BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Music Debate--With a Twist

PrefaceI have spent most of today (besides falling down a staircase and talking to YYW) listening to Pharrell's "Marilyn Monroe." I got to thinking, why not do a music-themed debate on DDO? Hence, this music debate with a twist--the twist being that each round will focus on different elements of music appreciation and performance. You don't have to be a music prodigy to accept--I am certainly not the world's best vocalist. I cannot sing to save my life, but I am willing to let DDO see that for itself. Really, I just want a fun, good-humored, relaxing debate where we can talk about something of mutual interest: music! I wish whoever accepts good luck, and I thank them in advance for accepting! StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Select a Song and write an analytical review of the Song (you're are NOT to review the video)R3: Same as Round Two, but it should be a review of a cover, comparing it to the originalR4: Select a Song and provide a video (or audio) of you Singing itR5: Show us a Song that you like, and provide a 1,000 character statement or less of why you believe you won the debateJudgingThe winner of this debate should be decided holistically. Rounds one and two should be evaluated based on the depth of the analysis, the clarity of the message, etc. Round four should be judged based on the singer's ability (were they pitchy, did they choose an easy song technically, did they stumble, etc.) Round five has lesser importance than the other rounds, and judges should give weight to the song they personally enjoy more.Rules1. No forfeits2. All songs in all rounds must be cited using a link to Youtube or to a reputable lyric site (e.g. Metrolyrics). Citations may not be in the comments.3. Songs must all be "clean" versions4. For the purpose of this debate, "rapping" shall not be considered the same as singing 5. Stay civil and decorous6. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the R1 rules or setup constitutes an automatic lossThanks again! :) http://www.youtube.com...
Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" Should Not be Implemented into Science Courses.

After failing to get Intelligent Design taught in science courses by the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the Discovery Institute has put their main focus on something similar, the Teach the Controversy campaign. Teach the Controversy Campaign: "The central claim the Discovery Institute makes with 'Teach the Controversy' is that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution'[14] where "the full range of scientific views",[15] evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory"[16] will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity[17] presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans." http://en.wikipedia.org... Being Pro, I contend that this campaign NOT be implemented in our current science educational system. Reasons are as followed: (1) Evolution is not a controversy, instead one of the most accepted and supported theories today. (2) The "unresolved issues" the Teach the Controversy campaign discusses are certainly not unresolved nor scientific weaknesses. They are laden with scientific evidence. (3) Intelligent Design concepts such as Irreducible complexity have been rejected by the scientific community and refuted in peer-reviewed research papers.
Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" Should Not be Implemented into Science Courses.

What should be taught in schools is what is most scientifically backed up. (1) "Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved." A controversy amongst the public? Yes. Amongst the scientific community? No. (2) "In this instance, the Discovery Institute came to the defense of the Dover Area School District, when a lawsuit was filed, aimed at outlawing the teaching of intelligent design. Is there anything wrong with fighting to preserve the free exchange of ideas within a school district? No, also I would like to point out the Discovery institute was not fighting to advocate the theory of intelligent design but to stop the outlawing of it." When deciding what is to be taught in an science class, what is taught is what is agreed upon by the scientific community, not the public. They can exchange their views in other areas, but not have pseudo scientific ideas taught in classes as if it was a legitimate science. (3) "Michael Behe is the most prominent biologist arguing that some features in cells (cilia, for example) are so complex that they could not have functioned in a less complicated form and, thus, apparently could not have evolved. He terms this "irreducible complexity" and concludes that if it appears that these features could not have evolved, they must have been designed by an intelligence. In a class where ID was being taught, teachers would have to help students examine Behe's claims and purported evidence closely. Indeed, the core process of science is the comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of any unresolved issues that are presented." Michael Behe presents his concepts such as irreducible complexity as if they were real detriments to evolution, as if they posed real problems. However, the scientific community has strongly contested against this. His examples of the eye and the bacterium flagella have been refuted. Ken Miller has refuted Michael Behe's analogy of the mousetrap. While removing one piece does not allow its function to be the same, it's function can change. It is the concept of exaption that Michael Behe has failed to incorporate. Note that I never contended that I.D. was breaking the separation of church and state, since I can conceive of I.D. proponents using the argument Behe did, and thus avoiding a false dilemma. I am targeting how it I.D. is unscientific, and thus should not be part of school science courses, something I.D. proponents cannot escape. As in accordance with the Teach the Controversy, since the Discovery Institute has changed their focus from having I.D. taught as a scientific theory, to now poking holes in evolution, it is their scientific arguments that must be examined.
It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

I thank Badger for their reply, I would like to get stuck straight into their objections.Cons ObjectionsCon says..."My opponent proposes possibilities of the imagination in their infinite number to make it necessary that more than one of them exists"This is straw-manning my argument, I am certainly not arguing that just because its possible that more then one universe exists and/or its possible an infinite amount of universes exist then it follows that more than one must exist necessarily.Con says..."Why not just this and all that we can see? Why not just one universe and that's it?"Con will be happy to know that I acknowledged that its possible that our universe is the only one, I am just considering the two possibilities that either our universe is the only one, or it isn't and making the case that after considering these two options its more plausible that our universe is not the only one.The possibility of the other universesI think Con does agree that its possible that other universes can exist. I see no argument that attempts to show its impossible for other universes to exist. I think this premise is safe.There is no reason to believe that our universe must be the only oneCon doesn't present any argument why our universe must be the only one that exists, so once again its possible that other universes exist remains unrefuted.Sheer possibilitiesRemember there are only two possible answers here either........1) One universe exists = 1 universe exists2) More than one universe exists = Anywhere between 2.............infinity.I maintain that option 2 more likely true than false, thus its more plausible that more than one universe exists.I look forward to Cons reply.
It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

My opponent's argument completely boils down to:1. There could be more universes than the one we reside in?2. There could be infinitely more universes?!Therefore, it is more plausible that there are more universes.We'll take our "universe" to mean, say, the big bang and what it made for the purposes of the debate, fairly, right? just this that we can see, the ammm universe...more or less? in contrast to other universes which could be completely different that we can't see? It's a God argument! My opponent proposes possibilities of the imagination in their infinite number to make it necessary that more than one of them exists. Why not just this and all that we can see? Why not just one universe and that's it? What makes anything my opponent imagines "more plausible" than anything else, more plausible than that this might just be it? this universe alone? Because you can imagine more does not mean it must exist. I can imagine myself having more weed right now... I could have 6 or 7 ounces, 50 kilos, 14 small children full... but I've what I have here in front of me that I can see... and it's depleting quickly. I could imagine it not doing that...Cheers!
It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

Its possible that another universe distinct from ours existsWe know that a universe is possible since we reside in one, and we have no reason to believe that its impossible that another universe can't exist. A personal cause of our universe can create another universeOne of the most popular claims of the cause of our universe is that it is a personal cause, usually described as "God". Now clearly any personal cause that is capable of creating our universe is capable of creating another universe and even another after that, and even another after that and so on. A non personal cause/s of our universe can create another universeBut what if the cause of our universe is non personal ? what reason would we have for believing that a non personal cause/s of our universe created our universe first and none other than that ? Any non personal cause of our universe is clearly capable of also creating other universes. The universe didn't have a causeBut what if the universe didn't have any cause ? If our universe began to exist without a cause, that is to say it came from nothing, then its possible that other univeres came into being from nothing too. Sheer possibilitesWe know there is at least one universe since we reside in it so too speak, so we have two options either. .. .. ..1) One universe exists (The one we live in)2) More than one universe existsIf there were 2 universes then that would come under the 2nd option, if there were 3 universes that would come under the second option, if there were 4 universes that would come under the 2nd option, and so on and on approaching infinity. The 2nd option has alot more possibilities than the first, thus its more plausible that more than one universe exists. I look forward to Pros reply.
It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!Pro will seek to affirm that more than one universe existing is more plausible than not more than one universe exists.NO VIDEO LINKS !!!PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.Definitions:Its seems its hard to get an exact definition for "universe" that we can use in this debate. I can't allow the definition of universe is the totality of all that exists because then Con can win on a semantic point. There can be only one totality of everything that exists ergo there is only one universe.As such I will have to appeal to the common understanding of what comes to mind when some one thinks of a "universe", especially when thinking about the "universe" we live in.!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!
It's time to repeal our antiquated anti-slavery laws

The free movement of goods and people is essential to maintaining a vibrant free market economy and the state should not hinder wealth creators by imposing draconian laws on them which dictate what personnel they utilize in pursuit of their personal or business interests. Many laissez-faire capitalist governments in the developing world recognise this and turn a blind eye to the use of indentured labour. [1] This is why these countries have a competitive advantage over most European and North American nations where, ludicrously, the ban on slavery is strictly enforced. So, while Western countries impose minimum wage requirement on employers, companies and individuals in developing countries are able to buy workers outright to perform menial tasks in the home, on farms or in factories, for less than the cost of a single day's pay in the West. As the Head of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Monique Villa, observed "slavery is rampant globally and...people cost as little as 60 Pounds (100 US Dollars) to buy, with some slaves tattooed with the names of their owners" (to prevent people-rustlers from stealing bonded labourers and selling them on the human black market). Of course, many people in the West still employ slaves. As Monique Villa noted: "Most of us here (at the conference where she was a speaker) today have probably met a modern-day slave without knowing it. It can be on a bus, in a nail salon, in a posh hotel. Anywhere. In London, in New York, in Dubai. They walk among us." [2] Nevertheless, people who take advantage of indentured labour in the West are often persecuted by the police who show absolutely no respect for slave owners' property rights. [3] Meanwhile, companies in the developing world are putting firms in the West out of business because European and American firms' labour costs, and therefore selling prices, are so much higher than their slave-employing competitors in Asia and elsewhere. It's time that businesses in the West were allowed to compete with their rivals abroad on a level playing field by using bonded labour, and busy families were permitted to provide people with food and shelter in exchange for domestic service: in short, it's time to repeal our ridiculously outdated and unduly restrictive anti-slavery laws. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://uk.reuters.com... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Illegal immigration has ruined the US economy

America, like my opponent has states, is a great country. America was founded by people migrating from other countries that have had problems before to start a new life. They were willing to work hard to be successful in America, and it is the same scenario right now. History repeats itself. Illegal Immigrants tend to come from countries that have problems where they face poverty and disease and migrate into the United States. These Illegal Immigrants will work hard for their success in the United States and gain the success they deserve. My opponent says that the future of the United States will decrease economically and politically, but as I have already said, illegal immigrant workers are crucial for the economy. Illegal immigrants have low skill, but crucial jobs that no one else is willing to do. Without these illegal immigrants working for these employers, then we don't have people that are manufacturing goods. Their minimum wage salary is not different from the salary of many other citizens of the United States. Because of their low salary, the products that they help make are lower, making it more convenient and cheap for the average consumer in the United States to buy, therefore there will be no economic fall like my opponent has said. Illegal Immigrants are not being exploited as my opponent has said. The sole purpose of Illegal Immigration from underprivileged countries to the United States is to have a better life from the poverty of the other countries. They are willing to accept these jobs with very little pay to survive. It is a better opportunity than they would've had if they had stayed in their own country to suffer. Not only are they helping from themselves, but they are also helping to keep the economy of the United States afloat as well. Also, illegal immigrants abide the laws and pay for what they use. They pay sales tax, gas tax, food tax, clothes tax and the list goes on. They pay rent or mortgage payments in an estimated 4 Million apartments or homes. If we deport them all what will those landlords do to make up this loss? Extend: On average, all immigrants will pay $80,000 more in taxes per capita than they use in government benefits over their lifetime. All in all, they should be allowed for they have done nothing wrong
Illegal immigration has ruined the US economy

Another point about our country that made it great is, not just our economy, but that we were founded on the immigration of people who welcomed citizenship and knew that they could do well for themselves, if they worked hard. And they worked hard, and gained the success they deserved. That was the American Dream. And they wanted to be a part of it. But if somebody works as hard as you do for half as much, what's your chance? Before any talk of the lazy American is claimed, what if it happened to (understood) you? Nobody cared about outsourcing when it first started, as it was only happening to factory workers. But when white collar jobs were sent to India, oh wow "outsourcing"is on the cover of every magazine at the doctor's office. There was nothing they could do about it by then though, as it was okay for it to happen to others. They told themselves things they buy made in factories would be cheaper so they didn't care. Are they? I have heard people say that the cost of tomatoes would go up into dollar amounts each if we got rid of illegal immigration. First of all, it makes me sick that people do work like that for so little, as I did it myself on my ex-boyfriend's farm. But I have to say I find it hard to believe that tomatoes were delicacy items before illegal immigration. Who picked them before illegals immigrants? People who got paid more. Companies have been handed the addictive drug of paying people less for more, and the door was opened by letting them get away with hiring employees they could exploit. I fear for our country's future because the greed is finally imploding. If you are not getting paid well, you are not buying things. If you are not buying things, companies aren't making money. But they don't care they will just lay people off, hire part-time, hire temps they can dispose of easily, etc. How can it be turned around, when companies don't care about the health of the country and see us all in worth of how much they get for how little? Illegal immigration is much faster than legal immigration, but often the things that come easiest are more of a scam. These people are being exploited, and are being used as pawns in corporate-America's war on all our wallets.
Illegal immigration has ruined the US economy

The United States should let Illegal Immigrants into its borders. America started as a place for immigrants finding a better life from their own problematic countries, therefore we should admit those people into our country Illegal Immigrants are actually better for our economy than illegal immigrants, to oppose my opponent's argument. There is little evidence that legal immigration is economically preferable to illegal immigration. Illegal Immigrants tend to be more flexile in their job selection, flocking to sectors that need more support. Legal immigrants cannot move easily between other jobs, limiting their benefit to the economy of the United States. Most illegal immigrants are law abiding and pay income tax towards the economy therefore helping the economy benefit. Although Illegal Immigration causes the wages for lowed skills workers to go down, the whole population of the United States is able to benefit because of lower prices on products because of lower wages. Unauthorized immigrants serve as a flexible component of our workforce, often a safety valve when demand is pressing and among the first to be discharged when the economy falters. On average, all immigrants will pay $80,000 more in taxes per capita than they use in government benefits over their lifetime. Therefore, taking the illegal immigrants out of the United States would cause a large a economic disaster.
Illegal immigration has ruined the US economy

Simply put: the US economy "used" to be the greatest in the world because the people were paid well, and spent their money on businesses who made great profits, and could in turn pay their employees well, etc. People come here (and I am totally not against them personally, lots of people would do the same thing) to make better money than they do where they come from, and send it home to their families. Well first of all, they send it elsewhere and don't put it back in the US economy (point 2 as I said of what made a great economy). Second of all, they work for less than the job used to pay. Employers here naturally were happy as heck. And they pay everyone else what these guys unknowingly settle for. These illegal immigrants could do better. That is, if they weren't illegal and desperate, being taken advantage of. Make it a level playing field and the citizens of this country, including relatively recent legal immigrants, will do just fine. We are not all lazy and over-privileged - how do you think we built a great country? Pay people well for the job they are doing. But when people are illegal, they will work for crap, just because it is more than what they would make if they stayed home. It's unfair to them and it hurts the rest of us. We don't make enough to put back into the economy what we used to. And down the hill we go. Shall there be no middle class? Corporate America would like nothing better. And it is the illegal immigrants who are making it happen.
Should the SOL be mandatory in middle schools.

I accept the challenge. However, I am confused by the fact that this debate only has one round, since most debates consist of three or more rounds. As someone from a place other than Virginia(assuming that is where Con is referring to) I have limited knowledge on the SOLs themselves and had to rely on the Internet for definitions. SOL- Standard of Learning The reason why these tests should be mandatory in middle school is for a student not to regard his or her lessons as trivial information and dispose of it immediately. The use of these tests is to measure a student"s understanding of the subjects that are being tested; mathematics, science, English, history, and social sciences. The test"s function was to encourage schools to teach subjects based on the topics in the tests, for example: School A teaches basic mitosis to its 6th grade students but the SOL test in science did consist of anything relative to mitosis, but instead meiosis. The Department of Education"s goal was to allow students to be exposed to equal topics, in which that no child was left behind on any given topic that was supposedly to be taught. The SOL itself was put in place of the Common Core of Learning, because parents and other citizens argued that it did not prioritise education itself, but rather the behaviour of students. If a student's GPA was affected by the SOL, then it is up to that student to strive for better grades in his or her school work. A student's feelings may be hurt but that should encourage them to do better. (Not trying to make fun of students with bad grades, that would make me a hypocrite.) SOURCES: http://www.pen.k12.va.us...