BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stairway vs Taurus. Led Zep should pay something in the Stairway lawsuit.

Zeppelin opened for Spirit several times, Page claimed to be a fan of Spirit and Zeppelin covered a Spirit song called Fresh Garbage that was on the same album as Taurus. So I think it is just not believable the Page had not heard Taurus. I think he not only heard it, but adapted it to Stairway. The jury didn't get to hear the songwriters views from an old interview nor the actual songs, but just see the sheet music. However, I think even if Page said he did use Taurus for inspiration for Stairway, I think there is still an argument to be had both ways. I am inclined to favor California primarily because of the long history of Zeppelin taking other music without attribution. But I still love Led Zeppelin. To me it doesn't take away from their music. They are not the only great artists that do this. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys stole Sweet Little Sixteen from Chuck Berry and called it Surfin USA. But i still think Wilson is a genius. But he did have to ultimately give credit to Chuck Berry. But that case was a clear note for note theft. Here i think partial attribution would be appropriate. For example, in Zeppelin's first album it used to say that Dazed and Confused was written by Jimmy Page, but later they changed it to: Jimmy Page, inspired by Jake Holmes. They could have done something like that for Randy California and paid very little money.
Designer Babies

With the development of technology this will most likely be a possibility in the near future. And when technology is within reach, man achieves it. However, I do think that this is in some ways dangerous. We are losing sight of one simple fact: life is not perfect, humans are not perfect. I think instead of trying to make ourselves or our kids more perfect we should try to except and love the ways in which they are not. A parent should love their child unconditionally and not already object it to some standard of being beautiful or having other characteristics that can be modified. That's kind of the beauty of parenthood and the relationship to children: It's a very deep connection that is not primarily bound to anything like beauty. Let's not ruin that, let's accept ourselves the way we are, especially our children. It is also very likely that designing babies would be very expensive, so that only a handful would be able to afford it. Their kids would likely be considered more beautiful, intelligent and so on. We would be able to create 'superior' humans which would be dangerous because it would make society even more unfair. I know that new technology can often be exciting, just think of all the possibilities! But we have to ask ourselves one important question: Would it make life better, happier? I don't think it will. In some ways, it might make things worse.
Prostitution should be legalized

You are of course free to present any relevant definitions you want later on when you present your counterarguments, if necessary. For an activity to be criminalized it must at the bare minimum infringe upon other peoples rights, either directly (rape, murder, theft, etc. ), or indirectly (pollution damaging peoples health for example). I maintain that prostitution involves neither and should therefor not be considered a crime. My first argument will be the fundamental one dealing with the legality of prostitution. The other two are supporting arguments demonstrating the positive practical benefits of legalizing prostitution.1. Prostitution is a victimless crimeGiven that the prostitute and the buyer are both consenting participants, there is no victim. If there is no victim, then how can there be a crime? Furthermore, the state has no business controlling what adults choose to do with their own bodies, as long as they are not infringing on other peoples rights. 2. Undermining the black market and increasing workplace safety for prostitutesToday, black markets, i. e. pimps and other criminals, meet the demand for prostitution and these „employers“ tend not to be overly concerned with the safety of their employes. If prostitution were legalized, then the black market would have to compete with legal brothels, which would presumably be regulated by the government. Prostitutes working at these brothels would enjoy the benefit of a much safer working environment and would therefor have a significant incentive to work there instead. Legalizing prostitution would also allow prostitutes to unionize, ensuring that their rights as working men and women would be respected.3. Decreasing the taxpayers' loadThe state spends significant amounts of money combating prostitution. If prostitution were legalized, then the expenditures of the police and justice systems would decrease and the tax revenue would increase. I look forward to reading con's rebuttals and counterarguments.
The Youth in Asia: Let em Die

Interesting points - I'll be very enticed by your arguments. Having said that, I'll be expressing what my arguments will be based on. In this debate, I'm going to be defending two basic contentions. 1. There has been abuse where euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal 2. Euthanasia is never necessary - even less since the advent of palliative care Note: I'll not be involving religion in my arguments. I find it rather pointless to even mention religion; namely, because it is irrelevant to our debate. If you disagree, then let me know in the comment section before you paste your argument in the third round. You may start - good luck.
The Youth in Asia: Let em Die

Ok cool brother, think its best for round 2 to just be brief and for bullet points, to set the tone. Rounds 3-4 we can go in to more depth, perhaps continue in to comments if necessary. Ok so here are the points I want to discuss. Suicide is illegal and immoral es, but if someone is death bound mentally, physically or psychologically, euthanasia is necessary (in those cases), denying someone this in turn is immoral, as they are only suffering. Saves tonnes in medical bills for people hanging on for ages with no sign of improvement, eg people on dialysis. Punishing someone for attempting suicide is pointless unless you will rehabilitate them, which is also expensive and some people don't access to high quality health care. There is a stigma against mental health problems, inc suicide. Those are the main points I want to highlight, but of course will expand depending on your argument incentives.
no school

i thank that there should be no school. the reason why i thank this is because the parents can teach the students. i thank that the parents should be able to have a choice whether to send there child to school or not. its no right that the parents have to send there child to school. every person should have freedom and making parents send there child to school is not giving freedom at all. nobody should be made to do anything. and when there is school your not aloud to wear certain clothes.
Childrens voice vs. Grown Mans

For the most part when a child is used as a witness in a case their view pf the events is seen as more truthful because: A. They are usually naive of certain situations and when they describe a situation that they have never seen before, or experienced then they are more than likely telling the truth. Children don't usually know enough to lie about things that are serious enough to be taken to court. B. The older you get the more likely you are to lie. An adult will lie when they think they'll get away with it, a child cannot process the statistics of their chances of getting away with a lie and for the most part will tell the truth. C. If something has been done to them that they understand to be wrong, or that they think is wrong, they will tell somebody and not even think about possible consequences. Also they have a bit of a difficult time keeping secrets, whether of the good variety or not.
Childrens voice vs. Grown Mans

They would take the child away from the mother if they had reason to believe that the mother might attempt to compromise the child's accounts of the happenings. The child might get away with it but with child testimonies they are fairly cautious. I'm not entirely sure but I think that lie detector tests are less accurate with children because they're fidgety and things like that can compromise their testimony. Also, those tests are not admissible in court.
Childrens voice vs. Grown Mans

Well, in the point that I am trying to understand. If a child is Coached to lie, by someone that they love or trust or even if that child was told that they were going to get into trouble if they didn't lie, say the child was 9 years old. Old enough to know how to lie. Why is it that in the court system they are automatically being truthful. I really am not here to debate on this topic really, I am just frustrated with some things that I have seen in my life and I need to know why. Why wouldn't they put the man on a lie detector and the child also? I don't understand. If a child is coached to lie one time then the next time don't you think it would be easier for the child to lie. He would get used to lying and it would become normal. Then because he is a child the man that is being lied about will go to jail. Now wouldn't the person who coached that child feel guilty for putting their child thru that? Wouldn't they then stop the lies. Wouldn't they not want to put that child thru drama that will effect the rest of their lives?
The ban of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms

In 2002 2,893 children under the age of 19 were killed by a gun. Every day 45 people commit suicide with a gun. That's 16,425 per year. One argument backing the allowance of firearms in our country is that it is protected by the second ammendment. It reads, "The right to form a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Where are the militias? If that is the whole reason behind owning firearms, why don't we mandate service in some sort of militia when firearms are purchased? Guns are the reason for death for almost 35,000 American citizens per year. There were only 210 in the UK in 2006. Please tell me how the citizens of the US are helped by an ammendment that harms so many of our own people?
The ban of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms

Summarizing your points: 1) It seems to you that the reason for the wording of the 2nd amendment is that the US military was too weak, so state militias needed to be strong. 2) Schools don't teach that the 2nd amendment is a check on the government. 3) Nonviolence has worked, we can vote to effect change. 4) Studies have shown that guns are more likely to harm family members. 5) Hunters use bolt action rifles. 6) Harsher laws will scare criminals away from trafficking guns. Responses: 1) That's certainly *a* reason, but I think I made a pretty logical argument earlier. To condense it: a) our founders believed that revolution is sometimes necessary and right to overthrow tyrannical governments. b) any government runs the risk of becoming tyrannical. c) it is impossible for the public to overthrow the government if it is largely disarmed. d) therefore, in order to provide this necessary safeguard, guns must be permitted. 2) There's a lot of debate today about public school curricula. Not this issue specifically, the bigger point is that school curricula are not the final word. My school blatantly lied to me about the dangers of marijuana, for example. 3) I agree that those methods are far better than violence when available. From the beginning of this debate, I have been arguing that a violent uprising is a last resort, and of course I hope that it will never be necessary. 4) This is definitely a strong point. One thing you need to also take into consideration, though, is the peace of mind it gives to millions of people. Many people are sincerely afraid of being burglarized or something. Taking away their guns and telling them "you'll probably will thank us for this" will not remove their fear. They will feel perpetually unsafe, which is a significant loss of utility (in economic terms) or if you prefer, quality of life. 5) I guess I don't understand why this is such a huge deal. I don't think most potential murderers will be upset to learn that they'll need to cock their gun before each shot. 6) This is just dead wrong and betrays a lack of understanding of economics. Economics predicts and history has shown that "cracking down" on any good, be it drugs or guns, only drives up prices and empowers those who are clever enough to circumvent the system. One final point: the police. I'm assuming you aren't proposing disarming them. They'll still have semiautomatic and automatic weapons, right? The more you crack down on arms dealers and guns, the more corrupt cops who will take their place.
The ban of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms

First of all it seems to me that the founding fathers made the ammendment for the creation of a militia. During the time of the revolution a state's survival depended on its militia. State pride was much more fierce then. A strong national army wasn't ready to protect its citizens. Today we have the strongest army on the planet. Individual states don't have to fight for their own survival anymore. If guns are so important to the system of checks and balances, why isn't it taught in conjuction with checks and balances? We have entered an age where problems with the government are resolved peacefully. These tactics were successfully used by both Martin Luther King Jr. and Ghandi. They got what they wanted without having to take the lives of their opressors. In America the people hold the power. Their votes can make our break a tyrant. The people get what they vote for. One defense backing the right to hold guns in the household is that they protect the families in any given particular home. Although this seems like it would be true it is actually the opposite. Dozens of medical studies have found that it is 8 to 10 times more likely that a firearm will hare a family member, not a criminal. You have stated that hunting is a popular hobby for many Americans. An automatic and semi-automatic ban would only ban those weapons meant to specifically kill people. The single shot bolt action rifles that hunters use wouldn't be restricted. Strong laws need to be put in place to control gun violence. Making the owner of an illegaly sold weapon responsible for crimes with that weapon would reduce the black market sell of weapons. Harsh prison sentances for a minor possessing a gun could reduce the amount of guns on the street. A stronger coast guard and boarder gaurd could slow the flow of illegal weapons. Our curent administration takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the NRA. The government has the power and means to stop the illegal trade if it had the desire to do so. I think that if guns cannot be completely banned they need to at least be much more regulated.
The ban of all automatic and semi-automatic firearms

You said that the government was created with the sole purpose of protecting the rights of the citizenry. Would you agree that it is also the purpose of the government to protect the lives of its citizens? Should tens of thousands needlessly die so that we will have weapons when a dictator tries to rise to power? Last time I checked the US is the most anti-communistic country on the planet. We were willing to involve ourselves in nuclear war because of our distaste in communism. Your stance has a few problems. First of all, you took it from the preamble of the constitution, not the second amendment. Saying that we could possibly be helped in the worst of circumstances at the loss of thousands of lives doesn't make sense. The government should act in a way in which it does everything it can to ensure its citizens live safely. You countered my stats by saying swimming pools are 100 times more deadly to kids. Are you implying that 3,000 dead innocent children is insignificant? WE ARE IN A WAR BECAUSE THREE THOUSAND AMERICANS WERE KILLED ON 9/11! Most swimming pool deaths are due to improper supervision or improper pool setup. You could equate getting shot on the street to being forcibly drowned. How many people are forcibly drowned per year? People jump into pools and let their kids play around them knowing they could drown. We don't go into everyday life expecting to be shot randomly, but it happens. We have reached a stage in society where people go out and kill just because they are fed up with life. We can easily take the weapons out of their hands with a strong enforcement on a no weapon policy. Bush has no need to stop illegal weapons trading seeing as all weapons are allowed in the US any way. You failed to disprove or demerit my stats on the United Kingdom. They only allow hunting rifles and shotguns and in return recive only 210 deaths by gun. I feel that if corruption was removed completely from this area of government an effective policy banning firearms could be made. This time please explain how your views are supported by the second amendment, not the preamble to the constitution
Dumbledore (from the Harry Potter series) is Gay

Since this is the last round, and my last argument, I will first off attack my opponent's case, then review my own. My opponent's Case: First, my opponent stated: "Tree hugger. .. .Maybe you should go buy a burger from McDonald's so you can make yourself fat! " My opponent is making personal attacks on both me and everyone else. That is rude and uncalled for. Please disregard all that my opponent had to say on that topic. Second, my opponent stated: ". .. You obviously have some of your own problems with reading too much and getting too involved with the book. " My opponent is AGAIN making personal attacks on both myself and everyone else. Again, disregard all my opponent has said. My Case: In my opening argument, I gave websites that proved the resolution. My opponent did not even address my arguments, merely stating that Dumbledore was not gay, and then proceeded to make personal attacks. I have given numerous arguments, and my opponent did not address most of them. He obviously does not take this debate seriously, and should be voted against.
Dumbledore (from the Harry Potter series) is Gay

The author that wrote the book said that. Obviously, if you're reading this book, you should be aware of the author's intent. Second: "If you believe something like this, then you obviously have some of your own problems with reading too much and getting too involved with the book" What? There is no such thing as reading too much. Reading improves your literary and mental capacity (it makes you smarter). My opponent is generalizing and is being cruel. My opponent obviously does not have any valid arguments, since he is just bringing up general ideas, some of which only partially even address the topic. He is making personal attacks on both myself(the Pro) and to book-lovers everywhere.
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

In order to be of sound reasoning your logic must be cogent. I must have sound reasoning in order to be classified as being of sound reason. You haven't refuted my claim that pure faith is an illegitimate basis for belief. In other words, without something deeper than faith, your reasoning isn't sound. Therefore, people of sound reasoning, by definition, would have to cite something other than faith, like scientific knowledge. If they don't, they are automatically not of sound reason. So, to be of sound reason you MUST cite something other than faith, or scientific and logical reasoning.
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

"You are arguing that pure faith is a legitimate reason for belief." No I am not. Do I believe that? Probably. It works for people who believe in astrology, voodoo and spells. As verified by the topic of debate, I am arguing that "people of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God." So far you have asserted that people SHOULD credit more than just blind faith. But you have not defended the position that people OF SOUND REASON do cite SCIENTIFIC PROOF for their belief in God. To rebut my original claim, you would need to state that position and then defend it with good argument. Are you willing to do that?
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

I agree. People usually don't make objective or rational decisions regarding religion. I don't think that is the topic. You are arguing that pure faith is a legitimate reason for belief. I argue that people should have a deeper rationalization than simple faith. While we agree that the debate can't be settled, I think people should be able to ground their believe in something more concrete than pure faith. I think that the debate has gotten a little fuzzy. So, if you could clarify in the next round if I have misunderstood, that would be great. Thanks
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

That line of thinking suits me too. But do you think it's with deep contemplation and good solid reasoning that the majority of Americans decide to become Christians or that the majority of Israelis decide to become Jewish, or that the majority of Arabs decide to become Muslims? Do you really think each individual has seriously considered all possibilities (including the absence of God altogether) and somehow coincidentally come to the same conclusion as 90% of his fellow citizens? Many believers will cite scientific knowledge and objective reasoning for making their religious choices, but most honest people of sound reason will not. Statistics prove that most people will end up observing the same spoon-fed religion that is predominant among their fellow citizens. Therefore their decisions are primarily based on immediate influence rather than solid reasoning.
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

Why is faith free from the scrutiny of logic? I am allowed to make irrational and illogical conclusions and beliefs and have them be legitimized? I think people should have more constitution than to base their belief on 'because I just do' rationalizations. When questioned about your belief, you should have more weight and support than 'I have a good feeling'. While I agree that the jury is still out and probably always will be, we should at least attempt to have a deeper rationalization than pure faith.
People of sound reason do not cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.

For centuries greater minds have attempted to use logic, science and history to argue for and against the existence of God. So far each side has failed to meet the scientific standards required to make his case beyond a reasonable doubt. Intellectually honest people (from scientists to theologens) will be the first to admit that neither side has proven its case conclusively. The jury is still out, as I believe it will always be, due to the inherent limitations of using earthbound sciences in an attempt to prove or disprove the unearthly. Faith, however, (whether blind or partially supported by historical facts and timelines) is a perfectly acceptable reason to believe in God, or in anything else for that matter. Just as the existence of God is no mattter for science, faith is no matter for the scrutiny of logic. Therefore, people of sound reason do not, and should not feel obligated to, cite scientific knowledge for their belief in God.