BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Glee is a good show

All Right, My Rebuttals"and I believe most artists should be proud that it has been brought back and introduced to this generation, and not the crappy pop like that Ke$ha girl or such."Well one of that Ke$ha girls songs made it on the show, as you can see in one of the videos next to me. Now I'm going to assume that you probably did not like this episode of glee for this remade version of an artist whom you dislike. Just a point. "It doesn't auto tune to death"Like in my debate, look at the song above "Telephone" by lady gaga, that has been gleed. The small girl in that video is very talented, but there is one point where it is a little to auto tuned. I will see if you can find it.Okay will if you didn't find it, it was at 53 seconds into the clip, and let me say, I cannot agree more with Sue Sylvester. "It states what High School is actually like, and not some crappy drama that's nothing like real High School" C1Hopefully my opponent does not forfeit her next round.
Glee is a good show

Don't worry about being a "noob." I'm not much of a good debater myself but I will give it my all.C1: ImageGlee has portrayed high school as a safer environment that it actually is. It gives high school off as a drug-free, constant drama, environment, thus a false image towards the viewer what high school is actually like. The message that Glee sends out promotes the famous "believe in your dreams" sort of shenanigans, which can harshen the reality of a viewer, when they realize that this show is all fiction. C2: AudienceThe show is made up of remade, auto tuned music that some people can find unappealing. Glee's audience is mainly girls. Guys tend to deny that they like Glee ever time Glee is brought up. Not to say guys don't like this, but a "good show" usually consists of male and female viewers, and not a majority.C3: MusicSure, they bring back those old songs you used to miss and turn them into a interesting cover, but the problem that I and others have is the intense amount of auto tone they use. I've noticed that the voice of the actress/actor is changed even when there is barley any background music. Take this extremely auto tuned video at the top. (Note I agree with Sue Sylvester.)Good luck in the next round (You should probably do your rebuttals next round)http://www.youtube.com...
Glee is a good show

Sorry, I'm new to this debate.org thing so I apologise in advance if I sound newb-ish. I believe that Glee is a good show because what I have stated above, paying tribute to older artists and newer artists. It doesn't autotune to death (exception to Heather Morris who dances her butt off not sing her butt off, and the songs that they use autotune to show the effect of the song). It states what High School is actually like, and not some crappy drama that's nothing like real High School (*cough cough* Degrassi *cough cough*). RIB (Ryan Murphy, Ian Brennan, Brad Falchuck, the directors) created one good show.
Glee is a good show

I am a Gleek, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Just look at my avatar. I've heard some people say that Glee is a bad show and it butchers good songs, but in my opinion it brings back old songs like a tribute to them, and I believe most artists should be proud that it has been brought back and introduced to this generation, and not the crappy pop like that Ke$ha girl or such.
The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

Here are the reasons why your arguments are invalid. 1. War in and of itself, causes civilian loss of life. I would also like to point out that despite the atomic bombings, Japan is currently a strong military ally of the United States. Now if the very people we dropped atomic weapons on are good allies of ours, to say that other nations and people who were not affected whatsoever such as current anti-americans around the globe have even a bigger bone to pick with us than the Japanese themselves due to the bombings is far fetched. I will argue that the atomic bombings in fact saved lives. The Japanese had a very well publicized program conscripting tens of millions of unfit and inadequately armed civilians to fight the inevitable American invasion. Needless to say a fight involving tens of millions of elderly adults, women and children fighting gun toting GI's with tanks and planes would have resulted in a massacre of civilians that would have had a death toll far higher than the deaths directly caused by the bombings The race to develop nuclear arms would have been inevitable. The Soviet Union had the stated goal, "The new International Association of Workers is established for the purpose of organizing common action between the workers of various countries who arc striving towards a single aim; the overthrow of capitalism, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and of the International Soviet Republic, the complete abolition of classes and the realization of socialism — as the first step to communist society", and also stated upon their formation that, ""The aim of the organization was to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State", meaning that they had an innate reason to build up a military to oppose capitalism and due to their rise as one of the world's superpower and combined stated goal to take over the planet by armed force if need be, it should be concluded that the Cold War was inevitable and the Soviet development of nuclear weapons would not have been delayed by much at all. . http://www.operationolympic.com... . http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... . http://www.globalsecurity.org...
The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

There are a few reasons why dropping the atomic bombs was a bad thing. 1) They caused civilian loss of life which only increased anti-americanism and would just breed resentment. 2) Once other countries saw that we had the ability to use such weapons it lead to widespread nuclear proliferation in Russia which ultimately lead to the Cold War. The remnants of that proliferation can still be seen in our modern day struggles where there is the threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. So ultimately the use of the atomic bombs sparked anti-americanism and widespread nuclear proliferation.
The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where justifed actions.

The atomic bombings of Japan where in during August 1945 in which two atomic weapons created by the United States were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in that order with a 3 day period in between. I for one support the bombings and my opponent will oppose them. In the first round my opponent and I will state our positions and list the primary reasons we support our positions and go more in depth in the next 3 rounds 1. It saved a costly American invasion from occuring that would have resulted in millions of American and Japanese casualties as well as any other costly alternative form of American and allied intervention 2. It shortened a time, life and resource consuming war in a matter of days
USA gun laws

"Freedoms" like that may have kept people safe back in 1791 when the police didn't have as many resources (cars, csi, EVERYTHING) and phones where not in everyones pocket. Guns back then where also not as lethal as the guns today. The amendments didn't say these laws would never change, Just that they are the current laws. Civilization changes over time and so do the rules and ethics that govern society. For example: the bible tells Christians the may sell their daughters as slaves (Exodus 21:7) Yet people don't do that anymore because they deem it to be immoral. http://biblehub.com... There are plenty of non lethal defensive weapons available such as low voltage tasers and mace. these could be considered "arms" and yet they wouldn't create a lethal situation. Most guns are not used defensively but as a murder device with Suicides and murders accounting for 99% of all gun deaths. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...) If Canada loosens up its gun laws I would be a small part in the what I would believe is a huge number of people rallying against the laws revocation. If they didn't put the laws back then I might move to a country that respects its people. Gun laws and a safe community are part of the reason why Canada is so great to live in. I can walk down the street and not be scared that the person behind me is going to shoot me. I hope that America sees that guns do kill people when people want to kill people. The "right to bare arms" should be about t-shirts and not about a weapon of destruction that a child could shoot without any prior knowledge. That criminals shouldn't be able to get out of jail and go pick up their next murder weapon. I hope one day people realize that they can protect their family's without owning something that's more likely to be used as a teenage suicide method (61% gun deaths then a defensive device (less then 2% gun deaths) (http://www.gunpolicy.org... ).
USA gun laws

I think banning guns...well, probably will leave the citizens who have owned guns and are "fond" of them unprotected mainly because they previously owned one and now they do not. But for me, I would not bother me. I never have liked holding a gun nor being around one. They scare because they are devices meant to kill humans which makes me feel uncomfortable. Call me "wimpy" but it is how I feel. That is probably true about Canada having significantly less mass shootings and homicides than USA because Canada has a tighter gun law. I cannot argue with that. But just because of that, I will never feel I should move to Canada because our country is still safe. At least where I live I feel safe. I live in Maine: a state that touches Canada up in the North Eastern Coast of the USA. Also, banning guns in our country is going against the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. I am saying I am a "lover" of the 2nd Amendment like many gun owners, but that our 2nd Amend. protects this freedom of ours: the right to bear arms which was granted by our fore fathers. GOSH. NOW I SOUND LIKE A CONSERVATIVE, TEA PARTY, GUN OWNER......I usually don't speak like this. Let me ask you this question. What would you do OR how would you react if Canada loosened its Gun Laws and let every citizen own any type of gun, similar to America's?
USA gun laws

Yes, In Canada we have many gun laws, you can own a rifle for hunting or a pistol for gun range, but the government knows you have it and can trace it from any shootings. you also cannot make any stops wile you have the gun, just go to and from the gun range. Definitely no bombs or assault weapons. The only people who are aloud guns to carry are the police. I believe installing these laws into the USA would help with all the murders and gory suicides. Many people believe that banning guns will leave citizens unprotected. How do you react to this? I believe at first it will be hard to get it under control, but after the initial showdown people will find they are much more at ease knowing the person behind you doesn't have a gun. Using statistics lets compare homicides USA with Canada, and see how many deaths where in defense.: I will use the rate of gun death per 100000 people. - The total in USA is 3.6 (about 11000 people per year) die from gun Homicides. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...). - In Canada that number shrinks to 0.5 (173 people)Homicides. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...) -Suicides are 6.3 Vs. 1.79 Respectively - Only .2 / 10.3 of all gun deaths in the USA are Justifiable. How do you react to these numbers?
USA gun laws

I do not think guns should be banned. That will do nothing, but cause tension. And I did not know Canada had gun laws that strict. Our country, USA, was founded with the freedom of owning guns. And these guns were rifles, pistils, calibers, not assault weapons. I know you probably do not agree with assault weapons. When I say assault weapons, I mean machine guns that fire 40 bullets per second. IF some one robs your house, surly you would not shoot them 50 times? I am more in between when it comes to gun laws. I do not think they should all be banned, but that people should be required to be put through EXTENSIVE background checks, all across the USA. That includes private dealers too. I sometimes wish America would follow the UK's laws on gun or Canada's. They seem to have no or not many mass shootings. Am I right?
USA gun laws

I would Like to argue gun laws in the USA. I will be on the side which agrees guns should be banned and/or strictly controlled. I hope to find an opponent who will argue appropriately with facts. I would like to mention I am Canadian. I will most likely use comparisons with our countries as Canada has gun laws. Why do you believe there should be such free access to guns? how does having guns help defense or prevent murders? how do you react to all the school shootings?
Evolution is real, disproving most religious concepts.

Pro: "Now, cutting to the chase, I will start by saying that without evolution, many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution. "1. Bare assertion! 2. No evidence is provided.3. It is not clear what Pro means by "many".4. No evidence is provided how medical research is relied on the Theory of Evolution of species. Pro: "The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction. "1. No evidence is provided that the viruses evolve (into other species) by rapid asexual reproduction.2. It is barely asserted that this evolution of viruses is a fact.3. It is barely asserted that the uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we denied this so-called fact. CONCLUSION1. Having full BOP, Pro didn't provide anything other than bare assertions. 2. Even their bare assertions don't affirm the resolution. 3. Their example of a Christian is not a convincing argument.4. Pro forfeited R3.
Evolution is real, disproving most religious concepts.

Pro: “[By religion] I meant Christianity. ” I’ve included it as well. Pro: “… many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution. ” Irrelevant! Our debate is about the Theory of Evolution of Species, as defined in R1, not about the literal meaning of the word evolution. Pro first has to prove that this theory is real. Pro: “The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction. ” Irrelevant! Pro has first to show whether those evolutions of viruses “by rapid asexual reproduction” have turned them into any different species or not. Until then, Pro’s example is irrelevant to resolution. Pro’s example of a Christian cannot be a convincing argument to fill the 2nd part of their BOP, because: 1) no detail is provided as for how said conclusion is obtained by that person, 2) doesn’t show how evolution disproves most religious concepts, &3) the truth of the story is not confirmed.
Evolution is real, disproving most religious concepts.

Sorry by not being clear, but I meant Christianity. Now, cutting to the chase, I will start by saying that without evolution, many modern day sciences, especially medical research, rely on evolution. The uses of antibiotics would be deemed useless if we deny the fact that viruses evolve my rapid asexual reproduction. Also, when I said most, I meant by definition. I have a sad tale, which is sad unless you're a religious fundamentalist. This one scientist was a Christian all of his life. One day, out of curiosity, he checked the factual evidence of the Bible. When he got rid of all fictional evidence by elimination by natural sciences, including evolution, he found that the Bible was reduced to gibberish and random words with no meaning. With his work in one hand and the Bible in the other, he tossed his work, his career, and his life in the fireplace. Citation: Undeniable, by Bill Nye.
Evolution is real, disproving most religious concepts.

I accept. Since no definition etc. was provided, then I will do instead. BOP is fully on Pro to affirm that:1) Evolution is real, & 2) It disproves most religious concepts. Con's only BOP is to negate Pro's arguments, not the resolution, to show that they don't affirm the resolution. DEFINITIONSEvolution: A theory that states that all life-forms or species, including plants and fungi, came from a common ancestor. In other words, all species came from other species until they reach a single simple living thing named as The Common Ancestor. Real: factually existing or happening, not imaginary. Most: almost all of; the majority of. Religious: relating to religion. Since nothing is mentioned, then we'll assume that religion refers to Abrahamic religions, namely Islam, Christianity & Judaism. Any disagreement to definitions etc. must be discussed under comments before round 2, otherwise the definitions and BOP conditions must be followed.
It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

The evidence came from a study from the US Surgeon General's Report, which was cited in my previous argument. Obviously the less smoke you breathe in the less of an effect it willl have, but Con asserts that there is a safe amount that can be taken it. Con asserts that one will never be exposed to the amount of smoke to do enough damage. This does go against the findings of the US Surgeon General Report. Not to mention, further reserach was conducted and even the gaseous phase of cigarette smoke contains reactive oxygen species (a cancer-causing agent) inhibits normal cell function. (1) The study itself found that being exposed to only 2 cigarettes is enough to stop the function of a cell's sodium pump. (1) According to Dr.Rajasekaran regarding the study "We now know that one need not inhale the particulate matter present in secondhand smoke to suffer the consequence of smoking. Exposure to the gaseous substance alone, which you breathe while standing near a smoker, is sufficient to cause harm." (1) The level to which this can be harmful is unknown at this point, but there is no reason to allow this to be done on public property where it can be dangerous to one's health. Not to mention, there's no reason to assume that there won't potentially be a lot of people smoking on public property and if a person comes to the area enough, it could be harmful in the long run. We also don't know what the future of cigarette smoke could hold. It could become much more dangerous in the future. Cigarettes have already become more deadly in the past 50 years and could easily become more of a health risk. (2) If there is no one around, there is no reason to assume the law will be enforced, much in the same way speed limits aren't enforced when no one is around. The amount of people who smoke cigarettes is irrelevent if it is a danger to public health. 1-http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2-http://www.tobaccofreekids.org...
It Should be Illegal to Smoke on Public Property in the United States

Premise: The United States Declaration of Independence declares "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as "unalienable Rights". (1) Allowing smoking in public places violates one's right to life, while not harming the smoker's liberty. Constructive: There is wide evidence that proves that second hand smoke can cause cancers and other diseases. (2) Even in small amounts second hand smoke is found to harmful and there is no safe amount that one can be exposed to. (2) Therefore, smoking on public property exposes non-smokers to something that violates thousands of American's unalienable right to life each year. (3) One may say banning someone's right to smoke on public property violates the smoker's liberty, but that is simply not true. Liberty is legally defined as "freedom from restraint and the power to follow one's own will to choose a course of conduct. Liberty, like freedom, has its inherent restraint to act without harm to others and within the accepted rules of conduct for the benefit of the general public." (4) Therefore, for something to be protected by the right to liberty, it cannot harm others, and as proven above exposing people to second hand smoke does indeed harm others. Therefore, laws should be put in place that ban smoking on public property because it harms people's general safety and endangers their right to life as citizens. 1-http://www.archives.gov... 2-http://www.cancer.org... 3-http://www.no-smoke.org... 4-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
The Free Marke is the supperior economic system

1) I content that GDP per capita is meaningless. As Having money is in fact a positive freedom, and allows you to do more. 2) I did not commit this fallacy by any means. You said costs of living were high in the UAE, and I gave an attempt to explain why. I did not content that the UAE wasn't a relatively free market in today's world, I simply stated that it was not in fact the perfect example of an exquisite market. Is it free? By today's standards yes, but is it a good economy? Not entirely. 3) As opposed to a non-free market where it is guaranteed not by free exchange but by government forces. The free market, though there is some influence on one by outside forces, it provides the least amount. 4) Value is not objectively based on Labour. To say that value is created by labour is somewhat correct, but to say it is objectively based on labour is a very lacking description. Everything that has been learned in the since of economics lends to Value, if objective at all, is based on utility, not labour. I'm afraid that I must again repeat, I see no clear connection between labour hours and value., and have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. 5) I agree value is not price. Price is in markets, and value is individual. The exploitation that Marx claimed to be rampant, has not stood up to the test of history, it is now found that as the price of labour has gone up so has wages, thus meaning that workers are pretty fairly compensated for their work. [1] This also fails mention that any contract that's reach voluntarily is hard pressed to be found as immoral. 6) Once again, allowance =/= encouragement. The market has its own way of regulating itself, based on what the people want, and due to recent events more and more people are looking for sustainable energy. Were government to back out of subsidizing its competition, this effect may be greater. 7) Here you commit the false sequitur fallacy. Just because a happened before b does not mean that a caused b. Assuming that the socialist polices enacted during the paris commune were the cause for the drop in the price of living ignores the fact that they were still rebelling against an oppressive government, which was still behind on free market principals, and that the smaller the economy is, the less infastructure and logistics factor into costs. Source http://www.oecd.org... [1] I feel that at this point I am simply restating my earlier arguments.