BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The French national anthem is greater than the American national anthem

Well met. I'll address each of the points you made, one at a time. 1. You claim that the French national anthem is easier to sing and memorize, and therefore a greater song. Firstly, La Marseillaise is seven verses long, not counting repeats of the refrain; I don't see how that's easier to memorize. Now, arguably, the American national anthem is four verses long, but we only endeavour to memorize the first verse--a grand total of eight lines of about ten words, all rhyming in some way. That's about as much to remember as the first verse and chorus of the French national anthem; I don't know how much the French choose to sing, but I assume it's at least that much. Furthermore, the melodic complexity of a song should add to its merit, not detract; in fact, none of these characteristics seem relevant to the grandeur of the song, just its prevalence. 2. Assuming temporarily that the number of countries that adopt a certain national anthem has anything to do with the quality of a song, the amount of actual nations free of French government is rather miniscule; furthermore, the US has plenty of territories, which arguably are at least familiar with the national anthem. Even excluding these territories, the population of the United states is over four times the size of the sum of the populations of all the nations that, according to Wikipedia, have adopted the French anthem (300,000,000 > 68,000,000). If number of nations is relevant, population should be too. 3. Finally, you argue that the French anthem's role in the French Revolution makes it more significant than the American anthem, which had no such impact on the American Revolution (it wasn't even composed until nearly half a century later). However, this argument assumes that the French Revolution itself was a noble and just war, which may certainly be argued by history. The Revolution resulted in death and destruction, reducing the nation to a state of chaos. It was led by such corrupt leaders as Maximilien Robespierre, who, upon completing what he believed to be the majority of the revolution, set himself up to basically be a dictator to the nation. That kind of history doesn't seem to me to be great--fire, blood, guillotines. One can't deny that this was the intent of the Revolution and of the anthem itself: it wishes that "un sang impur / Abreuve nos sillons" ( a blood impure / will water our fields ). As far as imagery is concerned, I prefer the rocket's red glare any day over fields drenched in blood.
The French national anthem is greater than the American national anthem

Thanks for joining in this debate. Let me continue by saying I don't wish to disrespect the American national anthem or take issue with its purpose or sentiments, which are most definitely noble. I feel the French national anthem is greater for the following reasons. 1. The American Anthem is harder to sing from the point of view of music an remembering the lyrics (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The French anthem is greater because it is simpler to remember and sing for anyone new to a country which sings the anthem. 2. The French is greater because it is the national anthem of many more countries than just one, unlike the American national anthem. 3. The French Anthem moved people to action and directly aided the cause of Liberty in overthrowing the tyranny of the French crown, by becoming the rallying call of the French Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It is greater in that it rallied and moved people to action in the cause of Liberty, and its ultimate effect was greater--the liberation of France. The American anthem hadn't had a corresponding effect. Thus, while the Star Spangled Banner and La Marseillaise are both very great anthems, the French is greater.
The French national anthem is greater than the American national anthem

The idea that any national anthem is "greater" than another already seems absurd, but I'm particularly stunned that, of all anthems, you would choose the French one. (As a prelude to all further debates, I do not associate the French national anthem with the quality of French culture in any way.) Firstly, I would like to know to what definition of "great" you are referring. I assume you mean the term to refer to the quality of the piece, not just its length or volume. I would certainly appreciate your interpretation of the word in your next post, but for now will assume that it just means "good". You posed two arguments in favor of the French National Anthem: it's age and it's musical quality. To address the first, the two compositions were about twenty years apart in composition. Considering both were written about two centuries ago, that would be the equivalent of saying that my best friend is prettier, more intelligent, or more in possession of any redeeming quality than myself just because she's a few years older. Both of these convictions are completely unfounded; age, if anything, reduces the quality of an object to a modern audience, excluding wine and some cheese. As for the quality of the piece, I can't imagine there's much to compare between the melodies. It's like comparing Gaugin, Monet and Van Gogh: their pieces may have a great deal in common regarding medium and subject, but a crowd of twenty people could not agree upon which is the "best"--there are too many standards. I think lyrics, not melody, would be worth comparing in the case of an anthem, as it is the message that truly makes it great; the melody simply aids the expression of that message. Sources: http://www.fordham.edu... http://americanhistory.si.edu...
The homeless should be allowed to vote.

My opponent has not responded to my argument and has forfeited 3 rounds. i think it is clear who has won. As a quick summary, my points are 1) The homeless are still part of society. 2) There is no reason why they shouldn't have the right to vote. 3) The rights of the homeless cannot be suppressed. My opponent has contended that the homeless cannot make an accurate decision, but that's assuming the homeless are uneducated and worthless, which is untrue, as nearly anyone can end up homeless. He also contends the homeless do not contribute to society, which is true,, but it is untrue in saying they do not want to. I urge a PRO vote. Thank you.
The homeless should be allowed to vote.

I would not cite the constitution, as this is a more philosophical question. This is not an argument on what is, rather what "should be". I apologize to my opponent as I did not make that clear enough, and I attribute that to my lack of a first argument. Onward, then: The homeless should not be allowed to vote because they are too concerned with their own day-to-day survival and lack the education/means to make a worthy, well informed decision. They are busy enough determining the location of their next meal, how can they make an accurate political choice? They do nothing to benefit society, in fact, why should they even be considered a citizen? The way I view it is you are only a member of society if you contribute to it's existence. They do not pay dues, or work, and lack a peaceful place/time to sit and think about something thoroughly. I simply do not want our democracy to be run by a "ship of fools". If you do not contribute to society, you have no say in how things are done, IMO.
Censorship Should be Abolished

The censorship of works of art, movies, video games, books, and words on radio, television, and internet should be abolished, as it violated the first amendment's guaranteed right of freedom of speech. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Abolishing censorship would also mean abolishing indecency laws and age limits on movies, pornography, and video games. No one should be punished for saying a word in a school, other building, or public unless it is bullying, inciting a riot, inciting violence, causing panic, (yelling BOMB or FIRE) or threatening someone.
Graffiti is art

On dictionary.com, vandalism is described as willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. So once again vandalism and graffiti are destruction of art not production of art."Ergo, graffiti is a hated, misjudged form of art." -It is hated because it destroys art, otherwise aren't we supposed to look at art fondly?If graffiti is photoshop it is the 'erase button' and thus is not art. Even if it was function of photo shop it cannot be art itself so this photoshop option is very out of place. In round 3 your analogy of old and new artists is very unuseful and is off-topic. Being afraid and whether graffiti is art are not at all related and only put confusion to your conclusion. And to correct your last sentence in round 3- So in conclusion, graffiti is a form of spontaneous dangerous crime that is only excepted by few who are in the same criminal profession.
Graffiti is art

Vandalism is willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)So. you are destroying art, not creating art. Additionally by saying amazing you Are expressing your opinion and you are actually fueling this argument from your heart not brain.www.spontaneouspainting.com is a commercial website and pinterest is a social website. Art is, by your learner dictionary website definition, supposed to beautiful or be an idea, but you instead mess up the preexistent facade you use and block preexistent ideas.
Graffiti is art

There are various forms of vandalism. One of these forms of vandalism is known as graffiti. Graffiti: "pictures or words painted or drawn on a wall, building, etc." [1] Art : "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings " [2] Graffiti is basically drawings, words and more drawn or written on walls. Art can be defined in many ways. As you can see, in the definition of art, it explains how it is something created trough imagination and skill. Art can be shown through many ways like visual art. Graffiti is a way to express emotion and creativity on to a wall. Though it is illegal, it is still art. Art is also viewed as creative and spontaneous. Graffiti is a way to quickly on the spot create a message. It's like spontaneous painting, but instead of a canvas, a wall, or a sign is used. [3]Graffiti shows important messages, and feelings. These people who do graffiti are held back from art, and in result they take it out on the walls, where they are free, and don't need to follow rules. Graffiti can have various images, secret messages, and more using creativity and art to express. [4] Graffiti is a way to illegally, spontaneously express emotion, mark territory and more, using art and creativity. Ergo, graffiti is a hated, misjudged form of art. Some graffiti is actually amazing. [5] Sources: 1.http://www.learnersdictionary.com... 2.http://www.learnersdictionary.com... 3.http://www.spontaneouspainting.com... 4.http://library.thinkquest.org... 5.https://www.pinterest.com...
Families with food stamps should get more money.

Before I start, I would like to say that I have no opinion on this topic and everything I say is in the spirit of debate. Assertion 1:- People live off food stamps even if they could get a job. According to a the FOXNEWS poll above we the people think that the people are taking advantage of food stamps. If we increase the money given, more people will take advantage of it Assertion 2 :- Increases Debt Food stamps are KILLING our country price wise. Food stamps cost us more than a 1/2 trillion dollars YEARLY. Pro is now saying that we should multiply this cost by 5.5 (see round 1). This means that if we implemented pro's suggestion we would have to pay a bare minimum of 2.75 TRILLION dollars a year. This means an economical BREAKDOWN. Refutatations:My opponent said that it's "easier" to feed a family if we increase food stamps, but is we do we will plummet into an economical breakdown (See assertion 2). Sources: 1. http://www.cato.org... 2.http://foxnewsinsider.com...
Abortion should be legal

Alright, the 2nd round.Abortion SHOULD be legal, because in some cases Abortion is necessary (Ex. Pre-Teen is raped, Woman has no husband/reltives and is to die due to disease after child is born). So it must be legal, and you can't have thousands of people deciding whether or not the abortion should be carried out, since it is extremely hard to do so and it will be based solely on personal opinion.If the abortion is WANTED by all living parents, it is probably the most logical choice, seeing as the parents will not love the child at all if they are forced to have it, and a Foster home will mean decades and likely an entire life of physical and sexual harassment.So if Abortion is needed due to a condition (Disease, Rape), Then it is obviously neccesary.If it is wanted by parents, then there will be some possibilities:1- Parents have an Abortion, no big problems2- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they do not love baby and it grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and, possibly, harassment 3- Parents are forced to have a Baby, they give it up for Adoption, Baby is Harassed (It will, don't say it won't) at Foster home, grows up to be a bad person or a mentally weak person due to years of lack of love and harassment If it were me, I'd probably not make the Baby suffer so much and simply pick choice 1. Please explain how choice 1 is unwise.I await your response.
Most Influential President

FDR was an outstanding president but.. - James K. Polk also supported everyone's hopes by saying "May the boldest fear and the wisest tremble when incurring responsibilities on which may depend our country's peace and prosperity, and in some degree the hopes and happiness of the whole human family." -He increased the size of the United States more than any other president through the acquisition of California and New Mexico as a result of the Mexican American War. -He also claimed Oregon Territory after a treaty with England. -He was a key figure in manifest destiny. -He was also an extremely effective leader during the Mexican War. -J.K.P did more in his one term then many other presidents ever did and that is why I think he is the most influential president. Thanks for the quick debate @9spaceking
Most Influential President

I will argue FDR is the most influencial president. Since we only have two rounds I will make my points precise and clear.--Even before FDR got rid of the Great Depression, he was inspirational and supported everyone's hopes, saying "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." in his Inaugural Address. http://www.whitehouse.gov...--FDR did more in his first "hundred days" than any other US president, as said by http://americanhistory.about.com...;his first "Hundred Days" of Roosevelt's term were marked by the passage of 15 major laws. He also made the New Deal, creating many many organizations, to name a few, the CCC hired more than three million men to work on various projects, the TVA used the Tennessee River to provide electricity for the depressed areas, and the Social Security Act Created the Social Security System. (all from that same source). As summarized by this source http://www.whitehouse.gov...;(again), "he proposed,.....a sweeping program to bring recovery to business and agriculture, relief to the unemployed and to those in danger of losing farms and homes..."--FDR also helped defeat the Nazi Germany within World War II, meeting with Winston Churchill to create the Atlantic Charter. see http://history.state.gov.... Even after he died, the Allies still won with his massive contributions.As you can see FDR worked very hard, changing the tides of the Great Depression and helping win World War II, and that is why he is the most influential president in the United States.
Should "Masterful" be banned on this site?!?!

I will admit it, Masterful's debates are extremely annoying and pointless. However, the point of DDO is to debate and for that to happen it needs people of varying views no matter how extreme. Masterful often starts trollish debates, but occasionally has a good thought. If he directly violates the terms of use, gather evidence and tell airmax1227 instead of adding to the constant spam for or against this "brotherhood" fiasco.
Abortion

My argument is as follows: 1. The unborn are distinct human beings. 2. Human beings should not be killed. C: Therefore, the unborn should not be killed. 1. The unborn are distinct human beings. As defined by Dictionary. com, a human being is "any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. " Individual is defined as" a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item. " From the moment of conception, a zygote is an individual person. They have their own genetic code and are a separate entity from their parents. 2. Human beings should not be killed. In the United States, we have rights to "Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. " Those rights shouldn't be taken away. C: The unborn should not be killed. The unborn are human beings, and as such have rights to life. I apologize for the short argument, I have been busy and this is one of my first debates. Sources: dictionary. com (. http://www.dictionary.com...) . https://www.princeton.edu...
Ayurveda is a better remedial action than Allopathy for curing diseases.

We blindly believe that Ayurvedic medicines can cause us no harm as they are made up of herbs and other natural ingredients, but the truth is that Ayurveda can be equally harmful as Allopathy. The reason behind it being that there are several Ayurveda practitioners who use Ayurvedic medicines that are made up using ingredients that are not in its purest form. You might be wondering that what can be done to ensure that we receive the medicines in its purest form without any adulteration. The simplest precaution that you can take is to seek treatment from Ayurvedic treatment centers having their own medicine manufacturing unit, as it"s better to be safe than sorry. I KNOW I HAVE BEEN NEUTRAL, BUT THATS THE SHOCKIN TRUTH, WHO AGREES WITH ME ?
ninjas are better than prates

<"All you're doing is explaining how poor of a debater i am. "> This is incorrect -- I'm explaining that my opponent is the one whose in possession of the burden of proof, which means that it's his job to provide some sort of proof; there's no burden on me to prove anything. <"If you could argue that pirates are better than ninjas, please do so, that's what this argument is about (not trying to bring the other person down with negative comments). "> My opponent seems to be addressing me directly and falsely claiming that I've made negative comments towards him, rather than presenting an actual argument, which seems fallacious in nature. My opponent hasn't realized that it isn't my job to prove that pirates are better; all I have to do is negate what he says, which I have. He's the claimant; therefore, it's fully my opponent's job to back himself up.
ninjas are better than prates

At least im defending my opinion. All you're doing is explaining how poor of a debater i am. If you could argue that pirates are better than ninjas, please do so, that's what this argument is about (not trying to bring the other person down with negative comments). So if can't describe how pirates are better than ninjas (which should have been what we're arguing about) then i consider myself the winner of this debate. =)
ninjas are better than prates

<"ninjas could totally kill pirates,"> And pirates could kill ninjas, too. .. but so what? This debate isn't a poor man's Deadliest Warrior, meaning that we're not debating who'd win in a fight between a ninja and a pirate -- the debate is, as the title says "ninjas are better than p[i]rates. " As I said, the onus is completely on my opponent -- but he has failed to provide a rationale which would back his claim up -- just because ninjas could potentially kill the pirates doesn't make them better. <"plus they have many honors that pirates dont, therefore have more to live up to"> What honors would these be? And secondly, having higher expectations doesn't equate to being better. And even if ninjas *were* to have more "honors," the thing is, these honors are based off human opinion, and are therefore, subjective, which means they're a poor objective measure in determining who's "better. "
Jesus Christ of Nazareth actually existed.

This is my very first debate. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting to debate this topic. We should should set some rules to start. 1.No useless semantics. 2. No plagiarism. 3. No round forfeits. This debate will examine if Jesus Christ actually existed or not. Since I am the positive it will be on myself to have the BOP. Though my opponent has the burden to dispose of my evidence and provide evidence of their own. First round is only for acceptance for both. To clarify my position and resolution I will define my choice of wording. Jesus Christ of Nazareth can also be referred to as Jesus of Galilee or simply Jesus Christ. Estimated birth around c. 6-4 bc to c. 30 ad. He was born in the town of Bethlehem and died in the Jewish capitol of Jerusalem. He is most commonly known as the Jesus in the New Testament of the Bible. http://www.britannica.com... I have the BOP to show that Jesus Christ of the Bible in fact existed as a human being. To show evidence that makes it more likely that He did exist rather than He did not. My BOP does not include any miracles or supernatural event. My BOP does not include establishing that Jesus Christ was part God. I truly do appreciate anyone who excepts and wish you luck. Thanks!
resolution: The Border fence is beneficial to America

My opponent has again forfeited, leaving all my arguments unanswered. During the debate his few references were not tied to his arguments and not relevant to the central issue of whether the border fence was beneficial. We are not debating what border security policy is optimum, but only whether a fence is beneficial. The fence is beneficial because it reduces illegal immigration and drug smuggling, and at minimum it redirects illegal activities away from populated areas. The resolution is affirmed.
resolution: The Border fence is beneficial to America

Intro: The border fence in Texas is quite useless. Even with it illegals are still getting into America. Not only is it ineffective in preventing some people (most) from crossing over the cost is insane that Americans have to pay almost 49billion over the next 25 years. So lets count it up. We are fighting two wars. Barack Hussein Obama passed the health reform bill (940 billion over 10 years) and of course the border fence(started by bush). Is truly beneficial? C1- A country that has wonderful genius. At times. Has no Idea what to do now with illegal immigrants holding steadfast to the idea that the fence will magically stop aliens from coming to America because quite frankly other alternatives are difficult to come up with. The fence does nothing it is merely a minor setback for aliens who cross the fence it costs 1,300 per average repair. It has been breached 3,363 times. .. so far. Now in what way is the border fence beneficial does it put peoples mind at ease that at least something is being done? or is the border fence a way to discriminate a minority that feeds America? This is going to be my argument for now pro goes first. . http://articles.sfgate.com... . http://www.cbsnews.com... . http://www.csmonitor.com...
Squids are better than Octopuses

Your proof? Do you even know what proof is? What is your proof that your other friends always side with me? Anyone can honestly see that your losing and your making a mess of trying to prove me wrong, there was no intellect in your argument for round 3! I would have had more respect for you if you had forfeited! Seriously? Mention how quick you post your arguments? Its not about speed, its about content. and from your argument for round 3 you obviously don't know that! I will not whine if I lose and whine if I win, so you my-as-well vote for him to stop the torment of him saying that he won every minute of my life.