BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap beats should have more complexity

PRO has only shown only their own subjective taste for why rap should have more complexity in it's beats. I've shown objective evidence in the form of music variety in complex layered Hip Hop beats with classical music and dozens of instruments to minimalist with only acoustic guitar and spoken word; as well as diversity of sound, uniqueness, a wide range of tempo in beats per minute & varying rhythms. Other evidence was presented in sales and how rap has an ocean of beats and artistic talent that can accommodate for subjective taste in both simplicity, complexity and is still evolving in sound from the myriad of American music genres it already incorporates in it's beats. Judging by demand, Rap is a part of popular culture and underground niches all over the world. One person or a small group of people shouldn't dictate what a genre of music should or shouldn't have, that is up to the at large supporters of that art form's own subjective taste and the artists themselves. And those many millions global supporters, in the form of sales, tour tickets, illegal downloads and media ratings they continue to watch Rap evolve as a successful art form. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Sidenote: if you only want beats, many Rap artists make instrumental albums that change in complexity throughout. For example, J Dilla's Donuts, MF Doom's Special Herbs and Oddisee's instrumental albums. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Bonus: Jay-Z - Public Service Announcement with a full orchestra- Live At Carnegie Hall http://en.musicplayon.com...
Rap beats should have more complexity

While you bring up good information on the history and diversity of rap, that's not the main focus of the debate. The debate is whether or not rap beats should be more complex. I don't see on wikipedia where Tu pac and Eminem are known for their beats, so if you can point that out in the debate, i will address that. Like i said, the artists which you brought out do have diversity in sound, but not necessarily complexity. I ran out of things to say, that being said, i will let votes decide who won.
Rap beats should have more complexity

While we agree this is subjective, we also agree that there are certain things which music should have. i consider all of these artists creative, this is a topic on rap beats. Con's logic is because classical music is not with the times, it's not as good as rap, however the same logic can be applied to old school hip hop. 90's rap is old, so lets stop listening to it. House of Pain - Jump Around has the same repetitive beat, it's not good with the times. Matisyahu is not a rapper, he's mostly a reggae artist. Rap puts more emphasis on spoken poetry, i agree. My argument is that rap hasn't made much progress on the beats. Tu Pac is well known for his influential music and was probably the greatest rapper of his time, however his lyrics were average and so were his beats. Eminem's lyricism and flow are widely recognized, but very rarely do i hear of his beats. While rap had influential artists and great lyricists, it still as a genre needs more progress on it's musicality. Rap is music so as a genre, it should contain more complexity in the beats to enhance lyrics.
Rap beats should have more complexity

While i agree classical music doesn't fit with the times, we cannot disagree that it takes more skill to play classical music than any other kind of genre. Just because it sells, doesn't mean that it's creative. I'm not saying that you should completely base music off of classical, but that complexity can take on many forms. While yes you have a point that less is more, but it still should be unique. Kanye West's "runaway" was more fresh and groovy than emotional in my opinion. It's hard to convey emotion in rap and very few artists can pull it off without sounding "tacky." Now it may be true that less is more for words, but as for the beats, i think they should incorporate more enhancements and effects with the modern technology we have at our disposal. In any case, great emotional songs have some level of complexity to them. I consider Lil Wayne's song "How to Love" to be emotional and at the same time complex Notice how smooth the hook was with the guitar opening up then proceeds to the beat. The chords change as his flow has a smooth transition throughout the song. There is a consistent beat with the snares. His lyrics are at a decent length. Emotion just builds up in the song. I consider this a great example of complexity in the beat and creativity in a song. A very unpopular "gangsta" rapper: Alley Boy also creates an emotional song while still having some complexity to it He seems to have an unusual instrument in his hook then transitions to the beat and chorus. He auto-tunes it at a slower pace then his flow speeds up to a steady pace. Still not convinced? He uses a pop singer's "Lana Del Rey" for the chorus of the song but mixes it with a trap beat. Of course this has been done before, but this rapper builds up the intensity of the emotion as the rhythm of the beat blends very well with her singing. The song content also mixes. Chorus: " It's you, it's you, it's all for you Everything I do I tell you all the time Heaven is a place on earth with you Tell me all the things you wanna do I heard that you like the bad girls Honey, is that true? It's better than I ever even knew They say that the world was built for two Only worth living if somebody is loving you Baby, now you do" Lana Del Rey "Video Games" for comparison Now his flow transitions smoothly throughout the song and keeps the momentum going throughout the song as he vocally inflects strong emotion. While your right that at times less is more, but that should not prevent complexity and creativity in some form to be expressed in rap.
Rap beats should have more complexity

This is where things are subjective to the person"s individual taste. Many people like that Eminem song and it sold millions of records. Certain things affect sales like demographics, median income etc. But a major thing that turns people off about Classical music is that it doesn"t register with the times. Rap, Rock and other music beats which are less complex than classical music outsell it just about every day. Not to mention it is pretty much off the radar in pop culture today.Is Classical Music Dead? RequiemClassical music in America is dead.By Mark Vanhoenackerhttp://www.slate.com...Also, if were grading Rap beats by preference, I would likely go with Eminem's greatest producer Dr. Dre's body of work over PRO"s production ideas personally. Again this is subjective and about personal taste.Also, Rap is so diverse we have many artists that have created hybrid songs. One example is arguably the greatest Hip Hop band in The Roots. The group writes their own songs, plays their own instruments in their diverse productions.http://www.youtube.com...Some of the most artistically creative Rap tracks are where less is more. For example on Kanye West"s classic album My Dark Twisted Fantasy, he uses a great beat backdrop to feature his emotional lyrical confessions and artistic visuals on Runaway (Caution language):http://www.youtube.com...Now, if you want something that is more out of the box and experimental, you can look at more modern rappers like Chance the Rapper featured on Skrillex's track The Coast is Clear (again, caution for language). The soundscape on this song is very diverse, featuring the Chance's Rap lyrics.Some prefer the simpler tracks and some the complex tracks, Rap can accommodate all of those tastes. But it really depends on your preference, I personally prefer Rap over Polka and other genres that may have more accordion or cowbell ;)http://vimeo.com...
Rap beats should have more complexity

While i appreciate old school hip-hop and the best lyrical rappers have excellent flow, i find these beats too repetitive. The rhythm, snares, kicks, etc. are at the same consistent pace then it repeats again several times. Why is that a flaw? Because if you pay more attention to the beat than the person's rapping, you'll find that the same simple pattern repeats itself. The rapper's flow is simply going to hide that. I'll use Eminem as an example: Now here's the instrumental without the vocals: Notice that the same pattern of rhythm repeats a lot throughout the song. In classical music, melodies don't repeat themselves. I think it's time for rap to incorporate a similar technique. Rappers should use more modern instrumentals such as trap beats. If i were making a rap beat, i'd use different tempos, rhythms, melodies, place the snares, snare rolls, kicks, bassline, etc. in different patterns. I would also adjust it to as i change my flow. At the most, it should only repeat at least twice or not at all.
Rap beats should have more complexity

Rap music which is part of the Hip Hop culture is very diverse in its beats or production. Like many American based musical genres, it's development was based off of the growth from earlier genres such as gospel, blues. R&B etc. As a result, Rap is often a growing genre that is now integrating great diversity in using classical samples: Xzibit - Papparazzi Which uses Barbra Streisand's Pavane (Vocalise) http://www.whosampled.com...-(Vocalise)/ Diversity in electronic sounds. OutKast's B.O.B and groups like Wu-Tang which use obscure sounds, Kung Fu movies sounds, samples and Asian instruments. Every one of these martial arts movies samples were used in their rap beats: Some rap songs also change production mid song, like the classic Scarface album The Fix, with the Kanye West produced "Heaven" (changes at 2:20 mark or so) This is just the tip of the iceberg, when you study Rap and the Hip Hop culture in depth, it is very diverse and evolving in sound.
The Tories are cowardly scumbags

The Tory-led Government wants to raise a few quid, so who do you think they approached? Was it: A – Parasitic, tax-dodging aristocrats who have never done an honest day's work in their lives, but thanks to being born into privileged families, have more money than they know what to do with, or B – Deprived and impoverished little kiddies with no way of defending themselves. The obvious answer, from a moral point of view, would be A – that is: to ask the over-privileged, idle rich and other fabulously wealthy people if they wouldn't mind, you know, paying their fair share of tax. But wealthy people are very influential and know powerful people in high places - many of these tax-dodging toffs went to the world's poshest school: Eton; and have Old Etonian friends who are ready to do favours for them - Old Etonians like David Cameron, the Tory Prime Minister, for example. [1,2] So even though tax evasion by the rich costs Britain ï¿½15 billion a year - that's 15 times the cost of benefit fraud, by the way [3] - instead of cracking down on wealthy tax-dodgers, the Tory Health Minister Anne Milton decided to launch a viscous and cowardly attack on some of Britain's most vulnerable inhabitants by snatching the milk out of the hands of poor little children. [4] Even the profoundly evil and mentally-deranged former dictator Margaret "the milk-snatcher" Thatcher didn't go that far when she robbed all but the youngest children of their free milk in the early seventies. [5] Such was the public's disgust and revulsion at the plan, the spineless Tories hastily back-tracked on the idea, no doubt to plot some other despicable raid on another easy target. The Tories are total, unmitigated scumbags, they really are, and the people who voted these cretinous Conservatives into to power should hang their heads in shame. Thank you. [1] http://www.mirror.co.uk... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [3] http://citywire.co.uk... [4] http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk... [5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
It is probable Life arose from Naturalistic Processes

"Once the matter is present to create life what more does it take in order to form life and why do you need such a great mass? What happens during that time that makes a cell alive?" Life is a tricky thing to define, but in general it is encompassed by the following characteristics: Living things are made of cells. Living things obtain and use energy. Living things grow and develop. Living things reproduce. Living things respond to their environment. Living things adapt to their environment. [1] It does not require a large area to develop; however, the larger the area in which it could potentially develop, the more likely it will emerge. There are simply more molecules, more chances for them to combine in ways that could eventually lead to living organisms. "Has anyone besides Craig done it yet?" Moving the goalposts much? :P The fact that someone did it refutes your point and proves that its possible. "If a cell is nothing but a collection of particles that behave in a mechanistic process, and all particles behave in a certain way wouldn't this mean that free will is an illusion and imply that we don't have choice as we are the sum of our biological cells." Maybe. Then again, the whole is more than the sum of its parts (unless you also wish to argue that a hydrogen molecule is somehow "wet" even when not part of a molecule of water). In any case, as I said last round, this point is far outside the scope of the debate. I have answered every question presented by my opponent, while he has managed to make no argument as to why divine intervention is more likely than naturalistic processes. The preponderance of the evidence is on my side. Vote Pro! 1. http://www.schools.utah.gov...
It is probable Life arose from Naturalistic Processes

and just have a few last questions. Life arose someone on the surface of earth around 4 billion years ago, probably in the oceans. The volume of area available must have been staggering. The current ocean volume is 1.5 x10^9 (ie over a billion) cubic kilometers. [1] On the other hand, the Miller-Urey experiment took place in a piece of glassware with a volume much less than a single cubic kilometer. The earth formed out of the accretion disk of the solar system about 4.5 billion years ago. Thus molecules, especially of interest those containing carbon, had about half a billion years to interact and form over a humongous volume. The Miller-Urey experiment took place over the course of a single week, in a volume more than 10 orders of magnitude smaller. Its unreasonable to expect that life would arise in such a small experiment within any human being's lifetime. Once the matter is present to create life what more does it take in order to form life and why do you need such a great mass? What happens during that time that makes a cell alive? Nothing is stopping us. In fact, Craig Venter has already done it! [2] Has anyone besides Craig done it yet? As a side note, your question betrays a serious misunderstanding of biochemistry. A cell does not "want" food or decide to seek it. It is purely mechanistic in its reaction to outside stimuli. Some things it is able to extract energy from and does so. This is "food". In higher animals such as mammals such a thing as "will" or "agency" seemingly starts to emerge, but that is far outside the scope of this debate. If a cell is nothing but a collection of particles that behave in a mechanistic process, and all particles behave in a certain way wouldn't this mean that free will is an illusion and imply that we don't have choice as we are the sum of our biological cells. That is all thank you for this lovely debate
It is probable Life arose from Naturalistic Processes

First off I would like to apologize for my forfeiture of the last round However my opponents contention the entire first part seems to say that Science has figured out a lot of things without using anything supernatural so they will probably figure out where life came from without using supernatural explanations This doesn't seem to be especially persuasive or make very much sense it is saying that because different people have found out different things without using anything supernatural then these people will figure out this problem without supernaturalness that just doesn't seem to make sense to me although it could just be me. The Second part belle seems to start explaining actually why it is probable that life arose from naturalistic process her 4th and 5th paragraphs seem to make some headway with the idea that life arose from naturalistic process. She references the Miller-Urey experiment where the (alleged) early earth's atmosphere was reproduced and there was found to be some of the same molecules that exist in living cells but this leads me to two very similar questions 1. Why did they stop just at the production of molecules similar to those found in living beings why did they not continue to wait for life to form why did they not let it turn into life 2. Why don't we create a cell now at this point we have the ability to move individual atoms and we know the complete molecular structure of a living cell so why doesn't someone go and recreate life what is preventing them On the final paragraph how I am going to question how does an object become self replicating how does it suddenly decided to move in order to consume food to further it's existence when does will power occur. Just one last question has anyone ever successfully recreated the Miller-Urey experiment since Miller and Urey
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Pro thinks that if you spend money towards climate, it will solve the issue. There is one BIG thing Pro is not thinking of. If we somehow get the entire world to lay down their arms then that is just dandy. However, that will happen. We need to protect ourself. Dropping the military budget will only make things worse. Not only that but it would be slowing down the thing that might happen anyway. Pro then lists some Al Gore qoutes, which he doesn't build on. Miltary is more useful then climate change.
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance what about Cost of War in Iraq or in Afghanistan, how many people died? how it affects on our enviroment, climate? Thus, from now we have to take into account that If We Spend Money to Control our Climate,we'll live longer and sickness free. Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 $1,378,096,715,743 (not constant) and even Al Gore says that if government spent the money for climate conditions, not for war, the earth would be on the well way to solve this challenge. In addition there is a gold words of Mark Luther King: "Injustices anywhere threat justices everywhere" and Al Gore says in our time, increases of global pollution anywhere, is a threat to human future everywhere. It is absolutely true, people have to deal with problems seriously instead of spending money on military force, war and so on, while there is more serious problem. So let's stop pollution, safe our nature and species Source: http://costofwar.com...
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Nowadays both climate crisis and military force is important for mankind. Even though we must take into account that quality of the climate is disappearing. For many enviromentalists, the world seems to be getting worse, because the natural resources are running out, the species are becoming extinct in vast numbers and that the planet's both water and air becoming polluted. On the other hand, in 1997 the World Wide Fund of Nature issued a press release called: "Two thirds of the world's forest lost forever". Besides, the next source of climate crises is black carbon or soot, which is more interesting black carbon is not like other kinds of air pollution that causes globar warming and so on. First and foremost, it is not a gas but is made up of tiny carbon parts like those you can see in dirty smoke and it plays a big role in warming the planet. Secondly, it absorbs infra-red heat radiated by earth and spreads back to space, black carbon aslo absorbs heat from sun. In contrast, once Al Gore mentioned in his speech that he spent enough time dealing with military complex and Local battles, regional wars and world war, everything associated with military causes pollution, climate disaster, air pollution, water pollution.It is therefore clearly seen that we have to come up with idea that money should be spend on climate more than military force. However, there was an action to protect our climate from smoges in 1952 which calls " Cleaning the air after the great smog in 1952". As far as I'm concerned I think money should be spend on climate crisis more. And we must pay attention for African old proverb which says : "If you want to go quickly, go alone; if you want to go far, go together" and we have to go both far and quickly to protect our planet.
Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

Let me start with definitions, then if you don't mind, I'd like to see you propose your point of vision as con. Defintions: Money: any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits. [1] Spend:to use up, consume, or exhaust [2] Cimate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. [3] Crisis:a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point. [4] Military: of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy [5] Force: power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power [6] Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com... [6]