BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is wrong

Definitions Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.[1] Wrong: not in accordance with what is morally right or good[2] Abortion is murder My opponent claims that abortion is murder and thus wrong. But what exactly is murder? A legal dictionary defines it as: "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."[3] I will be defending abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy which is currently legal in all 50 states. By my opponent's own argument then, abortion is moral as it is legal. Abortion defies the sanctity of life My opponent also argues that because abortion is technically the act of taking a human life, it is immoral. But I will ask my opponent why this specific act of killing is wrong when there are numerous other examples of killing which are commonly held to be right. Examples: Killing in war Self-defense The death penalty I will ask my opponent what is different about abortion that makes it wrong simply on the basis that it takes a life when there are other instances where taking a life is seen as completely moral? I will also ask my opponent why simply because the idea of the sanctity of life is "commonly accepted" that makes it immoral to take a life? This seems more like a subjective argument from popularity then a logical argument against abortion. Why does the fact that it is commonly accepted make it objectively correct? Objective morality In order to win this debate my opponent either must accept that abortion is objectively wrong in some sense, in which case he needs to bring an argument to prove that objective morality exists, or my opponent objects to the idea of objective morality and thus relies on only subjectivity for his argument, then my opponent needs to provide a reason why his personal feelings are more reliable than my own. Vote Con [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
War Debate: Russia vs. USA

=======Meeting of the Russian ship Moskva======Russian Premier Vladimir Putin meets with US General Amos and new President Carson on the ship. Russian Secretary presents Carson with the treaty to end the war. The stipulation is that the US is to give Alaska, Okinawa, and the Marianas to Russia. The Russians are also to be permitted to use a military Naval station in the US virgin Islands. President Carson signs the treaty and the Russians pull out within weeks. UN Humanitarian aid poors in to the US marking this as a signal for some anti-nuclear weapons activists that just "not using" them is still just as bad. Russia is now the World's Lone Superpower rivialed by the growing Chinese power in the region. The war on terror is taken over by Russia in 2017 after ISIS attacks areas in the Cacassin Mountains region.==================================== I enjoyed the debate with my opoonent. I would be happy to do another war debate, but with entirely different countries. I could have been more aggressive on the financial attack, but that actually would've harmed myself so I decided not to risk it.Since Russia won the war I can see no other option than a vote for Pro.Thank you.
War Debate: Russia vs. USA

--------------------------------------Juno, Alaska, United State of America------------------------------------ President Dynasty paces around the room. From the American intelligence reports from the satellites, he knows that the Russians are pouring from the West Coast, fighting exhausted and outnumbered US troops. In the East, the Americans are now reduced to begging for food from the Russians. The southern states are still resisting, fighting the Russians everywhere they can while conserving food. The President now has a decision to make. He stared at the portraits of all the previous US presidents, who had successful in defeating the enemies and keeping the country powerful. Now the burden of the failure of the country lies on him. The once mighty nation had been utterly defeated by the country he despised. Sighing, he sat down on his chair. The image of Americans dying or starving haunts his head, will his country end up like Nazi Germany, divided by 4 victors? Or will his country be wiped off the map of the globe, becoming a distant memory like the Roman Empire? With no choice, he called in his aides. He signed the last executive order he"ll ever sign, declaring that the United State of America will surrender to the enemy of the North. Within several hours, all the United State armed forces surrendered. Handing the power to the survived vice president, Bill Haslam, he went back to his room. Pointing the object at his head, he triggered the gun. On August 19th, 3:04 PM, the President of United State of America had suicided, rather die than suffer the humiliation. In his will, he ordered the dumping of his body into the Pacific Ocean, and ordered that all his assets will be donated to help the recovery of the country. The war is now over. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let"s now examine the debate. My biggest mistake in the war was to allow the detonation of the nuclear arsenals. Again, my opponents had outsmarted me, but this time in terms of nuclear strategy. I praise my opponent for this. Looks like I lost again".and had a run in with the moderator again".*sigh* Good debate sir.
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

I would not like to see any sources on this one. My opponent will most likely argue that music is perception (which is true) and that therefore no list could be made. He'll be able to find plenty of sources to prove this, but if that is how the debate will be decided then there is no point. I can already tell you that I'll be arguing that music consists of both melody and rythm as essential core, while lyrics, choice of instruments and music videos are additional "decorations", that could be very beautiful and of high quality. IMO, on their own, they cannot be seen as music: at least rythm is needed to make it music, and therefore musically it is of low quality. Hopefully, someone will accept the challenge!
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

Your dad has a point, but in the end it all depends on what the person's tastes are. If a person is more into instrumentals, they probably won't mind if the singer is awful, but if the person is more into the singing part of the song, then it is important that the singer is good. Otherwise, the person may not appreciate the song in the same way as someone who would if they payed more attention to the actual music in it. I think there are more people who prefer the singer over the music, but I am not one of them myself. So, I guess I stand by what I said at the start; depending on what the person's tastes are, they could like or dislike the song by focusing on a single part that they like. Also, if you're looking for music that has no singing and is simply music, check out thesecession's channel. My favourite song by them is "Emotional Music: Moment Of Inertia. Here it is: Hope this helped!
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

Although now I do feel proud, I'm also a bit dissapointed that the talk will you will be over so soon... I've actually had the talk with my dad (whom is a great music fan) and he stated that the list of melodies, won't be the same as the list of actual songs (as they are, with decorations) in order. He says that songs with great lyrics, a nice voice and good instruments will score higher on an actual song lists. He has a point there, like you proved, that when actual universal votings would happen, people would choose Adele's voice over that of Kurt Cobain. I wonder if you agree with him there? Should a song with better vocals be chosen over a song with a better melody, but with a bad singer? Thank you for all your compliments, you yourself are most certainly a great debater (the fact alone that you'll give in to some arguments proves that) but most of all a very kind person - the sort we need to see more on this site! By the way, as I wrote this I've listened to that Japanese song. Beautiful indeed! I'd love to here more songs that you like, your music taste is obviously a great side of you! Hopefully we will meet again on this site, and if you'd like, we could talk some more through messages!
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

Wow, you obviously know your music! I think you have an amazing point, and I'm afraid I can no longer debate with you. I misunderstood your first post and went against it, but now that you've clarified your meaning, I find no further reason to debate this with you, as I do share a similar point. I thought the meaning was popularity-wise, but now I see that no matter what your interests are, if you hear a song without the "decorations", there is a 50/50 chance of what the person will like more. So instead of debating you, I feel like I agree and am with you. Your argument is so strong, well-structured and well though-out, that I'm actually shocked that English isn't your first language. I can't believe how though provoking it was. I'll enjoy reading any other debates you take part in, and I know you will fit in with this community. I'll forfeit the other rounds, as I feel that you have already won. My favourite Japanese song: Sakura no Ame by Matsu Takako (who also plays Elsa in the Japanese version of Frozen)
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

Sorry for my spelling mistake, English is not my native language you see! I'll clarify the first part: I say that people more and more begin to like songs because of the "decorations" that come around the melody and rhythm. A song already being popular also counts as a "decoration". Your counter argument is that there are people with different tastes as well, that is true. Music fans of all sorts can be found, mainly divided into genre groups. As for that, nowadays, alot of rap fans are actually in for the lyrics rather than the rhythm. This is partly why people like Drake even get to have success. Ofcourse there are people who value the true nature of music (rhythm and melody) but alot of people focus on a certain decoration and perhaps even limit theirselves to one type of "decoration". I might have to remind you here that by "decorations" I mean the additional beauties of music asides from melody and rhythm. For example, some people will really like the sound of a guitar while others wont. That I would be my own example is very true - no matter how beautiful a Mozart symphony is, I'll prefer to hear different genres over classical music. But that counts for you too: you have a special place in your heart for Japanese music (as do I, by the way). By that you are not looking objectively at the music, because as you said, it is a perception and a personal interest for this specific "decoration", that is, the Japanese language and the typical instruments from there. I personally believe though, that when I would ask you if a Japanese song would be better or "under the bridge" by the red hot chili peppers, you would most likely prefer the Japanese song. BUT, here's the catch. Had you never heard either of the songs, and both songs were presented to you in the same language, with the same instrument, then you would most likely prefer "under the bridge" (although some Japanese compositions will probably have an even better melody). By that logic, so far I have concluded that every person will always be able to choose the better melody should there be no added "decorations", that might concede with that persons personal interests. In other words, melodies can be objectively sorted given that they all have an equal chance - and therefore the 2 central elements (rhythm and melody) in music can be used to objectively listen to music as a whole. Now I'd really like to thank you, after reading everything (I read a paragraph and then reply to that one, before reading the next paragraph)! I seriously could not have hoped for a better person to discuss this with, as you are obviously very interested in music yourself! I'm very certain this will not become as hostile as some debates on this site tend to be. Would you mind posting a link to some of your favourite Japanese songs in your next answer? I'd be glad to hear them! Thank you, I'm eager to discuss this further! Don't keep me waiting!
Music can be objective, listing all songs in order from good to bad is possible.

Thank you for the reply, it was very well laid out. One thing though: it's rhythm, not rythm. So by what you wrote, you are trying to say that music is based off popularity, and that people don't like the songs themselves, they just like it because they know it. I understand your point, but here is my counter argument: Yes, there are fans out there that don't really like songs because they like them, but because it's popular, but there are people with very different musical tastes as well. I think that YOU are your own example of this. From what I gather from your post, you yourself put a lot of thought into the music you like, and focusing on the rhythm and the instruments. While I have had my share of girls who scream over One Direction, I do know many people with very different musical tastes. An important thing to note is that people like music depending on what they like, but they must have a specific interest in this thing to like music from it. So, you could say music is based on perception, because if you hear a song that relates to something that you like, you are more likely to enjoy this song, regardless of it's popularity. For example, the interest that changes someone's music taste the most is probably language. My father was always into the popular music as a young adult, but when he started learning German, his interests shifted to music like Rammstein; a German heavy metal band. It was exactly the same for me, except I was never into the "popular music"from the start, as I was more of a classical music person. I always liked foreign things, songs, and TV shows as well, so when I started learning Japanese, my tastes immediately shifted to Japanese music, and everything Japanese, as keep in mind that these factors can effect your views on things like TV shows, not just music. I just think that what music you like depends on the person's likes, dislikes, age, gender etc. But the person you go to must have an open mind and be able to think about music in a way that suits them, instead of just following the crowd. I look forward to your reply!
2+2=5 can be made into a true statment

2+2=5 This can be said to be true for large values of 2. What this means is that every number within the equation is a rounded number. 2.4+2.4=4.8 Now, let's round each number to the nearest integer. 2.4 rounded to the nearest integer is 2. 4.8 rounded to the nearest integer is 5. So, let's analyze this: Step 1 (equation): 2.4+2.4=4.8 Step 2 (rounding): ~2+~2=~5 Conclusion: 2+2=5 So, the equation of 2+2=5 can be considered a true statement if: 1) The 2's are a large value of 2 2) The 5 is the rounded answer Now, onto Con to refute my arguments.
Rarity is best pony

Alright! I believe that Rarity is best pony because she is generous, elegant and complex. My argument to support this statement are: 1) Rarity is the element of generosity. I think this is more important than the rest of the element's. This show focuses on friendship, and I believe generosity is the most important of friendship and being a good friend. Generosity requires giving out of your own free time to do something for a friend. That proves that you deeply care about them. An example is, let me say that someone is suddenly stuck on a snowy road and needs help. The first friend will be honest about it, say some words that shows that she's sorry but cannot do anything to help her, but doesn't help the person who is stuck. The second person will just use magic and teleport them to their house. This helps, but doesn't prove true friendship. The third friend will just be loyal and offer advice on what to do. Again, this does not help, it merely states what to do and leaves the friend to actually do it. The fourth friend will just laugh. The fifth friend will offer her sympathy. Only the sixth friend will take her valuable time, manage to trudge over there, and offer assistance. And also buys you a new car while you are at it. This is the true extent of generosity. 2) Elegance and beauty are chief themes that go into Rarity. She is Ponyville's resident fashion designer. The ponies are around roughly teenagers. Rarity's elegance has managed to make her a successful business owner featured in many magazines, and she is only a teenager. This is a feat to be accomplished. She is lady like and courteous. She has manners. And the best thing about this is that she is proud. Many ponies will hide their true nature just to go with everyone else. Rarity does not, she knows she is beautiful and is proud of it, while not being a braggart. 3) This is my argument that I will always stand by. Rarity is very complex. In one episode we see her giving dressed generously to her friends. Many will argue that this is the only example of her generosity, and that other times she is selfish. This is where complexity comes in. In Sisterhooves Social, we see Rarity wanting things to go her way. But by the end, she sacrifices one of her greatest beliefs (not getting dirty) in order to make it up to her sister. In most of her episodes, she is a flawed character. But at the end of every single one, she makes it up by doing a thing far greater. When she lies to Twilight about her birthday, in the end she sacrifices her reputation at stake in order to amaze her friends. When she makes her friends stitch clothes at Manehattan and yells, she then runs out without even collecting awards because she was afraid she had lost her friends, then agrees to work for somebody in order to buy ticket's to a show her friends likes, even if it means hard toil and labor. I am looking forward to your argument.
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

Final Rounds are typically for closing arguments, but I never set forth any rules stating as such so I will point out that through out this debate, my opponent, (whom I like, we have stuff in common I can tell) has made a category mistake, made a straw man argument, has conceded several major points whereas I conceded very minor points. We actually agree on a few things. I do have to point out that my opponent contradicts himself when he says that your partners are "rarely attacked" by enemies and when they are attacked it only stuns them for a few turns, and thus it is a false statement for me to say that they too suffer status ailments. Fact is, whether it is rarely or commonly, they still can suffer status ailments because they can be "stunned for a few turns" Every other point he tried to refute, I have successfully argued my points, he just seems to go in circles. All in all thank you to my opponent for this debate, I enjoyed it. Almost had me stumped a few times.
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

Star Wars was the more original of the examples you gave, a western/medieval set in space. However this has little to nothing to do with the original topic, thus being a strawman argument. If he insists on keeping up with this argument, I should point out that the original Jurassic Park was better than The Lost World and certainly Jurassic Park 3, which goes right in line with the adage that originals are always better. And Super Mario RPG was the original Mario RPG thus making it better. It may add a challenge, but challenges don't always mean better. It puts you at a disadvantage. True that your partner in Paper Mario does not take damage, HOWEVER it can suffer turn sacrificing ailments (sleep, dizziness, etc), as they can in Super Mario RPG. The reason why it is better for your partners to be able to use items and have items be used on them, is sufficiency. If your partners aid you so much in Paper Mario, why would you not want them to be able to have items used on them? Why would you not want them to use items such as mushrooms, honey syrup, maple syrup on Mario in order to help your cause, winning battles? You can only use so many badges at a time. Also, there are countless useless badges, Attack FX A, B, C & D pop in my mind immediately. And those useless badges cost star pieces and coins that could be used for better things In Paper Mario, Mario is the only one to get ANY boosts during a level up. How is it bad? It is only logical to want your party members to be strong as well. Yes you can obtain all of TWO new moves with your party members, but their attack power does not get enhanced with their so called level ups. So not only does Mario get a smaller stat boost in Paper Mario, but your party members get none. Here is the problem with Paper Mario's mini games. They are overall useless. Take the Li'l Oink Farm for example. Now I must mention that while My opponent called the Li'l Oink Farm a mini game, I do not consider it to be one. Personal preferences on what to call it aside, The object is this: You pay 10 coins to have an Oink hatched. The Oinks are various colors and patterns. You do this 11 times and when the 11th one hatches, one runs away leaving behind an item. The item depends on what color Oink runs away. the item can be as simple as a dried shroom which only recovers 1 HP[1]. You paid 110 coins for a single item that may or may not do alot of good. Some of the items (such as the dried shroom) can be bought for cheaper at a item shop. Why waste 110 coins on a roulette? This is just a single example of how Paper Mario's mini games are not to par. Finally I have to ask why my opponent seems to be concerned with pointing out that Paper Mario doesn't follow a JRPG format. Relevance? Maybe the JRPG format is the better format and in proving how Super Mario RPG is better, I proved that the JRPG format is better. Traditional means original, and as stated in my first paragraph of this round, I proved that Original often times means better.
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was a better Mario RPG than Paper Mario

To begin his rebuttals, my opponent expresses confusion at my argument, and my examples of 'original stories'. What I am trying to get at is that just because a story is 'more original' doesn't mean it is better. The plot of Star Wars is hardly original, but it is far better than other, more original stories.Next, my opponent argues that having only one partner out at a time means you can be outnumbered. I don't disagree with this, but why is this a bad thing? It adds a bit of challenge to the game. Also, my opponent corrects me by noting partners cannot use items in battle. This is correct, and I should have been more clear on this. However, how does this prove Super Mario RPG is better? Not being able to use items is hardly a major thing given the only character that can take damage is Mario.My opponent argues badges aren't as good as whatever as in Super Mario RPG, as you can't use them on partners. Once again - how is this a problem? The point of badges is to aid Mario, not his partners. Also, my opponent notes that in Super Mario RPG you and your partners get stat boosts in addition to the special boost. He argues that in Paper Mario you only get the special boost, which is true but deceptive. Why? Paper Mario doesn't focus on the traditional JRPG stat boost format. Stat boosts are primarily accomplished by using badges or finding upgrades to your jump and hammer. Paper Mario has no need for the JRPG stat boost. Finally, his last two arguments are that the minigames in Super Mario RPG are more fun. How so? He doesn't say. Also, he notes that you can upgrade your partners more times in Super Mario RPG, but you can only do so twice in Paper Mario. That is indeed true, but I've already explained that Paper Mario doesn't use the JRPG stat boost format.