BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pop music is bland and made just for money

In short:My opponent has dropped both claims in the resolution. He admits pop music is not bland just "uncreative;" further that it is made for things other than money.Uncreative is already self-refuted, with the various very different sounding songs named; plus pre-refuted in my opening case [2].Elongated:"My point still stands, and I am not changing. ... I meant at the beginning 'uncreative' rather then bland."By your quote you have changed, in fact you've committed the logical fallacy of Moving The Goalpost, sometimes called Special Pleading... "People don't pay attention to good, creative artists like King Crimson, Thinking Plague, and even Frank Zappa."Comparison of creativity against such bands seems ideal, however none of their songs have been shown to be about anything other than "1. sex 2. drugs 3. love 4. butts 5. making yourself feel happy?" In fact, given that people enjoy singing, I doubt many songs can be said to not intrinsically being about making yourself happy (the sex, drugs, love, and butts all fall under that)."I ask my friends..."Again "anecdotal rather than a valid argument [7].""You don't have to work that hard to write a catchy song."If true, I suggest you become a pop-music star. If writing multiple is also not hard work, you could become a super-star.
Pop music is bland and made just for money

I can't believe how far you've taken this. I admire you for ability to debate effectively. My point still stands, and I am not changing. I never said that Stay with Me is the same as E.T. but i can see where you are coming from. I meant at the beginning "uncreative" rather then bland. I did not spend that much time naming this debate. How many pop songs can you think of that are not about 1. sex 2. drugs 3. love 4. butts 5. making yourself feel happy? Probably not many. People write songs about that because that is what people like, so that is what people buy. People don't pay attention to good, creative artists like King Crimson, Thinking Plague, and even Frank Zappa. People are programmed to like pop even when they are first born, because their parents like it. I ask my friends who listen to pop why they like it, and all of them (20 people) said it was because it was catchy. You don't have to work that hard to write a catchy song. Stephen was my grandfather who passed away when I was 8, so I do not appreciate the critisicm.
Pop music is bland and made just for money

Pro's argument is entirely self-refuting, unless everything is the same as everything else (such as a breakup with a girlfriend, and sex with a boyfriend). He can either be considered to offer no evidence, or to have again self-refuted (if Sam Smith's Stay With Me and Katy Perry's "E.T." sound the same, I'm a Smurf). None of my evidence has been challenged (one piece has been mildly misinterpreted, yet not in a way that would actually refute my argument)."Sex"Last round pro complained that every song is about a breakup with a girlfriend, and now he's talking about sex with boys non-stop instead; if the songs are the same, which is it?"They basically are putting the same lyrics to a different toon."Thank for for conceding the debate a second time, since if the music is a different tune, it is hardly bland. Also depending on the definition of bland ("showing no emotion, concern, etc." [5]), it may be impossible for love songs to be bland.As for the accusation of mass plagiarism, anyone is welcome to listen to a few of them to confirm if the lyrics are the same or not [2]; hint, they're vastly different. The comparison is like saying Harry Potter is just The Bible with the chapters in a different order."[Ellie Golding] just wants money and fame."Third concession, as the resolution calls for the songs all being bland and made "just for money.""You argue that only a few people have narcissistic personality disorder"I argued no particular number, but an increasing trend. 1% or 100% both refute your case, since the motivation for the songs needs to be "just for money," not sex/fame/drugs or anything else. If even one of them (such as Katy Perry) does it for money and sex as the song he complains of implies, his case is refuted. If said song is not about breaking up with a girlfriend, pro's case is self-refuted. If the song is different than Colbie Caillat's "Try" [1], pro's case is again refuted; cue Katy Perry video and decide for yourself [6]."My friends and I like to act, but none of us have narcissistic personality disorder as far as I know."Anecdotal rather than a valid argument [7]. And with a name like "Stephenknowsbest," you're either incredibly humble to your buddy Stephen, or trying to set up an Ad Hominem attack against yourself on grounds of extreme narcissism.[5] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6] YouTube: Katy Perry "E.T." http://www.youtube.com...[7] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Pop music is bland and made just for money

You talk about specific songs and how they are different from each other. Only a few songs stand out. Most straight males are singing about love. Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith, Justin Bieber, etc. are specifically targeting teenagers because that's what they want. They basically are putting the same lyrics to a different toon. Sam Smith's songs "stay with me" and "I'm not the only one" sound the same, but are very popular. Songs by One direction are very similar to each other also, and are also very popular. With singers who are female, Ellie Golding, Katy Perry, Miley Cirus, etc. are also singing about the same thing. Mainly: let's have sex. Katy Perry's song ET is very obviously an innuendo. It blends disturbing lyrics with a generic pop tune. Miley Cirus's "we can't stop" is about teenagers partying, getting drunk, and having sex. This is what the general audience wants, along with generic music that they listen to for a good beat. Ellie Golding is not even trying to hide sex in "love me like you do" which I understand was made for the Fifty shades of grey soundtrack, but is never the less making her tons of money. She doesn't care about a creative song, she just wants money and fame. You argue that only a few people have narcissistic personality disorder, but you don't need that to want to be in the spotlight. My friends and I like to act, but none of us have narcissistic personality disorder as far as I know. Pop singers and bands don't want to write something different because if they do, they don't get as many fans and notability as others who have learned to follow the times and make the same music as everyone else.
Pop music is bland and made just for money

"is very bland and is just for the money and fame."Thank for for conceding the argument, as the resolution calls for "just money.""all they want is a beat and a song about somebody's girlfriend breaking up with them."Not true, there are non-gay male pop singers, along with straight female pop singers. As for the song, cue first YouTube video [1]"Bland"Bland is easily refuted, as the songs are often very different as shown in the second YouTube video [2]. If they are good to everyone's taste, is irrelevant to them not being bland."just for money"An increasing trend of narcissistic singers has taken gold in pop music [3]. Narcissistic Personality disorder is described by PhychCenteral as "an overwhelming need for admiration, and usually a complete lack of empathy toward others..." [4]. Making music to fill an overwhelming need for admiration, is making music for something other than money.I could prove a hundred other healthy reasons, such as helping others [1], but even one reason is enough to wholly refute the argument.Sources:[1] YouTube: Colbie Caillat "Try" http://www.youtube.com...[2] YouTube: Billboard Top 25 Pop Songs http://www.youtube.com...[3] http://www.npr.org...[4] http://psychcentral.com...
Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

Every one of your arguments has failed to answer every question I posed. How is she guilty of trying to make a living? Everyone of your arguments has been tantamount to Metallica selling out which they never did. There is such a thing as supply and demand. If the reader does not receive enough context to understand what is going on in the narrative world, they will get confused and stop reading. There are different markets for different genres. Also there are different publishers whose wheelhouse is in those genres. The bottom line is, if she does not sell enough books, she will be dropped by her publisher. If she gets dropped by her publisher, she has to run around finding another publisher which takes away time from her writing, her art. Self-publishing is unviable as it stands right now. You also failed to show the burden of proof that she is "guilty of demeaning authorship".
Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

This would never happen to Tolkien or Dahl. I bet my life they knew how to uphold the dignity of their profession. Because the moneyed people push for a brand of commercialism that takes over the writer's prerogatives. They cheapen art, they killed Harry, that's why now, only the "Cuckoo is Calling". R.I.P. My condolences. Writing is an art, and books are not like mass-produced condom to do what they want with. That's all. Goodnight. I mean well.
Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

As a beginning, a clear, glaring analogy.I am not talking about proofreading, I mean context please do not misconstrue. A novel or poem is tantamount to a canvas painting or a Delibes musical piece. As counterpart of all the art branches, an author inevitably demands absolute preservation of every syllable, exclamation point and every aspect of her work; addendum is treason . We must make reference to Art as a superior endeavor that and the sensitivity of its details. This is not about the bestselling aspect, and do not miss my point. The most enduring, profoundest authors did not necessarily resort to lots and lots.If Monalisa was once tampered with and released with added tints or hat, wouldn't the painter have been ready to strangle? If Elvis added something to the lyrics of My Way, wouldn't the writer have been scandalized by such abnormality?A very simple analogy for this brainwashed, bubblegum generation. JK Rowling's case stands for many years, she could only plea for insanity. If Wikipedia who says she is sick is anything to be relied upon, her mental state made her vulnerable to conspirators who know nothing about writing, only about making money. Whoa! Reminds me of the days when movie studios were taken over by companies who know nothing about it; they just got accustomed to putting their weight here and there, as domineering arrogant bores. I am telling you: these companies who now handle BOOKS know nothing. Just because they have oodles of cash, does not mean they will take over something they MUST not meddle in.
Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

First of all, let me think my opponent for allowing me to be in this debate. It is a very interesting topic. If I may ask a question of the crew position it would be this. What is divine calling as you state in your opening argument? Do you believe writing to be natural talent? One that is given by God alone? If you believe that, then why are there English degrees in writing? People may go to school in order to hone this art. Writing is subjective. How can anything be a God given talent if it is subjective? Further, I question the use of the term "contextual variations". What do you mean by that? In the comparison of the passages shown in your opening arguments, all I see something akin to translators notes, something equivalent to "here's what I'm talking about in case you missed the first three books". American people didn't know what Quidditch was, nor did they know the significance of the brooms used for the sport. How are they supposed to know?
Rowling guilty of demeaning authorship by allowing contextual variations of Potter to be published

Among many variations.. book 4IN UKHarry was passionate about Quidditch. He had played as Seeker on the Gryffindor house Quidditch team ever since his first year at Hogwarts and owned a Firebolt, one of the best racing brooms in the world. IN USHarry had been on the Gryffindor House Quidditch team ever since his first year at Hogwarts and owned one of the best racing brooms in the world, a Firebolt. Flying came more naturally to Harry than anything else in the magical world, and he played in the position of Seeker on the Gryffindor House team. IN UKHarry knew that Apparating was very difficult; it meant disappearing from one place and re-appearing almost instantly in another IN USHarry knew that Apparating meant disappearing from one place and reappearing almost instantly in another, but had never known any Hogwarts student to do it, and understood that it was very difficult. In succumbing to unjust corporate dictates and money-hungry mass culture, they have forgotten that authorship is both an art and divine calling, which renders anyone who tinkers with and changes your book to be guilty of disrespect and treason to personal dignity. JK Rowling has not asserted her own rights in order that Potter can be her proper legacy, and that assertion is proof of ethics in itself, on her part. These writers jeopardized not only the reverence for authorship but the future of budding writers as well . The proof of this is general decline both of authorship caliber and readership. It is not surprising that many qualified writers are now wary of this deregulation and of putting JK Rowlings works in their lists of commendable publications.
Prompt Global Strike

Welcome back sengejuri! Should you wish to amend these rules in anyway, please feel free to message me. The U.S. military should invest in long-range conventional strike systems capable of striking high valued targets anywhere in the world in one hour or less. Current DoD initiatives are known collectively as Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS): https://www.fas.org... Comment for acceptance. Rounds: 1)Acceptance 2)Arguments 3)Counterarguments & Conclusions
Monkeys in Zoos

My opponent's position as Con compels him to defend the argument that monkeys do not belong in zoos. Therefore, the burden of proof is on him to prove to us that monkeys do not belong, particularly vis-a-vis other animals that we commonly would find.Since he didn't provide his entire opening argument in his statement, I will reduce this argument to merely outlining my points. 1. He claims that "monkeys are ugly, especially their butts." First of all, appearance is subjective -- what appears beautiful to some may appear hideous to others. He applies his subjective lens of perception -- of appearance, mind you, instead of intelligence, value, et al. -- so broadly that he argues that, because he has not an affinity for monkeys, no one does, and thus his view should be universalized. As for "butts": I don't find human butts all too attractive either. Perhaps this is why we cover our behinds before going out in public? Furthermore, I wouldn't be so inclined as to say that, because a human butt may be ugly, the entire human must be ugly. There must be more to it. I'd ask my opponent to elaborate on this position, or on why his focus is on butts. Your chief burden, of course, is in connecting ugliness to exclusion, and explaining why, even if monkeys are "ugly," they should be excluded from the zoo.2. Monkeys are very intelligent. Some have learned sign language, in fact. 3. People have different preferences, and you would be costing zoos revenue by removing monkeys.4. Where would you put the monkeys? Who would take care of them? How would they survive?With these arguments out in the open, I yield back to Con.
By The United States Having Over 49,000,000 People In Poverty And 1/5 Of Children We're Unethical

I have no problem with the instigators argument and have readied my rebuttal. 1.To start the US is not nearly in the top level of poverty. According to the CIA, 15.1% of the US is below the poverty line. Compared to the EU, which is comparable to the US in human development and income in a whole, is estimated to have 14-16% poverty which is extremely similar to the US. There is one stat I'd like to bring to mind to counter my opponents claim we are "unethical". The percentage of the world's population living under 2.50 USD: 50% (3 billion). The Minimum Wage of the US is 7.25 USD which is 2.9x that of 2.50 USD. So compared to the world we are far from "unethical". My point is while the US has poverty, the rest of the world much worse off. Wealth distribution is much worse worldwide. This brings me to my next point. 2. My opponent makes statements about how the wealthy doesn't do more but it's not like they are obliged to. The wealthy make more than we can dream and spend. But the fact of the matter is that they earned it. They made it through making a popular product, advancing technology, and straight out earning it. While I do agree they earn much more than they should, it doesn't mean by law they must. This brings me to another discussion point. The average American makes around 40,000 dollars a year. That is ALOT of money compared to the rest of the world. 3. America was not built for people who sit around all day. It's survival of the fittest. Graduating college gives you bigger benefits than not. Getting a business job is better than flipping burgers for a living. That is why I point to some country's having poverty or not. They're going to have it, developed or not, 1st or 3rd-world. The way we treat our poverty-bound is why we are different. We have food banks, home-grown and international charities, and homeless shelters. It's not like we pay no attention to them. Final Statement: As we head into the 3rd round, I'd like to summarize my argument. Poverty is a problem in the US but it's not as if we do nothing or the wealthy have all the money and don't contribute any money to the poor whatsoever as the instigator claims. The US is better than probably 85% of country's when it comes to poverty. The Wealthy aren't obligated to help the poor and the average American earns well over 40,000 USD a year, much more than the average person in the world. And it's not like we do nothing for the poor as we have food banks, charities, and homeless shelters. USD: Standard currency of the US (stands for United States Dollar or USD). Food Bank: Provides food for people In poverty. Wealth Distribution: Wealth spread among people of a country.
By The United States Having Over 49,000,000 People In Poverty And 1/5 Of Children We're Unethical

The United States is a country bound to have poverty like any other country. Keeping 315+ million people above the poverty line is no easy job. As the instigator mentioned, the wealth gap is deep and that can't be denied. However, claiming we are unethical is taking it a bit over the edge. I take the position that while some poverty can be seen in the United States, it is far from critical level and claiming we are unethical is an overstatement. Critical: Crisis or a problem in need of immediate attention. Poverty Line: Minimum Income line which if above or below (in poverty) decides if you are in poverty or not.
By The United States Having Over 49,000,000 People In Poverty And 1/5 Of Children We're Unethical

In recent months the issue of "Income Inequality" and "Poverty" has been discussed in many aspects and forums. I take the position that by the United States having citizens with more money than they could ever spend, even frivolously, in one life time. And yet people, and more so children, are going to bed hungry every night, we as a society and country have fallen into a quagmire of being now considered Un-Ethical by mere fact of attempting to ignore the problem. Definitions: Poverty - Meaning the house hold has the inability to have even the most humane things expected in a 1st World Country: Health Care, Food, Clothing, Electricity, Transportation. Un-Ethical - Not abiding by a set of rules that steer towards the betterment of society and individuals within that society. By not abiding this could be intentional or by ignorance imposed by others in society. Income Inequality - The fact that the majority, working class and citizens, continually having less in monetary stability. And the minority having extreme with the idea of "extreme" being pushed to a wealth of $5,000,000 as an individual or family. Rules: - Be Respectful - If there are words or concepts used that the general public would not understand but are imperative for your statement, you will state the definition or concept in parentheses. - Good Grammar is expected in any philosophical debate. You don't have to have a PhD in English, but at minimum use "Check Your Spelling" and know the difference between "Your" and "You're". - Have fun, but also keep a sense of sincerity in that these are real issues and a group of real people we are speaking of, not hypothetical. - The emphasis should be on the philosophical ideas, not exact laws that should be instated. But, an example of a law can be given (no more than 3 sentences, 5 at maximum. These should be "ideas", not laws currently in effect. - The mentioning of any current laws should only be used if you directly reference a "new idea law" that would be overridden. Lets begin!
Marvel is better than DC

Marvel is better than DC Comics. The Marvel Universe expands over 500 different heroes and villains while creating icons such as: Spider-Man X-Men The Fantastic Four The Avengers and more recently, Deadpool. With such a wide range of themes, powers, worlds, and appeals, Marvel s undeniably the better comic creator. When I think of DC, I think of Superman, Batman, The Justice League and that's pretty much it. There isn't enough variety to make this universe appealing. Although Batman is one of the most popular superheroes of all time, he is difficult to connect with. His traumatic childhood and dark embodiment are not as relatable as Spider-Man's average, problem filled days and quirky jokes. As for Superman, it seems pretty cheap to give a single guy (alien-thing) every superpower and make his only weakness his allergies to green rocks. The same goes for Green Lantern. Give him a ring and whatever he imagines appears. How do these guys ever lose? Where's the competition? Excitement? Marvel just overall completes a great franchise that can dish out planet-eaters and blind bad@$$es. DC is just too small.
Individual Social Responsibility.

When Congress and the president negotiated over welfare reform in 1996, a key element of the debate was whether government aid should continue to be an entitlement, a grant the poor receive solely by virtue of being poor.Ultimately, the bill that passed last August changed welfare from an entitlement to a block-grant program for states; states are now free to set their own eligibility criteria and may limit access to welfare in various ways, including limits on the length of time a family may receive assistance.Still, the basic ethical issues behind the debate persist. Is society responsible for the well-being of the poor? If so, at what cost to the rest of the community? Are the poor to be held in any way responsible for themselves? How far must poverty go before society is morally bound to act?Welfare is an investment by society in human beings. Money spent and taxes levied become a form of human interaction, making welfare different from farm subsidies or improvement to the natio
Individual Social Responsibility.

Are you for or against Individual Social Responsibility?A few examples would be... If someone is abusing their child in public should you take individual responsibility and step in or show a blind eye? If you saw someone getting beat up in a park should you step in or call the cops or do nothing? If you witnessed a murder should you step in, call the cops, or wait around until someone else calls the cops, or nothing? A few EX: of social responsibility above. Tell me your POV!