BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of Human Freewill

Determinism and Occam's Razor All physical actions occur due to a previous reaction. Since thought is merely a chemical process of synapses firing, physical restrictions apply. Because thought is a matter of physics, a substance must be unbound by physics, yet have the ability to influence physical reactions. Occam’s Razor suggests whatever theory makes the least assumptions is the most likely to be true. Since determinism makes no assumptions other than the validity of empirical evidence, the logic of science, it must be assumed true when it is juxtaposed with another theory with a vast number of assumptions. Freewill makes a vast number of assumptions so Determinism must be assumed true. Illusion of Independence All human behavior is influenced by the existence of other forces. For example, the force of paradigm: A child raised by their parents assumes many of their parent’s values. These values effect the child’s behavior, thus the will to commit behavior is not originating from the child. Humans live multidimensional lives and thus have many outside variables influencing their behavior. Occam's Razor http://www.britannica.com...;Determinism http://www.britannica.com...;
Elton John doesn't get the credit he deserves!

My opponent has forfeited the round and failed to respond to my arguments. He presents one argument. As I have shown: 1. His claims are unquantified. 2. "My peers don't like Elton John" is intangible 3. His claims are merely an opinion. 4. Intolerance will be solved with time. On the contrary, I have shown how Sir Elton John, who was Knighted by the Queen of England, and inducted into many musical halls of fame, has received more recognition for his work than than most artists dream of.
Elton John doesn't get the credit he deserves!

My opponent has ignored my entire case and dropped all my responses. Framework: The Pro must prove that Elton John has not received the credit he deserves. The Con must prove that Elton John has received the credit he deserves. We will be judging this round on holistically. --- Responses: 1. "I feel [Elton John] doesn't get the credit he deserves from them" My opponent's argument in Round 2 is completely intangible. The topic for the debate is whether or not Elton John has received the credit he deserves. Whether or not my opponent's peers are intolerant towards gays is a completely intangible fact and thus is irrelevant to this round. Considering that I live over 5,000 miles away from my opponent, it is impossible for us to debate whether or not his peers are tolerant. "In fact, a lot of the people I know of around my age (even pianists) disregard his music and listen only to whatever "hit" is in the current top fourty." This is their choice. If they choose to listen to what's hip, they listen to what's hip. "I feel Elton should be at least acknowledged by Britain's younger generation." First of all, this is merely an opinion. Secondly, my opponent hasn't told us how many people disregard Elton John. He must quantify his contention for it to be considered in today's debate. Third, we live in a world where arguably most everyone will grow out of said "homophobia" that my opponent claims. As he states, only the teenagers are intolerant towards John's homosexuality. The United Kingdom and United States are both extremely tolerant towards homosexuals; growing up in such a society mandates that it's citizens tolerate such situations. It's naive to assume that everyone will be tolerant; but the majority will. Furthermore, there is an ongoing cultural shift around the world in developed nations that is gradually becoming more accepting of homosexuals. This problem is one that will be solved with time. Ultimately, even if my opponent's peers gave credit to Elton John, what does that mean from Elton John's perspective? As I've shown in Round 1, Elton John is one of the most acclaimed and influencial artists of our time. Until my opponent presents any tangible arguments, his side of the debate has been disproven. --- My argument: My opponent has yet to respond to what I stated in Round 1. Extend my arguments that Elton John has received numerous awards and recognitions for his work. And don't forget my question to my opponent; what more? The resolution has been negated.
Elton John doesn't get the credit he deserves!

Well, a lot of the teenagers I know, almost all of them, disklike Sir Elton. I feel he doesn't get the credit he deserves from them. They forget that he influenced a lot of the music in the charts today (Gary Barlow of Take That says that as a child he was brought up listening to the music of Sir Elton and it was he who influenced him to start playing piano). I live in Britain, you see. My school has little awareness of homosexuality in the community. A lot of the people I know in fact see any homosexual as "weird" or "freaky". Unfortunately, Elton John drops into this category. In fact, a lot of the people I know of around my age (even pianists) disregard his music and listen only to whatever "hit" is in the current top fourty. I feel Elton should be at least acknowledged by Britain's younger generation.
Elton John doesn't get the credit he deserves!

By taking the CON side of the resolution... 1. I agree that Elton John is one of the greatest singer/songwriters of our time. 2. Since my opponent and I agree that Elton John is a great singer/songwriter, my burden as the CON is to show that Elton John has indeed received the credit he deserves. Judging: The Pro must prove that Elton John has not received the credit he deserves. The Con must prove that Elton John has received the credit he deserves. ---- Contention 1: Awards and Recognitions Elton John has been receiving recognition by the masses for his work both as a musician and as an activist for decades. He has established for himself a musical empire, having "sold more than 250 million records over a 35-year career, with more than 100 singles making the best-selling charts." [1] Here are a few of his major awards and recognitions: 1975: Received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 1987: Won his first Grammy award for Best Pop Performance. It was his first of six Grammy awards. He would go on to win Best Instrumental Composition in 1991, Best Male Pop Vocal Performance in 1994 and 1997, the Grammy Legend Award in 1999, and Best Musical Show Album in 2000. 1992: Inducted to the Songwriter's Hall of Fame. 1994: Inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Artists are eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25 years after the release of their first record. Elton John was inducted as soon as he became eligible. [2] 1992: Founded the Elton John AIDS Foundation, and has been working as an activist ever since. 1995: Elton John was made Commander of The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire "for services to Music and for charitable service." [3] 1998: Knighted by the Queen of England for his charitable work. 1999. Topped the list of the Artists of the Century, together with the Beatles and Elvis Presley. [4] Having examined how much recognition Elton John has received, I have one question for my opponent: What more? ---- Refutations: My opponent makes only one claim so far in the debate. 1. "However, a lot of kids today disregard him entirely for his homosexuality. " My opponent doesn't quantify this claim. I am a 17-year-old and as I stated in the comments section, everyone I know loved Elton John. Personally, I didn't even know he was gay until a couple years ago, and it has never affected my personal opinion of the singer. The fact that my opponent, a 15-year-old (as stated publicly on his profile), and I, a 17-year-old, are able to disregard his homosexuality and enjoy his music shows that it is clearly not a major issue. Until my opponent quantifies this claim, it cannot be considered in the round. My opponent has made no other claims thus far in the debate. The resolution has been negated. Elton John is extremely capable, but he has received adequate recognition for his work. I thank my opponent for posting this resolution and look forward to his response. [1] http://new.music.yahoo.com... [2] http://www.futurerocklegends.com... [3] http://www.london-gazette.co.uk... [4] http://www.riaa.com...
Elton John doesn't get the credit he deserves!

Tiny Dancer, Rocket Man, Your Song, Bennie and the Jets, just four from the list of great hits by Sir Elton John. However, a lot of kids today disregard him entirely for his homosexuality. Elton John has always been a capable performer, a mindblowing pianist, and an amazing singer, but so many people seem to disregard his jazzy piano solos, and turn towards the wannabes of the charts. I mean, look at this video. http://www.youtube.com... See how capable he is!
Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

I never tried to say that chess takes more physical skill. BUT THE MENTAL SKILL THAT CHESS TAKES OUT WEIGHS PHYSICAL SKILL lets see 1. Chess skills will always grow you ignored this point 2. Chess take a lot of creativity you ignored this point 3. Chess is not a team sport you ignored this point You ignored, sadly, every single one of my arguments why chess took skill. You must agree to it because this is the last round in the debate. So chess takes more skills than hockey
Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

Let's say chess is a sport. Is it hard mentally? Yes. Is is hard physically? No. Is it dangerous? No. Does it take your entire body to be able to play? No. Just your mind. that's all you need to play. One component. You don't even have to move the pieces if you couldn't. I play both soccer and hockey by the way. Soccer is not played at the speed or physical brutality that hockey is played at. It's much harder to manipulate a puck with a piece of wood than a ball with your feet. So based on al the components that you need in order to play hockey, I believe that hockey is a harder sport to play than chess.
Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

Well chess defined by websters as diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime. so chess is a sport and if chess is a sport, i extend all my arguements why its better if you say chess isnt a sport stilllllllll than hockey is like soccer only one is on ice and one is on grass, one has a puck and one kicks. if chess is a sport, it is harder if not, soccer is just as hard.
Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

Well this will be tough because we have different definition of sport. I don't believe that chess is a sport. Now i'm not saying that the world's great chess minds don't deserve major props but it is a skill. It is something that you can be good at. it takes no athletic ability just brain power. A sport takes both. A sport takes athletic skill, good decision making, and creativity. I think that there is a ton of things people don't consider about hockey. It's not just ten guys beating on each other and skating up and down a rink. There are tactics and situations and plans A-D to go through in your head while your on the ice. You need to read the other team while they attack. Plan the best way to kill a penalty. Choose he personnel that best matches the style of play or the tempo or the situation your in. Having to depend on team-mates, not just yourself. All sports are like this but i just think hockey takes more skill on more levels.
Hockey is the most skilled sport in North America

Hockey is NOT the MOST skilled sport in America it does take alot of skill but not the most here is why 1. There is a cap on skill 2. There is a team to help 3. There are refs to stop violence 4. There is little creativity To begin, i would say that Chess is a sport that takes more skill than hockey. Chess is a mind-sport and it is under-recognizzed on how much skill it takes 1. There is a cap on skill in hockey, not chess A body can only get so fast, so strong, and so good. A brain cannot. A hockey player will eventually reach a peak of skill, and stay roughly around there. A chess player can keep learning and increasing his skill as high a possible. This cap will never be reached because it keeps expanding exponentially. 2. There is a hockey team, not a chess team In hockey, you have other team mates to help you, protect you and boost your confidence. In hockey, the pressure of the whole game does not rest on your shoulders. In chess, you have no one to depend on, no one to help you, and the pressure of the whole match is on you. 3. There are refs to stop violence there reaches a point in hockey were you can't do what ever you want to the other player. example, they can't take off their skate and stab someone with it. In chess, there is no higher-power to tell the other player to take it easy. No ref to tell him he is going to make a move that will hurt you too bad. 4. There is little creativity in hockey but a lot in chess How many ways can you win? how many ways can you score? how many formations are there? In chess, the answer is infinite. You can win with any combination of moves. The challenge? you MUST RAISE YOUR SKILL AND BE MORE CREATIVE THAN YOUR OPPONENT. in hockey, i could be more creative than any other player, but i would suck. in chess, i could be more creative than any other player and i would do well. It takes another amount of skill in chess to develop creativity than hockey
0.999...Does not equal 1

Thanks for that last round Pro.Pro seems to think that 1/3 isn't a "correct" value.Oh well, at least Pro had no problems with the definitions.Therefore, the definitions from my 1st round stand.*Responding to Pro*Pro points out:"If you type 0.33333333333333333333 x 3 into googles calculator, you in fact get the answer 1 and not 0.999.. Try it."My response:Yes, this speaks to the fact that 1/3 times 3 gives you both the fraction 1/1 and the decimal 0.999...Hence why 0.999... in fact equals 1.Pro asserts:"In fact, 0.333.. is not a correct value either, the reason 0.333.. resorts to infinity, is because you can not divide 1 by 3."My response:Ok, why is the fraction 1/3 not a correct value and why can it be added to, multiplied by, subtracted from, and divided by other numbers even yielding natural numbers?Pro goes on an infinity rant:"multiplying 0.999... by 10 to get 9.999... is a trick...you're taking infinity away from infinity and suggesting it equals 0. This is false, infinity - infinity = undefined...Not only do you misunderstand the current concept of infinity, but you misunderstand that infinity has no place in the current mathematical model."My response:Let's make some things clear.First, the Mathematics noun INFINITY.infinity - a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...While I agree that infinity is neither a natural or real number, it is treated as a number in mathematics, particularly calculus, and given these definitions, 0.999... is not infinity, because 0.999... is both a real and rational number and is not greater than any countable number.While I also agree that numbers like 0.333... and 0.999... repeat *infinitely*, they are not the same thing as INFINITY (greater than any countable number) because numbers like 2 and 3 are bigger than both 0.333... and 0.999...Either way, one can subtract 0.999... from 9 just like one can subtract 0.333... from 3.What Pro is saying about infinite decimals' inability to be added and subtracted is complete bunk.*Questions for Pro*Both of my algebraic arguments stand and if Pro cannot answer all of these following questions, Pro must concede:1. What's the difference between the product of 3 times 1/3 and the product of 3 times 0.333...?2. Why is it that we can use arithmetic with a number like 1/3 even though it's an infinitely repeating decimal and, as you call it not a "correct" value?3. Can you ever divide by 3 without multiplying by 0.333..., why/why not?(Try dividing 1/3 on a calculator and using that answer the calculator gives, 0.333..., to multiply by any number)4. Can you see how 3 times 1/3 must necessarily involve an infinite decimal in both the factor and the product?Pro?
0.999...Does not equal 1

0.999.. does not equal 1.The most compelling reason you give is when you divide 1 by 3 to get 0.333..If you type 0.33333333333333333333 x 3 into googles calculator, you in fact get the answer 1 and not 0.999.. Try it.This is because Googles calculator rounds up the answer it is given due to 0.999.. not being a correct value. In fact, 0.333.. is not a correct value either, the reason 0.333.. resorts to infinity, is because you can not divide 1 by 3.Your example of multiplying 0.999.. by 10 to get 9.999.. is a trick. During this trick your sum is 9.999.. - 0.999.. = 9The problem is, you're taking infinity away from infinity and suggesting it equals 0. This is false, infinity - infinity = undefined. Therefore the answer to 9.999.. - 0.999.. = 9.0/0 [A]Not only do you misunderstand the current concept of infinity, but you misunderstand that infinity has no place in the current mathematical model.All mathematics should be able to represent the real world in some aspect. However, we have no examples in the universe of infinity, we only have examples of infinite potential.[A Infinity minus infinity] https://www.philforhumanity.com...
0.999...Does not equal 1

Thanks for instigating the debate, Pro.I accept.I also noticed a lack of definitions, so I'll supply them to guide the debate.I request voters use the Opt-In voting standards and moderators remove crappy votes.*The Resolution Is Not True*I reject the resolution that 0.999 does not equal 1, because of the algebraic arguments in mathematics to the contrary.*Algebraic Argument #1*For this argument x = 0.999...If we multiply x times 10, we then get 9.999...So, we can say 10x = 9.999...Nothing crazy so far, right?If 10x = 9.999, then 10x is also equal to 9 + 0.999...Well, 9 + 0.999... is just 9 + x, because x = 0.999...So, 10x = 9 + x.Right?By using algebra and subtracting the x from the right side of the equation, 10x = 9 + x becomes 9x = 9.From 9x = 9, one divides both sides by 9 and x = 1.Not bad for a science guy, huh?*Algebraic Argument #2*For this argument x = 0.999...If you take the number 1 and divide it by 3, you then get 0.333...When you multiply 0.333... times 3 you get 0.999...Therefore, x/3 = 1/3.x = 1.*Conclusion*It makes sense to reject this resolution, because the claim is that 0.999... does not equal 1 and it demonstrably does.One can even go to Google's calculator and type in:0.999999999999 X 2 and the calculator will yield 2.https://www.google.com...Definitions0.999... - denotes the repeating decimal consisting of infinitely many 9s after the decimal point (and one 0 before it) that represents the smallest number no less than all decimal numbers 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, etc. shown to equal 1.https://en.wikipedia.org......equal - be the same as in number or amount.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...1 (one) - the first number of the infinite sequence of natural numbers.https://en.wikipedia.org...
The new era of Rap Battle: Video Rap Battle

It's not pronounced "Snelled"... Snell-D (David Snell Jr..add me on facebook) is how you'd say it. For instance if your username was your full name it would be DangerC. But anyways.. No, you can't win if you assume I won round 2 and 3 (round 1 was a no post round) because that only leaves 4 and 5. Best is a tie. But hey, I'm willing to throw out round 2 and 3 (Forfeit for me this round as well and my 2nd round also). That puts you up 1-0 Charlie. Only way I can win is if I win both of the last rounds. Good luck and thanks for the debate. Hope you post fast, have a football game tomorrow and would love to post right after!!!
The new era of Rap Battle: Video Rap Battle

As the resolution states. This is a rap battle like all the others, BUT... this one is with VIDEO!!!!!111!!1! (That's a meme, don't you count it against my spelling and grammar) The rules are simple: 1) Video only, no text or comment posting 2) Video must last at least 2 minutes, but need not last any more than 4 Steps: 1) Record yourself rapping. 2) Upload it to youtube. 3) Post the link in your argument. Judging is easy: Change the voting collumns like so: Conduct --------------> Audio Quality Spelling/Grammar ---> Disses Arguments ------------> Actual Quality of Lyrics Sources ----------------> Rhythm and Flow Video/Audio battles let you analyze more of the rap, so I hope you all vote, and "like" the debate
Hip Hop is the most complex genre of music.

First of all, you have the burden of proof because you're making the affirmative statement that Hip Hop is the most complex genre of music. In this debate I am advocating the superiority in complexity of Classical music over Hip Hop. I suggest to all those reading this speech that they at the same time listen to the following piece known as "Ode to Joy". Just for fun. And please start at 11:00, if you would.http://www.youtube.com...Now I will set the definitions since you did not give me any.Complex: the intricacy of the genre's melody, harmony, variety of instruments, and how the structure of the song affects the human mind.My first point:Melody- classical music often has longer melodies with more variations than other forms of music such as hip hop. That is why the melody is more varied and far more developed than hip hop without a single full repetition most of the time until the end of the piece. This is not true in hip hop, which in many cases relies heavily and almost singularly on repition. Harmony- hip hop music usually uses a basic structure subdominant and dominant chords, and all other chords are generally not used at all. On the other hand in classical music you find mediant and submediant chords, and often supertonic and subtonic chords. Instruments- Classical music uses every instrument in the cliche orchestra, plus a lot of folk instruments, an organ, and human voice to name a few. There are many classical compositions for almost every instrument you can think of. However, hip hop in many cases uses no traditional instruments and often relies heavily on single beats and one human voice.The Difficulty of Processing the Music: In recent studies using functional magnetic resonance imaging (http://en.wikipedia.org...) scientists have discovered that classical music requires a lot more effort by the brain to process music than common music. This is due to the overall higher complexity in classical music, rather than hip hop.I'd like to remind my opponent as he comes up with an answer to my arguments that the burden of proof is on HIM.Finally I ask, if my opponent can, if Hip Hop is far more complex than Classical, why does it take classical writers months and years to complete their works while it takes Hip Hop writers perhaps half a day to come out with an okay song?
Fandom Debate

Fandom 1: V for Vendetta V for Vendetta is a valid fandom because it is masterfully transitioned from it's anarchistic comic book state to a libertarian movie, with only one discrepency as far as I can tell. Aside from it's transition, the action scenes are captured perfectly in a batman-esque way (meaning V is a normal human who just happens to kick villian (insert DDO censored word here)). Furthermore, it projects the dangers of an authoritarian world, and shows the value of independant liberties. This political involvement adds a whole new level of depth to the movie, allowing it to be a great fandom
Fandom Debate

I saw a debate like this a while ago (http://www.debate.org...), and I liked the format. The rule is, after the first round (which is acceptance), i post a fandom and why it's valid. After that my opponent posts a fandom they believe is better and shows why, and I counter that, and so on and so on. For example: "Wizards of Waverly Place is good because..." "Harry potter is better because..." "Star Wars is better because...", etc.