BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music Battle

My first song is the enka piece Yume wa Yoru Hiraku, as performed by Meiko Kaji. The original was written in a juvenile classification home by Komei Sone, and was immensely popularized by the famous enka sinker Keiko Fuji. The lyrics dealt with typically dark enka themes inspired by the trials and tribulations of post-war Japan: the speaker is young girl who lives a troubled and promiscuous life, while bitterly considering flowers and noting that her dreams bloom at night, as part-time lovers flow away.The rendition by Meiko Kaji revamps the lyrics and modernizes the theme: Naku tame umarete kita you na(Though I don't have any attachment)Konna ukiyo ni miren nado(To this floating world)Koreppocchi mo nai kuse ni(To which I was born only to cry)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)Nagai kurokami tachi kitte(There is someone to whom)Okuritsuketai yatsu ga iru(I want to sever my long black hair and send it)Aitsu fukou ka shiawase ka(Is he unhappy or happy?)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)Shosen otoko wa odatedori(After all, men are flattering birds)Shosen onna wa namidagai(After all, women are shells of tears)Daite dakarete tsumazuite(Embracing, being embraced, and tumbling over)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)Hoshi wa nagarete doko e yuku(Where will the star go after falling?)Atashi nagarete doko e yuku(Where will I go after floating?)Atemonai mi no hanauta ni(For the hum of someone without a place to go)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)Naku tame umarete kita you na(Though I don't have any attachment)Konna ukiyo ni miren nado(To this floating world)Koreppocchi mo nai kuse ni(To which I was born only to cry)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)Yume wa yoru hiraku(Dreams unfold at night)In this rendition, the focus is not so much on losing oneself in other people and furtively dreaming, but rather it embraces a theme ofe of detachment in order to avoid pain, and a jaded outlook on the world. In Kaji's version, her love ties her to a painful world from which she desperately wishes to remove herself, and the dreams are not an escape but a tether. It draws on buddhist philosophical themes, such as the idea that life is suffering, and that freedom from suffering requires a detachment from transient things, while personalizing them and tackling the difficulty of such practices. Kaji is lying when she tells herself that she has no attachment to this floating world; even though she can recognize the futility and painfulness of it, her dreams still unfold at night.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

My final song is from the opera Madame Butterfly, by Giacomo Puccini. It is entitled 'Con Onor Muore' (Honor in Death). The opera is set as a love story, and begins with an American officer (Pinkerton) falling in love with a geisha, and promising to marry her. The geisha (Cio-Cio San, or Madame Butterfly) and Pinkerton plan to marry, and she renounces faith and family ties in order to be with him. However, he returns to America, leaving Cio-Cio alone and heartbroken. Later she discovers that she is pregnant with Pinkerton's child, and writes to him, to which he replies that he will return for the child. In a tragic instance of misinterpretation, Butterfly perceives this as a renewal of his dedication to her, and joyfully prepares her home for is arrival in the most famous aria of the piece, 'Un Bel Di, Vedremo'.However, Pinkerton arrives with his new American wife, not to join Cio-Cio, but to take his son back to America with him. Butterfly is crushed by this, and in the end decides to allow her son to go while taking he own life in face of her disgrace. This final aria takes place as her son walks in on her preparing for her own death via jigaki (ritual neck-cutting). It is one of the most heartbreaking pieces in the operatic repertoire, highlighting the depths of Butterflies despair and her radiant love for her son alongside one another. She begins the piece by addressing and praising her son, then moving to explaining herself. Claiming that it is for his good the Butterfly must die, so that he can live happily across the sea without having ever known that his mother forsook him. However, in the climax, Butterfly grabs her son's face and forces him to look at her face, so that it may 'linger, even faintly, in his memory', demonstrating her reluctance to completely cut herself from her sons life, and then beseeches him to 'go' and blindfolds him. She commits suicide shortly thereafter, as Pinkerton rushes in shouting her name.The opera was interesting for several reasons. The first is that it truly has a female protagonist, and that the narrative is laden with her perspective. Another is that the foreign protagonist is cast in the positive light, while Westerners take the roles of antagonists. A third is that it humanizes where other operas have often jingoistically stereotyped. Butterfly is extremely relatable, an optimist who is betrayed to the point of utter devastation. While the exotic depictions may seem a bit hackneyed and outdated in modern times, Butterfly was a big step forward at the time of its publishing in it's adoption of an extremely relatable female Japanese protagonist.This piece is sung by Ying Huang, and is extracted from a movie adaption of the opera.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

My next piece is extracted from Aram Khachaturian's Spartacus, a ballet about the famous Thracian slave and escaped gladiator who lead a revolt against the Roman empire known as the Third Servile War. In the ballet he was the former king of Thrace, and Phrygia his wife. After his arrival in Rome they are separated, and he is sent to the gladiator pits while Phrygia is forced to join the harem of the Consul Crassus.Spartacus, in the pits, is set against a close friend, and, shattered at being forced to kill his comrade, leads a successful revolt and escape. After attacking Crassus's orgy and freeing the enslaved women, the rebels escape to the countryside, where Spartacus and Phrygia celebrate their freedom to this piece before Spartacus must head off Crassus's pursuing army, an act that ultimately results in his death.The work is very unique within the ballet, as most of the other action-packed scenes are set to rhythmic toccata pieces. This is because the Adagio represents the brief moment of happiness which Spartacus has won, his fleeting moment of freedom with the one whom he loves before he meets his tragic end on the tips of Crassus's spears.The music for this ballet was composed during Communist rule in Russia, and the narrative is set as a class struggle. The brasses and percussion, which come in around 6:10, are typically used to depict the cruel, martial Roman upper classes, while the slaves are depicted with the sort of colorful Armenian folk music which Khachaturian favored. In this piece, the memory of the struggle which seizes upon their happy peace is overcome with an effusive, overpowering resurgence of the theme at 6:55.This particular piece is of an orchestral suite of the ballet's music, arranged by Khachaturian. This performance is conducted by Yuri Simonov, the conductor at the Bolshoi Ballet where the original work was often performed, and is one of my favorite renditions because it maintains the high drama and tension that the piece draws from the narrative. In other arrangements, this is sometimes discarded, and the piece becomes just another detached orchestral work. The insertion of the Roman theme, and ensuing resurgence, is in my opinion one of the highest moments of musical dramatic climax in the Russian, or even Western, canon. It is a powerful denunciation, a banishment, of the voice of authority and power from the space occupied by a pure love.http://www.youtube.com...
PC Is Better Than Cosoles

PC Is Better Than Consoles In Many Ways.If You Are Thinking Of XBOX 1 AND PS4 Has Controllers And Has Much Mobility But Alienware Has Released Their New Alpha Which Is Mobile 5xTimes More Faster Than The Consoles At Cheap Price In i3 i5 and i7.The Only Upgrade Consoles Can Have IS Skin Change And Hard Drive Removal.Whereas PC With Slightly Better Performance And Quality.But High end PC IS Still Better Than Consoles.MUCH BETTER
PC Is Better Than Cosoles

Ok as you stated About the specs on pc's compared to consoles just saying right now my argument isn't going to be about performance because we all know pc's are better on that end but for what the price is for consoles you can get about the same performance also I don't know about you but controllers are a lot more comfortable just chilling back on a couch and playing console compared to having to hunch over and play with a mouse and computer also the community on console is pretty chill and its a lot more easier to have a way to keep a list of friends where you can play with each other on rather then having to download a different program to have a sort of friends list so basically the system is way easier also you don't have to have multiple computers if you want to play with your friends if they come over you can just have a extra controller and play on the same console
Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United State

My case will consist of the following points: 1) Labor Unions Present a Fair Check on Employers 2) Labor Unions are More Efficient and Organized than Other "Uprisings" 3) The Government Endorses Labor Unions 4) A Good Labor Union Produces Happy Workers Depending on my opponent's case format, I may or may not have a value and criterion. Good luck to the both of us.
Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United State

Resolved: On balance, government employee labor unions have a positive impact on the United States. 1. Failed labor unions will more likely have poor work output after the uprising. 2. Irritated employees from failed labor unions may quit their jobs and be unable to find work, increasing the number of jobless. 3. Government employee unions disrupt government processes. Stable governments are needed for successful countries. 4. Unions REALLY hurt companies, we don't want that for our government. General Motors or, GM is currently $27 billion in debt. According to Forbes.com $13 billion of this debt was caused by the strong employee labor union. If one single companies employee union can put them this much in debt, imagine what the whole US governments labor union could do to our country. This is a basic outline of my case, I would like an outline of my opponents case to start off so we know where we are coming from.
Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

Look, gay marriage rights, at least in the American spectrum comes down to the rights of States to choose, and the people within those States. If two homosexuals really feel they want to and need to be married and have the rights of those who are married can move to California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington state, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). The majority people in these states and one district believe in these rights and respect them. But until the US and majority of the states in it as an overwhelming majority decide to legalize gay marriage its not right for those 8 states and one district to tell people what they need until they want it. If that doesn't satisfy there are 20 nations that they could live in to provide them with those rights Andorra, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. So if you are talking about homosexuals deserving the rights granted by marriage, its already been done in many places they already are granted. So your original point and statement of argument is redundant to that fact. Obviously it's not the rights of homosexuals everywhere, but it will never happen. Arab, and Muslim governments probably won't ever allow it in fact they hardly recognize homosexuals as people in some cases right now. Is it right in the sense from our free point of view, probably not. But is it the will of society in those places at least in most cases as an overwhelming majority standpoint, yes. That's what having your own country, society, and area are all about, the ability to choose who and what have the rights to and for. Rights are not any actual thing. You cannot touch, see, or taste them. They are an idea, but ideas are only as real as we make them. Therefor there is truly no guaranteed set of rights aside from those that society on a scale of majority believe in. That's what freedom is, that's what law is, thats what rights are. You can't make people follow through or make things rights or laws if the society doesn't believe in it. Whether or not believing in it is right or wrong, but forcing people to as a whole or majority if they don't believe in it is wrong.
Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

if someone wants to "abuse" the system then they have the right to. Heterosexual couples don't contribute anymore to society than do homosexuals. And if you don't want gays to have the right to marriage simply because some might lie then why not ban heterosexual marriage as well? They have the capability to abuse these benefits too. You said the 1st round: "Just what are gay people missing out on through marriage that they couldn't get from a civil union?" And when i countered that argument assuming they had the same legal effects you answer your own question and contradict yourself by saying "Not all civil unions offer all the rights or considerations under the law" It's simple Those who are the same should just get called marriage. Those which are not should grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

Not all civil unions offer all the rights or considerations under the law, depending on the region, hence it is a civil union and not a marriage. Marriage establishes kinship out of family whereas some civil unions do not establish this fact. What about people exploiting financial benefits of marriage. Do we need more people exploiting taxes, social security, visas, and work permits? What about people exploiting the benefits of service members? The rates of these things happening are already staggering, why allow people who wouldn't mind the stigma just to gain the benefits?
Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

Me: "if you're taking on this debate as a contender, that you are AGAINST gays receiving the legal effects of marriage." Civil unions give gays the legal effects of marriage. Also, gays should have the right to be MARRIED. If marriage and civil unions are the same under the law, they should have the same name. To your polygamy point: There is no difference between the legal effects of marriage and what gays want in gay marriage. However, if you choose to marry more than one person, there has to be some changes made to these legal effects to apply them to three people. Furthermore, I don't think it's the government's job to stop someone of marrying more than 1 person, as long as both women and men have the right to do so. That is for people to decide and not the government.
Homosexuals should have the right to marriage.

NOTE: I had the same opening argument in a different debate although it did not go as I pleased. Therefore, if you're taking on this debate as a contender, that you are AGAINST gays receiving the legal effects of marriage. I want this to be a straight forward debate. If you have many points to make, make them all! But do not give me 50 lines to explain ONE of your points of view. 1) It is against a democracy to diminish the rights of a minority. Gays are a minority and they are not being given the right to be married to a person of whatever sex they like.
Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education.

The parents have made an investment to raise their kids because it was their choice to have children and do so. I simply think that they should be obligated to finish what they started. I realize that they my have their own expenses, but if they were responsible they should've anticipated this necessity to help ensure their kids' financial success in life. I congratulate you for making it, but the point of this debate is not about being able to make it on your own. It is about the obligatory responsibilities parents owe their offspring.
Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education.

<> It was not the child's choice to be born in the first place; nor was it the child's choice to be responsible for the poor judgments of past generations that led to an enormous burden of monsterous debt. Choice is not the issue here. The Standard of Living is something that all people should be able to earn when they become adults. It cannot be widely reached without a college education. < > Yes, but if a kid chooses a modestly priced school, there is not a requirement for any parental duty to be met. < > I live in the USA and find it reprehensible to expect an eighteen-year-old to be responsible for taking care of him-/herself in today's economy without having been properly armed to do so. Yes, once you reach eighteen you are an adult. That should not mean that the parents of an eighteen-year-old that needs to pursue a college education to provide for him-/herself should be free from such an obligation.
Parents should be required to pay for their offsprings's college education.

I come down on the "children should foot the bill" part of the divide. Parents paying for college is a wonderful privilege, but, at the end of the day, I find it reprehensible to suggest that it's some sort of enormous burden that a child shoulder the load for his/her own choice. If a kid chooses an outrageously pricey school - *cough*like I did*cough* - then that's on the child. I would have loved for my parents to even cover the Expected Family Contribution portion of my financial aid package from UChicago, but it didn't happen. So what? It's my education. If I wasn't willing to invest in it, then I had no business there. Two years later, I don't feel like my $200 a month loan payments are any huge boulder weighing me down. The education was well-worth it. You are an adult once you reach 18, it's your responsibility to take care of yourself!
Do we need people who follow the rules ? or people with personalities

Firstly, the premise of Pro: "We don't need people who follow the rules. We need people with personality" is notably vague and without any additional explanation. Neither the resolution or the opening statement by Pro have been expounded on or outlined with any clarity. A simple way of negating this premise is the fact that technically everyone has a personality, and that rules are put in place for a reason. In every single aspect of life we have rules, whether it's at work, at school, in public areas, in governing policies; such as the fact people are required to pay tax and other household bills, and rules even exist on websites, such as this one in which you have an official "ToS" to adhere to. In order to maintain fairness and structure, rules are necessary part of life. Once again there's no reason why a person can't follow rules and have a personality.
Issues Pertaining to Homosexuality

It is the last round of the debate and I am sad to see it go because I feel that my opponent doesn't understand that I am not making this a religious debate to combat her rights I only feel that religion has to do with the sanctity of marriage. You stated that I didn't answer your hypothetical question because I was scared that I may realize that I would be gay and instantly be the Martin Luther King Jr. and organize million man marches to make marriages legal. I didn't answer question the way you wanted to hear it. I am strongly against abortion and I would never be a part of the operation but I will not go out to abortion clinics and protest or threaten the women and doctors of the clinics. I am against gay Marriage but I will not go to gay pride demonstrations which are often peaceful and festive and be a party pooper. I hate the fact that I have to pay so many taxes in the state of California but I am not going to organize hateful demonstrations to persuade the minds of people. So if i where gay what would make you think that I would go out there and take to the picket line and try and force my views on other people. You accuse the Church of being closed minded and not giving people the right to live their lives. I feel as if the gay movement has try to give more power to the government that right now controls much more of our lives then we really need. In the constitution it clearly states that all powers that are not specifically issued to the federal government is left to the states to decide. So I do not want to see an amendment banning gay marriage nor do I want to see an amendment making it legal. The people have voted across the nation and gay marriage has been shot down numerous times. Honestly I feel bad that you are unhappy but whether you believe in religion or not marriage is still defined as between a man or a women if not for God for the continuation of the species. The United States is a constitutional republic and often the masses get to vote on issues. In the event that Gay marriage because Law I might be happy because for many Gay Americans it seems to be the only issue driving them. We must look past this issue because the fact is I do not see Gays being hung from trees on a regular basis as the African- Americans where during the early years into the civil rights era of American history. I do not see the land of Gays being seized by White Americans like the land that was taking from the early Native Americans and I do not see Gays being barred from the ballot box like women where, frankly gays are not treated like second class citizens many use this plea to gain sympathy, my opponent has put up some good points but she is unable to detach herself emotionally from this issue to look at the best interest of the nation please do not vote for my oppent simply because you support gay marriage and do not vote for me siimply because I oppose it look into your heart and mind and see which truly makes sense for the majority of Americans.