BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dubstep Music is real music

I believe that dubstep is real music and through this debate I will try to prove that. Definition of dubstep from Wikipedia: Dubstep /G2;dA2;bstɛp/ is a genre of electronic dance music that originated in South London, England. It emerged in the late 1990s as a development within a lineage of related styles such as 2-step garage, broken beat,drum and bass, jungle, dub and reggae.[2] In the UK the origins of the genre can be traced back to the growth of the Jamaican sound system party scene in the early 1980s.[2][3] The music generally features syncopate drum and percussion patterns with bass lines that contain prominent sub bass frequencies. Definition of dubstep from dictionary.com: a style of mostly instrumental electronic music, originating in London, influenced by dub and characterized by syncopated rhythm and an emphasis on bass and drum elements. Okay now we will look at the definition of real. Definition of real from dictionary.com: true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent Definition of real from Webster's dictionary: not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine ; also : being precisely what the name implies Now we have to understand how to prove something is real, I do not want to go too philosophical so I will try to keep it as easy to understand as possible. How do we show that dubstep music is real or that anything is real at all. The easiest and also the best and most logical answer is to feel it and sense it. We can feel dubstep and we can also sense it (by our hearing mostly). Now that we got the "REAL" part of the debate it is time to go to the "MUSIC" part of the debate. We will now see the definition of music. Definition of music from dictionary.com: an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. Definition of music from the Webster's dictionary: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity and vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony. If we look at dubstep we can see that dubstep has all elements that are needed for it to be music and all of the definitions fit with dubstep or to rephrase that better, dubstep fits with all definitions. We now know that dubstep is both REAL and MUSIC. Final conclusion: Dubstep music is real music ( it even says it in the name, dubstep MUSIC but either way I showed that it is both real and music). My sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Dubstep Music is real music

I see a lot of people saying how dubstep music is not real music. I see how someone could and would believe that but i do not agree with them or the statement that dubstep music is not real music. I want to debate about dubstep music being real music. I as a (Pro) will be claiming that dubstep music is indeed real music and my opponent (Con) will be claiming otherwise ( that Dubstep music is not real music ). First round is only acceptance. Voters are not obligated to leave a comment but if they want to leave them they are allowed to.
Dubstep Music is real music

My opponent claims his argument that Dubstep is real music by using definitions on what music is, and what dubstep and real means. My opponent then went on to set standards or criteria for which a musical component must meet certain requirements to be considered real music. Then went on to say Dubstep has these components, but did not explain why they did, simply stating that they did. Going by my opponents criteria and standards, I will explain why Dubstep does not meet these standards, and thus is invalid to claim to be real music. According to my opponent's definition: Music must express ideas and emotions in significant forms as sound. Dubstep may use vocals, instrumentals and rhythms and melodies, but does it express any sort of idea. The short answer is no. Let me ask my opponent: Does dubstep generally, express any sort of idea or emotion that would be of any influence to anyone? Do the messages in the typical hard hitting bass, and choppy vocals provide any mark? Is it not easily observable to say that no message is conveyed through the majority of the genre?" My opponent may respond with a description on how a specific song in the genre affected him, or what it helped him with, thus conveying emotion. Although this is being deconstructive to the author's intent. Rather than conveying an interpretation of what the musician may be producing, the reader uses the melodies to apply it to himself on his interpretation. This makes interpretation of a message that a song conveys both subjective and objective; which is a contradiction. Dubstep, for the most part, typically doesn't have an author's intent other than to produce for either money, to make people happy, or for something the fans can enjoy, but this is not the same as conveying a strong message. Like several other genres, usually use lyrics to discuss how the MUSICIAN went through a break-up or a loss of a family member. The musician thus has an emotion or intent expressed through this music, not the listeners interpretation. Thus, I challenge my opponent to find five examples of where the artist of a dubstep song, conveyed a message or idea. If he cannot, his argument is invalid and thus there should be no more reason to debate.
Islam is incapable of being peaceful

My opponent is stating that Islam is a naturally violent religion, now while I am of a different faith I do not see this as being the case. If you were to do what I did and actually look up what the Islamic beliefs are you would come across the "Five Pillars of Islam." The first is the Shahadah (Declaration of faith), this has no violence it's the Islamic terrorists that turn to violence over this. The second one is prayer (Salah), again nothing about violence. The third, charity or alms-giving (Zakat) , i'm getting tired of saying this but again not violent. The fourth is fasting during the month of Ramadan (Sawm), there is nothing violent about fasting it is a simple process of not consuming food or drink for a certain period of time. Finally the fifth, A pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj), this is definitely not threatening. It's the Islamic terrorists that make this religion seem so violent an incapable of peace, blame the terrorists not the religion.
Islam is incapable of being peaceful

The Qur'an is not violent, it's the dang terrorists. I'm getting tired of stating that, but it's the truth. It's not Islam that's violent, it's not the book, it's not their gods, it's the terrorists. The terrorists are the ones who are stoning people, beheading them, and raping them. Also, just because there is the oppression of women does not mean that they are entirely incapable of being peaceful. My opponent in the first round stated that Islam wants world domination and it's working because they are the fastest growing religion. However, just because a they are a fast growing religion does not mean they want world domination, look at us Mormons we're growing pretty fast and we're not after world domination. As for what they were saying about Muhammad, I just looked him up and he doesn't seem as bad as what my opponent is saying. Here's some quotes from him to give you an idea of what I mean "Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has not faith." "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr." "None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." "To overcome evil with good is good, to resist evil by evil is evil." "Four things support the world: the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the good, and the valor of the brave." These don't sound like quotes from a child molester/warlord. These are quotes that anyone can live by. In conclusion Islam is capable of peace, the terrorists aren't. So let's stop blaming the religion, stop blaming the book, stop blaming their prophets, and do something about the terrorists.
Islam is incapable of being peaceful

First thing that I have to say is you can't take everything in any religious book or text literally, that's the exact thing that the terrorists did and that's why they are terrorists. According to http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org... "However, in today"s world, such an implementation is nowhere to be found, while those few nations who lay claim to an Islamic system of government are in fact quite far from its true implementation. These "Islamist" nations tend to interpret Islamic law with the narrowest view, rejecting traditional teachings and scholarship. We find such governments constantly issuing decrees of stoning to death, amputating hands, lashing, and other severe punishments for various crimes." "In Islam rules are tempered by application. As a simple example, who is allowed to make the judgment to cut the hand of a thief? Let me explain how this is implemented. First of all, you cannot cut the hands of someone who steals in order to eat, as we see today in Argentina. In Islam, the government"s first duty is to help the impoverished; you simply cannot cut the hands of people who steal because they are hungry. If a person is in need of medicine and steals it, you cannot cut off his hand. The only time the judgment of cutting the hand applies is when someone steals out of greed, without need, and even then numerous criteria must be met to hand down such a punitive sentence." "Islamically, this concept of reformation or rejuvenation of the law is necessitated by change in society over time. The Islamists differ from the traditionalists in that the latter call for a reinstitution of fiqh, but not necessarily an elimination of existing systems of law. Islam requires in the case of the thief that the system attempt to rehabilitate him and seek ways to encourage him to repent: فَمَن تَابَ مِن بَعْدِ ظُلْمِهِ وَأَصْلَحَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ يَتُوبُ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.[73] This means he should be given every chance to reform, such as assisting him to earn a lawful living." "Unfortunately, today we see the reverse being implemented by "Islamic" nations. Someone steals medicine, food, etc. and is punished, while those who amass millions of dollars through dummy corporations, racketeering, money laundering, illicit drug and weapons sales, are never brought to justice. This is the sad condition of some Islamic religious leaders of our time, who follow the letter of the law in contravention of its spirit." As you can see through this information the Islamic law is not saying everything my opponent says it is. Therefore as I said in my previous argument Islam itself is not violent. Even the parts of the law that are violent have a way to avoid violence if possible, that to me sounds like a religion that does want peaceful solution.
Islam is incapable of being peaceful

To be clear, I am not talking about terrorism, but the legal injustices that happen under Islamic law ( Sharia ). Under Islamic law: " Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands (Quran 5:38). " Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death. " Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death. " Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god). " A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion). " A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death. " A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death. " A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s). " Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female (Quran 24:13). " A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery. " A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death. " A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim. " Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab. " A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more. " A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old. " Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251). " A man can beat his wife for insubordination (Quran 4:34). " A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband's consent to divorce. " A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it. " A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries " the weight of a man's. " A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (Mathematics in Quran). " A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative. " Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal." " Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam. Countries under sharia law: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Qatar, Yemen, Egypt, Etc.
The United Nations

I know that the rules of engagement are dumb, but they are also helpful. Imagine what the military would be like without them. The Vietnam War was a different story, sometimes you would have to destroy a village to help your team. After the war, it was found out that 700,000 civilians were killed and many more were injured in the Nam war. Most of these deaths were from planes dropping bombs filled with white phospherous or napalm on the towns. The only place where civilians couldn't be killed, or the soldiers would be court Martialed is in the free fire zones. After this war, the UN decided that they wanted to make beter rules on the places and people soldiers could shoot or couldn't shoot. They made the Geneva Convention, better known as the rules of engagement, more direct. It was made in 1864, it said that you coldn't shoot unless fired upon, prisoners couldn't be harmed, and many other things. Vietnam was the only war that ignored the rules, and that's why soldiers were court martialed. The UN decided that the rules would be "Don't fire unless fired upon" very clear to every soldier in the country. The UN also made the rule of not using hollow point rounds i.e, you can't use rounds that go in the size of someone's pinky to the size of somebody's fist. I have read that without the rules of engagement, our army would be very corrupt. In the book called Ghosts of War, a book by army specialist Ryan Smithson, he states in one of the chapters that after his convoy stopped after driving past an IED dud, that there was a man looking at them the whole time. He was unarmed, and Smithson says, "You can't just go shooting everybody who looks suspicous, just because he has a pair of binaculars..." He also states that after being in Abu Ghraib, a large prison ruled by the United States, he has seen tortures of all kind. He brings that back in saying, "... that would make Abu Ghraib prison torture look like making Vlad the Impaler look nice." So you can clearly see that without the Rules of Engagement, the Media would tear the military up, making them look like terreble killers.
The United Nations

The League of Nations was a waste of time too. plus I didn't mean to say it was a complete waste of time. The U.N. is important in making some decisions but other than that, it is a WASTE of time. The Super Power countries of China and Russia just veto anything the U.S. is for, because their views are just whatever is the opposite of the U.S.' views. Although the U.N. was made as a security council for the entire world so that the smaller countries of the world would have a say in bigger decisions, if a decision is against the views of one of the Big countries ( the super powers ) it will be vetoed and the little country is once again at the bottom. The U.N. is full of corrupted representatives who care not for their country, the world, but to make sure the U.S. doesn't get farther ahead and the small countries don't begin to get ahead The last part of your argument really isn't relevant to our argument besides the U.N.'s involvement and intervening in the Battle of Mogadishu and disrupting us by enforcing the totally bogus rules of engagement. We shouldn't have to be the world's police force and play by the Rules of Engagement when all these Third World countries don't abide by them even if they are in the U.N. Thank You
The United Nations

First of all, the United Nations is not a waste of time. In its history, it was founded to replace the League Of Nations, which pretty much started World War Two after oppressing the Germans beyond their limit. The United Nations was made so that the different countries in different parts of the world could have a say in wars and oppression. The organization is a security council for the entire world. The different countries that range in the UN are from the countries around the Arabic countries, China, America, England, France, Russia, Spain, and more. The league was to keep peace in this country, and the countries around them. The first meeting was to abolish the League of Nations, this meeting was held in London, but now it is held in United Nations Headquarters located on international territory in New York City. It is true that in '93 the countries who were against the United States opposed them, but it is probably for a good reason. They might have had a heart, maybe not before the United States intervened,when we, and some other countries situated in Africa at the time did intervene, they gave a little bit of the support. Of course China and Russia didn't help because the Somalis pay them for the weapons they get. Even without the help of these countries, more countries like Pakistan and Malaysia did help. These people gave us their support, and after the Battle of Mogadishu, a battle in which 18 U.S soldier, one Pakistani, and one Malay died, Russia gave us the littlest bit of support, but to late, because Clinton pulled us out, so the Pakistanis got the supplies and money (says the Pakistani leader in '93).
The United Nations

To begin, i will say that the United Nations is a almost completely useless. This organization is full of representatives to countries that are not there for the better of their people and the world, but more to shoot down the suggestions of countries that are their enemies. For example in 2011, an issue regarding the country of Syria came up in a U.N. meeting regarding the Peace in the country. The dictatorship in the country was starving the people and slaughtering those against their views (much like in Somalia 1993). The United States wished to intervene and defend the people to over throw the dictatorship as they did in Iraq and attempted to in Somalia. Just to make things clear, The U.N. has a group of 6 to 7 countries ( the world super powers ) comprised of China, Russia, the U.S., the U.K., Germany, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and India( I think ). China and Russia, because they mostly appose the U.S., said that intervening in the conflict would be unhumanitarian and so the conflict was dropped and a lot of people died. thank you good bye
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

I challenge that idea of the environment heading. Tobacco for Gardening: Aphid Control if mixed with Tobacco it can make a really good soil to use. Peach Tree Borer can be protected from being infected by sprinkling tobacco around. Leaf Eaters using Tobacco dust into a spraying format can prevent leafs that you like from being eaten. Centipedes usually eat plants, so use Tobacco as a mixture with water and drench the soil, you should of gotten the centipedes away from your plants Gophers and moles hates tobacco, so shred a package of cigarettes and drop it down the hole. Spiders, yes I know that spider can be helpful to get rid of bugs destroying your garden like that garden spiders, but then there the dangerous ones to get rid of those; boil some water and drop chewing tobacco into the water. Medicinal Use Indian or Native Americans used to make tobacco as their most used medicine, so now I'll be talking about how we can use it again as medicine Skin Rashes: Natives used tobacco leaves to put on skin inflammations to help soothe and relieve pain. Toothaches place some in the mouth to heal the pain from toothaches. Rattlesnake: Natives believed that the nicotine in the tobacco would help relieve pain as well as help draw out the poison and heal the snake wound. After the poison has been sucked out, bitten leaves could be applied to cuts on the bite with a bandage. Colds: The Natives typically smoked the leaves to clear out nasal passages. Toothpaste " In India, powdered tobacco is rubbed on the teeth for cleaning. The method is still being used in India and marketed in stores around the country. Mental Illness Alzheimer: I already did this in the last debate but I am going to explain how. According to studies patients' abilities slightly improved. So this proves why America shouldn't ban Tobacco since first it'll take away Native's History second gardeners, pharmacist and any other job that require the use of Tobacco shall have one less method to use. We already banned weed but look at us right now two states already un-banned it after the studies of it.
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Tobacco shouldn't be banned since first it never leads to abusive traits when using it and doesn't leads to murders. Tobacco also can help people who gotten a heart attack to help prevent another one, lower the risk of developing Parkinson Disease. So I believe tobacco shouldn't be banned from America. Wanjek, By. "5 Health Benefits of Smoking." LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 19 July 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2015. Russo, Juniper. "Health Benefits of Smoking Tobacco -- Sott.net." SOTT.net. Juniper Russo. Web. 1 Dec. 2015.
Resolved: Tobacco use should be banned in the United States

Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speechRules1. No forfeits2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. )7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. The BOP will be shared10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossPro in this debate will advocate a ban, Con will support the status quoJust accept Round 1 or you can post a case and waive last round. I did this debate but my opponent forfeited. Good luck
An animal's life is worth just as much as a human's.

My first argument is that our pets have saved many, many human lives in the past. There are many counts of dogs and cats (especially dogs) saving their owners from a variety of dangers. Dogs have defended humans from wild animals, fires, and drowning. Cats, too, are good at alerting their owners to danger. Animals save human lives just the same as humans do. They also serve the police and fire department and have been extremely helpful to them. To sum all that up, animals save lives and serve our protection forces well. They have done no less than humans have. And yet we still regard them as being worth less than us. And don't tell me that animals have killed humans, too. That may be true, but humans do that too. A lot more than animals do, in fact. But homicide is unrelated to the topic, so I digress. Just wanted to point that out.