BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mozart's music is better than that of Justin Bieber

Crying due to the joy of listening to the notes hitting your ears was what I was referring to, not tears of sadness. Beiber won't be considered a classic in the future, he is just just "in" right now, but when he gets older and loses is current appeal his career is finished. Also yes I was speaking about the radio, and yes he is popular "now". Why won't he be popular in the future? This is because, he only appeals to teenage girls and anybody can make a catchy song, the kid can sing but so what.
Mozart's music is better than that of Justin Bieber

The purpose of music is to make people happy. Due to the number of people reached by Bieber, his music has made more people happy. Mozart might be considered classic now, but Bieber could be considered classic in the future. No one ever forces you to hear music through force. If you heard it unwillingly, it was most likely just on the radio, which speaks to its popularity. Since music's only purpose is to please the populace, this shows it accomplishes its objective.
Mozart's music is better than that of Justin Bieber

Cancer reaches more people than wealth, this doesn't mean it's better so Con's argument is fallacious. Also every time I have listened to Beiber it has been unwillingly. Something being catchy doesn't make it better than Mozart as well. Mozart's music is better than Justin Beiber's because it releases more dopamine into your brain. Justin Beiber's music may be catchy, but you would never cry to a Justin Beiber song due to the way the notes hit your ears. Mozart is classic, Beiber is "now".
Mozart's music is better than that of Justin Bieber

Due to the broad range of appeal of the music of Justin Bieber, combined with the larger population of Earth, along with the ease of communication present today, Justin Bieber's music most definitely reaches (and will continue to reach) more people than Mozart has. Since no one is forced to listen to music, those who hear his songs do so willingly, indicating a desire to hear his music. His music is also more "catchy" to the human mind. Although I dislike it, Baby's melody is very addictive.
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

You do make some good points, however, I am going to talk about maturity now and bring in some of the other points at a later time. On maturity, while there are many 18 y.o who join the military there are many more who don't, because they are not fully mature. I have read that the brain does not fully mature until about 25. That being said, there is definitely alot of maturing still needed within that time period of 18 to 25 and adding things like alcohol can impair that maturing. I also think it would be a bad influence on teens around 15-17 year olds, being that many 18 year olds "hang out" with younger teens. There are also alot of teens who are 18 still in high school, which makes it even more possible to influence the younger teens. In the article that I have posted below, it also states that teens become more aggressive around the age of 16 and with drinking this can cause a rise in violence. If you would like to elaborate some of your other points more, I will respond to them ion the following rounds. :) http://www.foxnews.com......
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

Lol very well then. The way I see it, citizens of the United States of America are legally adults when they turn 18. They are able to drive, vote in elections, and even decide to join the armed forces. The not only have the opportunity the make important life dicisions, but they have to make decisions that will effect the rest of their life. With all of this said, why can we not trust them to make the right decision with alcohol? Besides, its no secret that there are a large number of teenagers that are already parttaking in drinking anyway. Lowering the drinking age might actually curtail the amount of underage drinking. Some of them like the fact that they are breaking the law, they get a kick out of this act of definance. Lowering the age to 18 would get rid of this rebellious factor in their attitudes, and might actually decrease the amount of drinking.
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

The point I was trying to make with the voting is a matter of responsibility; an 18 year-old is able to vote in the most powerful person on the face of the planet, and will ultimately shape their own futures based on that decision and many other decisions that are normal for a young adult to make. However, despite all of that they are unable to legally consume alcohol. It seems inconsistent to entrust them with some of the responsibilities of an adult, but not all of them. To conclude, I do not think that teenagers drinking would increase with a lowering of the drinking age, and I think it would be only fair to give them this right when so many other responsibilities are already bestowed upon them.
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

I don't think that making drinking legal for 18 year olds is going to eliminate any rebelliousness (in the kids that are still rebellious at that age). I would say that they are just going to drink more, because now they are able to. I would also, say this would, especially, be the case for the 18 y.o. that are rebellious, because being rebellious shows immaturity, and if they are immature, how can they be responsible drinkers. Also, if rebelliousness is part of growing up, then you could say that these kids are not yet mature enough to drink since they are still "growing up". On the other point that you make about kids at 18 being able to vote etc... I'm not really going to go into that, that is more of a political thing as far as I'm concerned. But, I will say, voting is not something that impairs your judgement, and you can't get behind the wheel of a car and possibly kill someone by voting...
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

One could easily argue that this rebellious attitude is part of growing up, and can come up at varying times in an adolescent's development. In addition, this attitude can be carried out several different ways. But that generally takes place during the early teen years, by the time they're 18 most of that isn't an issue anymore. For the few that it is an issue, lowering the age would fix that. Also, keep in mind that they are legally adults when they turn 18, so why give them most of the responsibilities of an adult and not allow them to drink? Doesn't it seem a little inconsistent to give them some of the responsibilities and not all of them?
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

To respond to your argument, that lowering the age limit for alcohol consumption would curb the teens feeling the need to rebel....I think that right there shows that it would not be a good idea to lower the drinking age. If these "kids" feel the need to rebel, that tells me they are not mature enough to make "adult" decisions. I believe rebelliousness is a factor in immaturity. Past studies have shown that when the age limit for drinking was lower, accidents from drunk driving were higher. Also, the younger you start drinking, the more chance you have of developing a drinking problem (i.e. alcoholism). http://www.startribune.com......
The drinking age should be lowered to 18 (redone)

Going back to the point on maturity for a moment, I will concede that there are a number of adolescents that are not mature. Then again, there is also a good number of adults that are not mature, and probably never will be. It will be worthwhile to keep in mind that we are talking about the majority of individuals in a group. We have all heard stories about the immaturity of adolescents, and the negative impact that those decision have on themselves and others. However, just because we have heard these types of stories before does not mean that these specific individuals accurately represent the entire age group. Just something to keep in mind moving forward. A point I would like to elaborate on is the fact that this might actually lower the number of teenagers that drink while they're underage. Lowering it to 18 would effectively squander the rebellious attitude that they have concerning alcohol consumption. Teenagers usually don't drink alcohol just because they like to drink, there can be a myriad of reasons why they would. One of which is to defy their parents, the law, and basically the rest of the world. Lowering the drinking age would take this out of the equation.
Illegal Immigrants

Sadly, I seem to be speaking to an empty room. I will argue that the R1 argument by CON cannot be sustained as presented, and must be modified. This is a breakdown of the argument: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work.Here, the key error is the inclusion of the word “illegal.” CON seems to consider any immigrant to be “illegal,” which presumably includes those legal immigrants who come into the US on a work or student visa. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to It is difficult to understand how immigrants could be allowed sanctuary in their home country. The statement is paradoxical, and may not be true. P2(A): Unless they have a "working Visa" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely If they are in the US on a work Visa, then the person is not here illegally. P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries This conflicts with P1, where CON states that ‘illegal’ immigrants should be allowed into the country in order to work. P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged) Concluding analysis: CON makes an error when he groups all immigrants into the category of ‘illegal immigrants.’ The argument that was presented cannot be reconciled with itself; immigrants cannot be simultaneously allowed into the US in order to work, and still be rounded up and deported. Additionally, those with valid, legal clearance to enter and visit the United States can no longer be considered ‘illegal.’ Moreover, many of the positions in the R1 argument are already law, or represent only the opinion of CON.
Illegal Immigrants

I thank CON for instigating this discussion. (As I understand my requirements) I shall be playing the role of PRO, and shall be attempting to accomplish the following: I must challenge the assertions made by CON, to ensure that his Burden of Proof is being met. It is not obviously a requirement of mine to propose any counter argument, (based on the R1 instigation) although I will do so I will defend the claim that CON's overall argument (from R1) is not VALID In addition, I will argue that many of the statements made by CON in R1 are moot (already being done), or are nonsensical. I want to clearly state that one of his positions is granted at the outset: (that there should be citizenship requirements that are respected by prospective applicants.) I will not defend the position that there should be no such requirements. I have accepted this debate in order to test the statements made in R1. If subsequent statements are made that retract the R1 argument, then this should be seen as a concession to myself. If I am in error in my understanding of my requirements in this contest, then I invite CON to detail my misunderstandings in the comments section, and I will (of course) respect any agreements made there. In the meantime, I will outline CON's R1 argument, which I will scrutinize: P1: Illegal immigrants should be allowed into the US in order to work If illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. P2: Illegal immigrants should not be allowed sanctuary abroad Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to P2(A): Unless they have a "working Visa" [unless] they have a working visa and are monitored very closely P3: Yet the illegal immigrants allowed into the country under P1 should be rounded up the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country need to be found and deported to their home countries P4: there should be citizenship requirements (this is granted, and so will not be analyzed or challenged)The conclusion is far too disjointed and obscure for me to discern from this. I see a number of possible unstated conclusions that may be drawn from the R1 opening, and so I do not want to play ventriloquist in attempting to articulate what the exact consequence of these premises might be. My position for this debate will therefore will be to defend the assertion that the R1 argument, as presented, has severe structural problems. I look forward to R2.
Illegal Immigrants

As an born bred American Citizen I believe that allowing illegal immigrants into our country then giving them citizenship just like that is beyond wrong especially for those who are currently do the process right so that they may become a legal citizen of the United States. Now I don't want to hate on the Illegal Immigrants due to the fact that being human we strive to live better lives and most of us knowing that the U.S.A even in it's current condition is still very high on the scale for new opportunities, it's just that people have to want it bad enough, I digress but to my point if illegal immigrants were to enter the country it should be only on one term and that is to work. Now people are like oh those illegal are taking our jobs away but in reality if they were to pay attention in life rather than listen down the grape vine they would know that most illegal immigrants take jobs that most Americans wouldn't such as helping farmers pick food, they also pick up trash, and so on. These jobs are looked upon very unfavorably by the tens of millions of Americans. So to end my opinion, I shall state this, Illegal Immigrants under no circumstances should be allowed sanctuary in a country they do not belong to , only and mean only if they have a working visa and are monitored very closely to where they could not just fit into the populous and just disappear. There shall be tight restrictions to what they may do. As for the illegal immigrants that are currently in the country i feel they need to be found and deported to their home countries and be encouraged to become a U.S. citizen but there shall not be any automatic citizenship. You cannot just be forgiven and be granted something that you haven't earned. Only those that follow the rules shall get access and sometimes they don't even fit the standards.
LOL champs

First, the burden of proof lies entirely on the pro to prove that top lane carry champions are the strongest champions in the game. This is because a) He's the one making the positive statement, which requires him to provide the proof for the statement. It would be illogical for him to say that he's Osama Bin Laden and ask us to disprove it, which means it's his responsibility to prove the claim he is making. b) The definition of negate is to deny the truth of something (1), so my role as the negative debater is to simply refute pro's stance. That means the burden of proof lies 100% on pro. This means that unless he provides you compelling proof that stands up to refutation as to why top lane carries are the best champions in the game, you vote con.So then let's examine his last round.He spends literally 100% of his last round talking about Lee Sin jungle. Let's talk about this for a second. First, this helps my side because it's talking about the impact that a jungler can have on the game and absolutely snowball a game in the favor of their team. This means that if his argumenet in his last round is right, then it would mean that junglers were the best champions in the game, rather than top lane carries, which is directly contradictory to his stance. Second, he advocates for Lee Sin to be one of the champions he is going to use to prove his side. Lee Sin is a jungler, rather than a top lane carry, meaning this is only further evidence for me. With everything in his last round responded to, let's just conclude:1. The burden of proof is entirely on him in this debate. If he can't prove to you that top lane carry champions are the best champions in the game, then you negate the resolution.2. All of his arguments so far aren't even about top lane carry champions, so it's evidence for my side rather than his. Hold this against him.Sources:(1) - http://dictionary.reference.com...
LOL champs

So to start this debate i would like to say that i love top and jungle and this is what makes me feel the need to make my point. i have been in so many games were i am left to carry and maby mid sometimes. But me carrying is not because my skill or luck , its knowing how to play OPs such as lee sin to your advanage. I will use lee sin as an example. He starts of good(clear time , farm , dmg and HP ) and starts to snow ball , you cant focus him or gank him to shut him down because he is in jungle this makes it very hard to turn the game around for the other team. And then he gets fed so he can control North ,South ,East and West junge slowing the other jungler. Then we move on to team fight , he can start the fight and stay alive unlike most , his jump starts , if he needs he has his W for escape and the slow in AOE is good for fight.And is your haveing the problem of someone like KAT you just alt her in the face an she is turned to sh*t. This is the same for many champs most in your list from last round.
LOL champs

I accept. For those of you who are unsure of what's actually going to be discussed, Pro clarified his stance before acceptance in the comments: "I was making the point of top solo carry is the best ... But if your top gets fed over adc or mid or even your jungle it will win you the game. This debate will be me for carry tops and the contender will try to say other wise" If I'm mistaken, my opponent is free to clarify in his next round. I'll also merely use this round for acceptance and some clarifications on what is and isn't a "carry top laner" for those of you who aren't really familiar with League. I'll list a pool of champions who I would call traditional "carry" top laners. My opponent is free to argue that other champions that should be included in the pool, but that would be a point of contestion in the debate. Pool of "Carry Top Laners":Darius - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Fiora - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Fizz - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Irelia - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Jayce - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Jax - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Riven - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Ryze - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...Tryndamere - http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com...
LOL champs

This forfeit puts my opponent in a sticky situation. He can't make a new argument in the final round as that would be unfair to me for him to save all of his arguments until I only have one round to address them whereas I've been presenting ideas from the start. So don't let him make any new arguments for why top solo carries are the best role in the game. This is incredibly problematic because without making a new argument in the final round, he has no arguments for why top lane carries are the best in the game. This means you negate off of the burden of proof argument I made at the top of m case
LOL champs

My point was tanky/ad champs are the best not tops it just so happens that most are top but i didt mean to say just top if you got that idea. i think lee sin was a good example because of his tank and his attack. And you failed to make one point on dota all you did was point out things in my argument i feel this makes me the winner of last round due to this . you might of proved me wrong on some things but you didt make any points that = you 0
resolved: that physician assisted suicide should be legalized

I doubt that everyone in America will, and does want to kill them selves, and its not like they are commuting suicide just because they hate their lives, its because there is no chance that they are going to live and they are in pain and want to just speed the process up. Imagine you have cancer, and your going threw Kim and your losing your hair, and the cancer is spreading through out your body and your having lots of surgery, but there is nothing that the doctors can do and your in really bad pain, would you want to be like that for a couple more months or even years, or would you like to go and be in heaven with Jesus?
Modern art.

You said "the entire reason that art is created: to express beauty. Not to make a crude statement" You're assuming that. People make art for all kinds of reasons. Some people do it to make money, Some people do it to send a message, Some people want to be famous, Etc. That's just what you think it should be for. Art is subjective. If there was transcendent beauty, We'd have proof of it. You said "You reject bad music because it is bad music" No, I reject certain music because I don't like it. I do have objective standards, But they're based on my opinion. I like music with lyrics that I think are clever. But other people might like simplistic lyrics or they might have a different definition of clever. "Everyone finds the golden ratio beautiful in some way. Studies have shown that even human faces follow the golden ratio" This is categorically false. This would assume that everyone in the world is aware of the ratio and if there was something in the world that people universally agreed upon, It would be headline news. "The $10 million hunk of stone I referred to was the piece of modern art that was just a rock. Not the David. I actually find the David to be a marvelous work of art. " My mistake. "My final point is that artists have recently been lazy" You can't possibly know that. Just because their art looks easy, Doesn't mean they didn't work hard on it. Good debate.