BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Scariest films !

"I clearly established to my oponent that these films were not specifically all the films i would put on top 10, he would of saw i put in my arguement" some of these films should be in the top 10" NOT all. " Incorrect. This "establishment" was made in my opponent's counter-response and not in her preliminary (which is her thesis point). My opponent's initial proof was (and I quote) "anyone care to disagree these films are in the top 10? " Referring to the eleven films she had listed. As such, it rests on my opponent to prove that all eleven of these films make up the top ten scary films of all time. This is impossible, as eleven films cannot be ten films. My opponent has not yet given an argument as to how eleven films can be in the top ten. Setting that point aside, my opponent then CONCEDES in her response that some of the movies she listed may not be in the top ten at all. Since this is the case, my opponent has effectively conceded the debate. It is merely too big of a leap to say "These movies are the top ten" and then say "Okay, SOME of these movies are in the top ten". To add to my argument, I also bring up the example of foreign films such as Korean and Japanese horror films. My opponent's main arguments against these are language barriers, relevance, and popularity. I find that all three of these points can be effectively ignored because they don't have much to do with how *scary* a particular film is. Audiences, over a period of time, get more and more tolerant of what is scary. I would say that half of my opponent's list is made of movies which today, would not be considered scary. Movies like "The Ring", "The Grudge", and "One missed call" were hits in America, even though the scariness was diluted massively from the original Japanese. Watching "Ring", "Ju-on", or "Chakushin ari" respectively would probably make the most veteran horror film fanatics question their list of favorites. The very fact that they have been imported to America shows that they are fantastic films, and quite a bit more scary than the older ones my opponent has provided. Thus, I conclude that I have met my burden of proof. My opponent sought to prove that all eleven of her films should be on the top ten, and ended up conceding that only a few of them belong there. On top of that, I have also given my evaluation.
Scariest films !

My oponent has still misunderstood what i previously stated. I clearly established to my oponent that these films were not specifically all the films i would put on top 10, he would of saw i put in my arguement" some of these films should be in the top 10" NOT all. As ive stated 11 films, My oponent then starts to talk about korean and japanese films, My arguement is purley based on more of an opinion than fact never the less i still believe the films i have stated are the best scariest movies, not only because of the directors but because of the feautures affects and so on. Korean films are scary but they are not attracted to more by an english audience because to classify a film as "scary" it would have to be based on the fact of disturbance, affects and so on. Korean movies are more harder to understand they usually take time to interpret what the basic story line is I think the directors of horror films like to keep the basic tense affect dragging on..but korean films do this more than others, Dont get me wrong korean films are good but coming from a social society ( england, america ) so on we can relate and connect to a film more than korean ones, we can find it "scarier" because it simply is connected to spirituality, religion things as a society we are very determined to talk and debate about. The Exorcist for example, was popular over different areas of the country such as brazil, netherland, slovakia,sweden, isreal.over 50 country,contenets all over the world it was also the most popular scary film to be well known and viewed by different places all over europe. (including best director) Although this dosent prove that a majority of audience find the exoricst the scariest film ever, it does show its popularity. Korean films are more based on motive, themes and cultural elements.. i think korean films are better understood by people who can actually relate to a movie from a social norm Whereas American/english horrors have multiple choices in terms of language. In conclusion, i would like to support my main arguement in conjunction why i think these films are the best horror films is because they are unique, and have more of a unique disturbance to the film , the films i picked are all based on different storylines aswell as genres and synopsis. To classify a film as "scary" in needs to appeal differently and not be a typical film, i think these films have achieved this and thats why they are so mainly popular today.
Should animals be put in microwaves

First and foremost, I apologize to anyone who took offense to my joke. I did not realize this was a serious debate. Since it IS serious, I will debate that animals should be put in a microwave. Con has lacked to specify what kinds of animals she has in mind in the title and her opening arguments. Due to open interpretation, I will define "animals" as the following- commonly consumed animals such as chicken, pork, or beef. With that settled, these types of animals should be put in microwaves, for the sake of safe and proper consumption. If these foods are not heated up, then various illnesses such as salmonella or worms could be contracted. Even with other methods such as baking or grilling, microwaving is the most quick and efficient way to cook animals.
Who is better, Dale Earnhardt or Kyle Busch? (pro=Dale Con=Kyle)

I have heard everywhere that Dale Earnhardt is overrated and that Kyle Busch is way better. now I want your opinion. I for one think we could never know because they were in different eras, but I go for Earnhardt, hes won 7 championships and he was a scary good scary lethal driver. He talked the talk like everyone else, he walked the walk like everyone else, but he drove a racecar like we all dream we could.This is open to all criticism please feel free to input your opinion
Selective breeding of dogs (pedigrees) is eugenics by another name

I can't resist at least a brief summary of this non-debate. Whilst I agree that selective breeding of dogs has severely negative aspects that require careful moral consideration, I think that it's simply rhetorical device to compare it to eugenics; eugenics is a complex ideological issue with a history that has caused us to have a visceral response to even the word (as Pro seems to concede in calling it a dirty word). So, I don't think it's fair to win political points by "borrowing" our disgust at eugenics to use for a quite different (if superficially similar) moral issue.
Selective breeding of dogs (pedigrees) is eugenics by another name

Eugenics is a dirty word which most sane, morally upright people have long dispensed with. No one is better or worse than anyone else and thankfully, ideas of 'blood purity' and superficial distinctions that once rendered one race superior to another have long been void of support. Yet, we still continue to breed pedigree dogs and will very often shun crossbreeds for being 'lesser' dogs. We breed for function over form, simply to maintain breed purity, and ignore all the problems (health and otherwise) that come with it. We breed for 'superior' qualities and will cull dogs that don't conform to these. How is this not eugenics? And how is it still acceptable?
god is completely bankrupt and immoral and does not know what love, peace, harmony is

Its not about winning or losing. Its about what's right and wrong and what is just and unjust. And do you really think that with the sick and disgusting verses that this god, in which nobody can even prove exists, even IF proven exists, is in any way just? What kind of supreme deity ---of any kind--- would execute, and or think up such laws and thoughts and put into effect, and mean it, of all that hate? All of that most certainly IS NOT peace, kindness, harmony, love, care etc etc etc when it could have easily started out as such AND KEPT IT. After all this god is god. He can do anything. Nah he chose evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy all in which he freely admitted to having. Doesn't that strike you as odd? And jealousy? From a supreme deity? Jealousy in nothing but anger as disguised fear. And then even worse is this supposed god neatly passed down those baggage emotions, and sorry if I am repeating myself, so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going those who believe in him with at least 1 billion dead on the battlefields alone all in his supposed "good" name. And its going to get worse, much worse if revelation is played out. Hideous. And remember Exodus 34:14 "For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:"
god is completely bankrupt and immoral and does not know what love, peace, harmony is

Actually, I'm ten, just had to lie about my age. And I can read. Another thing I want to point out is this is stuff you have hand picked from the Bible that can be interpreted as hateful. The Bible has a ton of other stuff that is good. This is kind of comparable to Kanye West tweets. Most of them are good, but some are bad, a select few. Also keep in mind that this book was written 2000 years ago and some stuff we can't judge with our modern human prejudice.
god is completely bankrupt and immoral and does not know what love, peace, harmony is

Awe that is so very kind and pillow fluffy of you to call me a "psycho atheist" when the first word out of your maw were "This kind of stuff makes me sick." So that's a bit of a hypocritical contradiction. But no need to worry as there's at least 1,000 in the bible along with inconsistencies to make YOUR bible truly unreadable. No you don't have a problem with me. You have a problem with yourself in being 14, bran spanking new to this, not knowing your stuff, and most importantly.... losing. So what? Why I am doing this was---fully---explained---to---you. But---as---usual---the---typical---christian---CAN'T---READ.
god is completely bankrupt and immoral and does not know what love, peace, harmony is

Ok, you've made your point pretty clear. But you'll never brainwash me into a psycho atheist like yourself. The last thing I said in my round 1 argument was to make the point that if you don't believe in God, why do you need to make that point? I actually looked up some of your other debates and hmm, your first argument has been re used a lot. Why are you doing this? Why are you fighting against something you don't believe in? That's immoral.
god is completely bankrupt and immoral and does not know what love, peace, harmony is

This kind of stuff makes me sick. I do not firmly believe in Christianity, but calling God immoral and comparing him to Hitler is more than crazy. These are just some of the worst things you scanned the Bible for. I know this is a weak argument and you will probably win, but hear me out, if you flip to almost any page in the Bible, you can find reasonable counterarguments to this. But I will to save you the time. And another note, God did not write the Bible, interpreters of God did. *Counter to Lev 20:13 - Mark 12:30-31 "Love thy neighbor as thy love themselves" This is saying that you should love everybody who walks this earth, even if they do not believe in Christianity. *Counter to Lev 24:16 - James 5:15 "The one who sins shall be forgiven" This is saying God will forgive the people who have sinned. *Counter to 2 Chr 15: 12-13, Dt 13: 9-10 and 17: 2-5 - Isaiah 49:25 "I will contend with those who contend with you, and your children I will save." This is used as an analogy to Moses' people' slave owners. God is saying he will make them believe. *Counter to Ex 21, Lev 25:39, Lev 25:42, Lev 25:44-46, Dt 15: 12-15, Dt 23:14-16, Mt 18:25 - John 8:32 "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." If you believe in God (even if you don't, he will save you, as mentioned in the verse above), you will be set free. I know this is a loose one, but it can be taken figuratively and literally. *Counter to Ex 20: 3-5, Ex 34:14, Dt 4: 23-24, Dt 32: 16-17, Dt 5:9, Dt 6:15, Jh 24:19, Ps 79:5, Ps 78:58, 2 Cor 1:2 - For the next ones, I'm going to argue it without verse. This one is pretty simple. He is not being jealous, but he is telling the people that worshiping idols can be dangerous and will lead you to the Devil. *Counter to Ex 31:14, Nu 15: 32-36 - Yes, because the sabbath is considered holy and if you disrespect it it will be punished. In the Bible, breaking the sabbath is equivalent to burning the American flag or shouting Nazi propaganda. *Counter to Lev 20:10 - Adultery is evil, like I said before, it is equivalent to burning the American flag or shouting Nazi propaganda. *Counter to 2 Sam 12:11-14, Ex 32:14, etc. - I will use the same argument as I did with my counter to Lev 24:16, "The one who sins shall be forgiven." In most of teh instances you mentioned, the people God punished or planned to punish were committing sin, and he will forgive them. *Counter to Lm 4: 9-11, Mt 10:37, Mt 2:16, Jg 21:10, 2 Sam 12:11-14, Dt 2:34, etc. In the case if many of them, including 2 Sam 12, God is punishing the sinners by taking away his son. *Counter to Lm 2: 20-22, Jm 11: 22-23, Lv 26:29, 2 Ks 28-29, Lm 4: 9-11 - This is getting old. Same response as my previous counter. There we go, 10 counterarguments. One thing to keep in mind though, I provided counterarguments for very literal interpretations of the Bible, and sometimes they are not all literal. Also, why are you tearing down something you don't even believe in?
President Obama has had a successful presidency

I would like to begin by stating my three main points. 1) Recent scandals- President Obama has told the press that he has nothing to do with the NSA, IRS, AP, and Benghazi. Either he is right and does not know what is happening in his administration, or he lied to the American people, several times. 2) The economy- Many Obama supporters will say that we are in a recovery and that the unemployment rate is falling. However, the unemployment rate only includes those actively seeking a job. According to investwatch. com, the unemployment rate would be about 30% if the unemployment rate did. Also, in past recoveries, we see the government begin to ween citizens off of government aid such as welfare or unemployment, but we have about half of the population receiving some type of federal aid. 3) Lastly, Foreign Policy- Obama has said that there is no war on terror the day after the two radicals from Nigeria attacked and killed a British soldier on the streets of London. He has also waited for Syria to kill tens of thousands of people before he finally decided that arming the rebels who also have ties with Al-Qaeda, was a good idea. Thank you, I am anxious for your rebuttal.
The big bang is wrong

Well, first of all let me explain to you the theory breifly. It is not a theory explaining what caused the creation of the Universe, but a theory relating its evolution. The first instant is defined by scientists to be t=1*10^-43 seconds, and t being the time that passed since the start of the Universe.That's 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds, What happens is that in the first instants of the Universe it was so small and dense that regular physics didn't apply to it, quantum physics did. This is known to scientists as quantum cosmology, quantum physics being the branch of physics studying subatomic particles. At this time matter and energy were basically the same thing as subatomic particles. Later on the Universe expanded and cooled a little, letting energy and matter become different things. This is known to scientists as baryogenesis when the observable type of matter, baryonic matter was formed. In this there was more matter than antimatter, so most particles anhialated themselves, releasing photons or light. After this happened it was the beginning of particle cosmology where our Universe's Unified Force separated into the four basic forces of the Universe: -Electromagnetism -Strong Nuclear force -Weak Nuclear force -Gravity. this happened in t=1*10^-11s Then standard cosmology happened in t=0.1 s as the universe kept expanding and it began getting cooler and cooler and soon enough hydrogen and helium atoms formed out of the roaming protons and electrons.
Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical Theory

Utilitarianism is the Best Available Ethical TheoryTo which I say no. As PRO keeps asking how can i show the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the man - SPOCKS BRAIN. Utility can allow slavery, Utility can have forced organ donation and a number of other things which are ethically unsound. How does Pro get around this? He redefines utility to a number of things it is not. At which point, utility becomes a meaning panacea. When you redefine a word that can be anything, it’s stand for nothing. This is why Pro has to redefining the word and the meaning because the real word and meaning of utilities it unsound. The needs of the many outweigh the needs o the few. Always, forever, without exception. That means, slavery, forced organ donation, forced action without consent for utility as not only acceptable its required. All those things which are abhorrent are allowed, and not only permissible but required. As for secular humanism, is a methodology of understanding what is ethical and how to go about it. It does not permit, slavery, forced labour, forced organ donation, and while we use different lines of reasoning, we also acknowledge that we can get something wrong, and will accept new evidence, unlike UTILITY, which is only right if you accept Pro`s redefined Utility. http://en.wikipedia.org....
Should All students after 2035 be required go to college by the law

I shall refute her argument: 'the law shouldn't jump to say that it is mandatory to go to College, but it should be mandatory to finish high school, since you can drop out at 16 legally. ' >Making college mandatory implies that high school and any other education preceding it would be mandatory. I thought I had made that point clear. 'More the point is that if we have such a hard time pushing people to finish high school than why should we push them harder to go to college' >There is no need to motivate them if it is mandatory. On this point, look at my first argument. You did not state any definitive time for doing college. So, by doing on day of college, you have abided by the law. '. If they made it mandatory to go to college than the standard of the education would be compromised because the only goal would be to get people out of college to conform to the law and not challenge people academics. ' >If you drop a sponge in water, it will always soak up water. Likewise, if you put a person through more than 10 years of education, they are likely to pick up some knowledge. If college is mandatory, let's just say for this sake, for a year, then if they fail college they leave and they get a job with extra knowledge. Simple. >People will not get out of college to conform to the law. Alot of people want to go to college, and will revel in a free college system. For those who don't like it they can leave after a day. Simple. 'Do you really want a doctor that was pushed through college because of a law not because of there love for the understanding of there bodie' >The requirements for a doctor are extremely high. Nobody can walk into college and just say 'I'll take the doctor's course'. People who meet the requirements for it are likely to want to do college. 'its Ludacris to push people to do something they dont want to do. ' >The resolution does not state the state chooses the course. The resolution states college be mandatory. This gives people an option of an abundance of courses, and are likely to find one they like. Again, they can just drop out after one day. 'The subject was NOT changed' >Actually, it was. College being mandatory implies high school being mandatory. You can't jump onto one point to try and win another. 'i also did not result to name call such as saying "worming out"' >Worming out is not a name call, it is a verb. It means to try and escape. Like a worm would do through a hole. You tried to escape the topic at hand. It is quite clear my opponent has not made any valid points. I have refuted them all and she has refuted none of my arguments. I have not attacked her, and she tried to completely change the topic at hand. I urge a PRO vote.
Should All students after 2035 be required go to college by the law

In round 2 i was making the point that if the law shouldnt jump to say that it is mandatory to go to College, but it should be mandatory to finish high school, since you can drop out at 16 legally. More the point is that if we have such a hard time pushing people to finish high school than why should we push them harder to go to college. If they made it mandatory to go to college than the standard of the education would be compromised because the only goal would be to get people out of college to conform to the law and not challenge people academics. Do you really want a doctor that was pushed through college because of a law not because of there love for the understanding of there bodies. Its Ludacris to push people to do something they dont want to do. As you see my opponent is trying to attack me but is not making a point, so this is why i urge for a CON vote
Should All students after 2035 be required go to college by the law

To start, my opponent's argument is trying to change the topic completely. She is trying to worm her way out by addressing a completely different issue altogether. She says 'before we argue that college should be must be mandatory we need to enforce completing high school' This should have been addressed at the start of the debate. Also, the debate is arguing that college should be mandatory. My opponent has forgotten that by implying college is mandatory, all education up to that would have to be mandatory. My opponent cannot state we must address a completely different issue. If she wants to debate that, he must do a completely separate debate. By saying college should be mandatory, it is already implying education up to college should be mandatory. Because my opponent has not made a valid argument thus far, I urge a PRO vote.
Should All students after 2035 be required go to college by the law

As he is the instigator, it is worth reminding him he has the burden of proof. My job is to refute his statements, and in doing so form an argument. ==Rebuttal== My opponent has two main argument thus far: 1) College is expensive. 2) Students do not want to go to college. 1) ' Unless the Government is paying for every student to go to the college they want' This is the basic rebuttal of your first argument. If the government pays for college, or at least pays for those who cannot afford it, anyone can go to college without the burden of cost. 2) ' also the government should not be in charge of what teens decide to do with there lives. ' There is a difference between government suppression and the good of the people. If a society was suppressed by government, they would make everyone do a test, and that test determined you're career for life. In a system where a student must do college, it leaves open more doors than it closes. The student has complete choice over what course they do. Also, my opponent has not mentioned that the student most do a full course. They are required to go to college. Because their is an indefinite time frame stated in the resolution, a student could go to college for one day, and would have abided by the law. My opponent has not reserved any room to change the definition of the resolution, so it should be taken that there is no definitive time frame, so one day would be sufficient, meaning it is in no way suppressive. == Summary== As you can see, I have refuted all my opponents points. Under a free education system up to college, and there being an indefinite time length of college that must be done, All students after 2035 be required go to college by the law. I await my opponent to respond, and so far urge a PRO vote.