrasts to Rupunzel's singing it in a major- scale fashion in contrast to Gothel's grim version of the song. Frozen fails to create a good sound track with a dumb troll song and a "meh" Olaf song. GCL has also completely failed to counter my plot- holes argument. I extend it.
Tangled is Better than Frozen

Should be fun! Although yes, it may be true that the mother showed slyness yet still showing her dark side, Take Hans from Frozen though, he never showed anything up until at the right moment of his true motives. He not only deceived all the people of the place but he deceived Anna and Elsa both which makes him better than the evil mother from tangled. . http://youtu.be... Another aspect of Frozen that Tangled lacks is that Anna as the sister of Elsa just shows so much love, compassion, forgiveness and a desire to just be with her regardless of what power she has or not. Anna had a part of her memory removed so she could have easily been hostile and cruel to Elsa for pushing her away, now Elsa could've been a little more considerate, sure, but she was only acting out of fear of protecting her sister although she unintentionally harmed Anna, but Anna definitely showed her love to her sister! . http://youtu.be... Olaf, he isn't a random role at all. .. He is a memory that Anna and Elsa both had growing up as little girls and although Elsa created him, he was definitely a character of guidance and was like a little guardian but with gentleness. He was also a dreamer and he's so cute! ;) . http://youtu.be... Therefore, because of just these three things frozen is the best because it shows some things that could relate to realistic activities. Tangled doesn't have that same concept. (It's okay if you don't get all rounds done).
Concerning Postmen

Someone with a sense of humour please. Dogs should be legally allowed to attack and bite postmen (or postwomen/ postpeople?). In fact, I propose opening this law up so that all animals would be allowed to attack postmen when delivering letters, packages etc. You ask why? Is it not blatently obvious? 1) It would be good for dogs in the society. Not only would they recieve extra exercise and fun from attacking the postmen, they would be off their owners hands for a while, giving them the much needed break (dogs can be very like toddlers- cute, drooling, everything ends up in their mouths, but loud and annoying) 2) A TV show called "Postwatch" would be set up to telivise the attacking. This would be shown only at night, similar to "Crimewatch", except less pointless. This would recieve a large audience, as it would make great telivision. 3) Less court cases involving dog bites would be going on, therefore saving the time of the court people, who should be more concerned with the growing sheep-human mutant crossover that is currently taking over New Zealand. 4) It would also be very amusing to watch. You really can't argue against that. Crime rates are going up, mainly due to boredom in the big boring housing area's. This is a form of entertainment that I am offering to you for FREE. The only people who couldn't enjoy this would be blind people and they arn't normally the ones you find robbing shops anyway. Even the postman would find it funny, they would be running down the street laughing. And if they were killed by a dog, well, at least they went down with a smile :D AND they were "on duty" aswell. That can look really good on gravestones if you get the right carver and font 5) Everyone hates the mother****ing postmen anyway, they deserve it completly and they had it coming (don't even TRY to say they didn't see it coming - cartoons are on TV all the time, and more often then not are an accurate representation of life. Take South Park, for example) You might say this wouldn't encourage people to become postmen, but why do you care? They can become scientists or whatever and become more productive for society. And anyway, theres always a few people really desparate for money, who will do ANYTHING for money. By anything, I really mean ANYTHING.
DCU VS MCU (Most recent) (DC Movies Versus Marvel Movies) (Pro DCU/Con MCU)

If were talking strictly movies then no, the MCU isn't an excellent franchise since Thor the Dark World was crap, and Black Panther is really over hyped, there easy dub. Also, the 2008 Incredible Hulk film was mediocre at best, although i'm not sure if it's tied to the current MCU continuity.
This House Would reduce the military budget

So you believe congressional pay and 3D pizza printers for NASA should be prioritized over national defense? Two can obviously that game. What I have argued for is that it is currently irresponsible to cut defense spending in the current secuirty climate. Defending the American way of life is important, and I have proven that the money put into expensive defense programs does provide economic benefits to the nation. Defense spending at just 3.8% of GDP is not responsible for putting the nation into debt, and money and cuts should be somehwere else in the governments budget before ever touching and gutting the military. Our troops are providing the nation with an important service and deserve the best equipment and support that we can afford. And right now, especially from the severe cuts from sequestration, I don't believe we've done a good job at that.
This House Would reduce the military budget

So you believe that providing food to the starving families on the streets is less important than a few tanks to fight off terrorists? And that fighting Ebola in Sierra Leone and Africa is less important than a few fighter jets? Our military budget is off the charts which is totally unnecessary. $10 billion dollars isn't a big cut back on military budget, but when that $10 billion goes to feeding the starving kids, it's like a gift from God. Boeing and Lockheed-Martin will still recieve benefits, we aren't cutting those back. We're just taking money away from other aspects of the defense budget. I agree that those two companies, as well as many others, provide well-paying jobs for thousands, that's why we aren't removing their subsidies.
This House Would reduce the military budget

The US only spends 3.8% of GDP on National Defense. This is not a significant spending percentage of the US economy that is showering us with debt. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... That being said I am not aware of one major defense acquisition contract (of $10 billion dollars or more) that was not awarded to a private US company or domestic contractor. Defense companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing provide 100,000s of high paying jobs to the US economy as well as an assortment of other far ranging benefits, such as research into new computer technologies, robotics, aerospace, communications, and new methods of constructing and developing energy efficient infrastructure. To say that defense spending, therefore, is wasteful and does not benefit the US economy or even help fight poverty, is naiive. And in the final anaylsis, I still maintain the opinion that maintianing a nuclear deterrent from expiration (as well as fighting global terrorism) is still in many more ways essential then foreign aid and government welfare programs. There are much more wasteful government programs that should be cut to help Pro's agenda prior to defense. And defense, as I already argued for in round one, has already been reduced to critical levels.
This House Would reduce the military budget

I understand where you're coming from, but I certainly do not agree. We are spending trillions of dollars on the defense budget, a lot of which is excess on new inventions we don't currently need. The money that is taken from the military budget can go to to other more pressing problems such as foreign aid, eliminating poverty, and putting money back into the economy in general. The average consumer will have more money to spend thus creating a larger demand for a product. It's the simple "Supply and Demand" theory from basic economics. I agree, security is important and we do need it. But at this amount? Do we need to go trillions of dollars into debt just for security? After being through streets that are littered with garbage, and after seeing people (especially the elderly) living on the side of the road, many of which have probably been veteran of foreign wars, I say no. Cut back military spending to better the United States economy and help those in need.
This House Would reduce the military budget

First off, poor economics led by the Obama administration along with the aggressive cash injection policies of the Federal Reserve over the past decade is what's really putting the US government into debt, and not the Department of Defense. Nowhere is this point more vibrantly demonstrated than with the Stimulus Act of 2009 ($830 billion) compared to the total costs of the Iraq war over 10 years ($770 billion). 1) $830 billion Stimulus Act http://www.cbo.gov... 2) $770 billion Iraq War http://costsofwar.org...; Secondly, prior to each of their retirements; General David Petraeus, Admiral Mike Mullen, Secretary Robert Gates, and Secretary Leon Panetta each warned against cutting the defense budget at a time of intense security peril, ongoing wars, and 21st century threat uncertainty; citing the rise of China, middle east turmoil, cyber warfare, and global international terrorism. Outgoing DIA Director Michael Flynn (known for the killing of Al-Zarqawi) has even remarked the current security climate is "the most uncertain, chaotic and confused international environment" he has ever witnessed in 33 years of defense intelligence operations. Petraeus http://www.washingtontimes.com... Mullen http://www.defense.gov... Gates http://www.reuters.com... Panetta http://www.cnn.com... Flynn http://breakingdefense.com... But if the opinions of the leading defense experts in the country do not convince you of the need and imperative of maintaining the level of current defense readiness and funding of the military, then perhaps the combine effects of Sequestration and the Obama defense cuts on the DoD will. The Air Force now has the oldest fleet of bombers, fighter, and tankers in its history.http://www.military.com... The Navy now has the least number of ships since WWI.http://www.history.navy.mil... The Army and Marines are now facing over 25% reductions in active duty troop levels each.http://www.defense.gov... And our nuclear deterrent is about to expire.http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org... In conclusion, I will be so bold as to say that the Obama defense cuts have resulted in the loss of more American service men and military hardware from active service than all wartime casualties since the Korean War combined (based on my knowledge of historical American casualties figures since 1950). It is therefore absolutely irresponsible to scrap another penny from the current defense budget. There is nothing more vital to the safety and security of the American people then a strong national defense, and I will remind everyone that this nation is still at war with international terrorism. Cutting the defense budget, even by $10 billion dollars, also risks losing vital defense sector jobs in many local state communities who depend on government contracts for a source of revenue and economic growth. But if Pro really wants to begin saving $10 billion dollars to combat the national debt in a responsible manner, then perhaps he should first begin by cutting the pay of US congressmen ($220,000/yr) along with 3D pizza printers for NASA.http://www.popsci.com...
This House Would reduce the military budget

Definitions: - "This House": The United States - "Reduce": Reduce the military budget by $10 billion dollars The military budget of the United States is one, throwing us billions of dollars in debt, and two, it's also unnecessary. If we implemented the resolution, the Department of Defense would still be able to combat terrorism, maintain law, and fight other aspects such as the War on Drugs. The United States is the largest military spender on this planet. If we were to reduce the budget by $10 billion dollars, imagine what that money could go to. Eliminating poverty, Health care, foreign aid. We do not need such a large budget for one of the already largest militaries in the world.
Humans are driven by self interest or not

My opponent made a bold claim in his argument that he failed to back up at all with concrete evidence. Altruism is a self-destructing behavior that is not at all evolutionarily sensible. In any species with altruistic members and selfish members, The members who prioritized their self interests over others' wants would take advantage of the do-gooders, Causing all members of a society who "will do it anyways" even if they "will not gain anything by performing an action" to be exploited and thereby replaced by the selfish ones. My opponent should find evidence for such a bold and evolutionarily insensible claim before making it. My opponent also claimed that "It is our intuitive nature to consider the lives of others when performing an action. " I will bring the perfect counterexample to this -- a baby, Who has not been influenced by other people and is truly performing actions intuitively and without outside influences. Babies, The most natural form of humans, Don't have the capacity to care about others. They act totally in their own self-interests, Crying when they need food and laughing when someone makes them happy. Therefore, I would argue that the intuitive nature of humans is to be totally selfish and uncaring rather than altruistic and good. My opponent further stated that humans derive unconscious pleasure from being good to others, Which is an example of the interests of others. This is really just another example of self interests. If humans were altruistic and unselfish, They would do things not because of the unconscious pleasure they derive but because of the pleasure the recipient of the kindness gets. History itself proves that humans are selfish and uncaring. Since time immemorial, Humans have been fighting wars. Whether over food, Money, Or land, These wars ravage humans and are terrible for the world as a whole. However, They are beneficial to the winner of the war, Who is obviously acting in his own self interests. If people were altruistic, Wars wouldn't happen, Because everybody would be caring enough that they wouldn't want to hurt others. There would be no lawsuits, No crime, And no problems in the world. In order for my opponent to prove that people are naturally altruistic, He must bring concrete evidence and counterexamples that prove that altruistic people are willing to fight wars, And commit crimes.
Humans are driven by self interest or not

The resolution of this debate hinges on the very nature of human action. We are driven by the stimuli around us to act in certain ways, But not necessarily to benefit ourselves. Altruism is present in practically everything we do. It is our intuitive nature to consider the lives of others when we to perform an action, And even if we will not gain anything from performing an action, We will do it anyways. Now, My opponent is stating the case that almost all that we do is to benefit ourselves, But this argument is circular. If a person is willing to do something, Then that means that that person derives personal enjoyment from carrying out that action. People only perform actions that are pleasurable for them. This, However, Does not mean that we are exclusively aimed at our own interests. We are not driven by it. Through pathos, We, As humans, Derive an unconscious pleasure from performing just and beneficial actions unto others. It is important to note that this does not originate with self-interest, But the interest of others.
A tiger will defeat a lion

Hierarchies and Mates"Your source is from one page, you should be using multiple studies and be researching more than one website."So if I find more reliable sources then my central point carries through unchallenged? Here are some contributing sources [1] [2] (both from scientific peer reviewed journal's).StrengthYes I have said tigers have the advantage on paper.[1] http://www.jstor.org... [2] http://www.sciencedirect.com...
A tiger will defeat a lion

Hierarchies and mates - There are fights to be the males of the pride and there is usually two lions in that place, there is no hierarchy, just that males are more important than the females. Wolves like I said before has an alpha male and alpha female in each wolf pack. Your source is from one page, you should be using multiple studies and be researching more than one website. That was not even written by an expert, just someone that wants to brag and make the lion sound mighty in order to save it. Just like they do when they refer to the 'Royal Bengal tiger' so people are more interested in it. Strength - I have a lot of respect for you and my comparison was purely on strength, when you look at tigers and lions they both look similar in characteristics. Both powerful, and both armed with large paws, claws, and sharp canine teeth. But when a tiger is over 30% stronger in multiple joints with more robust arms and able to fight with double the paws it's going to easily take control of the fight and deal out more damage. I've come to the final conclusion that you already knew the tiger is the true winner in this debate. However, the point you tried getting across was that females mate with the strongest males, I'll give you credit where it's due. Lions with larger manes are the ones that win the fights most of the time, as the losers lose hair a lot of the time, meaning they have smaller manes. Bigger and darker manes do attract females, although Asiatic lions generally have small manes and it doesn't affect mating. But I must also say that any tiger automatically has the better fighting style, this is evident in any video you watch. You put up a good argument and I really appreciate it. I have to give you much respect for having a quick Google search and then accepting the debate. Thank you!
A tiger will defeat a lion

Strength"I actually don't recall you replying to what I wrote about their strength comparisons and I'm not too happy about you dodging it as I straight away debated what you first brought up."I acknowledged at the start of this debate that the tiger has the advantage on paper, I didn't avoid the question I accepted you were correct. My Comparison"The number of people to hold down a tiger or lion wasn't about their fighting style, it was about their strength. If a group of men held down a raging lion it would be using its strength to get up and escape the hold, not its fighting style. The point I was trying to make about you comparing a crocodile or shark to a four legged mammal is not right or accurate. Wrestling a crocodile or alligator doesn't take a powerful human, a female could do it if they were trained. The croc also can't try to stand back up like a tiger or lion would."My comparason still works here, just because the shark is much much stronger and takes more people to control there is no way it would win in a fight.More mates"There is no hierarchy in a pride, and there is usually more than one male lion in a pride. Where did you get information from that the best fighting lion gets more mates, did you read that from a ridiculous post by an amateur on Wiki or Yahoo Answers. Females are attracted to males with darker manes, the mane is simply an attraction which shows the females who has more testosterone. Lionesses don't have a super power to identify a single male lion to be the best fighter out every male in the African grasslands, and then all try it on with him. The only group of animals that have a leader is a wolf pack."This is from an article on save-wildlife.com:"Battles among a pride occur for the sake of the hierarchy. It is rare that they result in death. Yet, if a male outside“ tries to take over the pride a violent power struggle does arise. In the event that the intruder wins the fight, all the pride’s cubs are killed. This way, the female lions are willing to mate quicker so the new pride leader can spread his genes." [1].That basically backs up everything I have been saying so far.[1] http://www.save-wildlife.com... (page 5)
A tiger will defeat a lion

"A lion that is a better fighter will be able to have more mates" There is no hierarchy in a pride, and there is usually more than one male lion in a pride. Where did you get information from that the best fighting lion gets more mates, did you read that from a ridiculous post by an amateur on Wiki or Yahoo Answers. Females are attracted to males with darker manes, the mane is simply an attraction which shows the females who has more testosterone. Lionesses don't have a super power to identify a single male lion to be the best fighter out every male in the African grasslands, and then all try it on with him. The only group of animals that have a leader is a wolf pack. "You will see a lion using two paws both while on its hind legs" I've seen that fight before and it's probably one of my favourites. However, they did not balance themselves for over a second on their hind legs. They were both grappling and between 10 to 15 seconds they were holding on to each other for balance, which is why their were no swipes being thrown. Like I said before, a horse can balance on its back legs for 2 or 3 seconds and then must return to all fours. The same with dogs which some can also balance on their back legs but not for as long as they please. The number of people to hold down a tiger or lion wasn't about their fighting style, it was about their strength. If a group of men held down a raging lion it would be using its strength to get up and escape the hold, not its fighting style. The point I was trying to make about you comparing a crocodile or shark to a four legged mammal is not right or accurate. Wrestling a crocodile or alligator doesn't take a powerful human, a female could do it if they were trained. The croc also can't try to stand back up like a tiger or lion would. A fish is so much weaker out of the water, a shark could easily be held down if you dragged it onto land but in the water is another story. I actually don't recall you replying to what I wrote about their strength comparisons and I'm not too happy about you dodging it as I straight away debated what you first brought up. Should we use Round #5 to close the debate?