BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
England Dan & John Ford Coley is better music than Katy Perry

Argument I: Sales and Chart Rank.Pro argues that Sales and Chart Ranks are meaningless. Or, at least, that Chart Rank is. This is a pointless case, as ultimately, these two things are the base level. We see a similar situation with the Dictionary. When the meaning of a word is debated, the Dictionary is used. If you still disagree with the dictionary, you can't do anything about it because it's the base level... The one level where you have to accept what it says because you have no other options left... No further levels to go in search of the truth (with the exection of pre-ordained words with Latin Roots {like Photosynthesis.})And Sales do indicate popularity. At least, in the long-term; how sales hold up and what they look like after the first week. However; in modern music, most people who buy an album have heard the songs on the radio/internet first, so sales in the music industry (especially for Singles) will have less of a margin of error. Need I remind you that Katy Perry has sold over 81 million singles?Argument II: Relativity.This isn't true at all. Despite modern myths, people have gotten smarter over the century. Tastes have simply changed. this is a mere case of musical bias on Pro's behalf.Which ever band is better is a relative case. If you don't use the Sales/Charts, you can't truly determine who is better. Pro has to prove that England Dan & John Ford Coley is better, while I only have to prove that he isn't. I don't have to prove that Katy Perry is better, which is good because I wouldn't try.Conclusion: If determined by success, Katy Perry is the better author. Otherwise, it's a relative matter and neither is better than the other.
England Dan & John Ford Coley is better music than Katy Perry

First of all, I'd like to point out that my opponent ignored every point I made about talent, style, electronic voice enhancements, lyrics and image.All my opponent concentrated on was "sales and chart rank" which really is kind of useless."A hit single is variously called a number one hit, a top 10 hit, a top 20 hit or a top 40 hit, depending on its peak position. In the UK (where radio play is not included in the official charts), this doesn't completely reflect the song's popularity—as the weekly chart position is based solely on direct comparison with concurrent sales of other singles. It is, therefore, not uncommon that a single fails to chart, but has actually sold more copies than other singles regarded as hits based on their higher chart placement in a period of low sales."http://en.wikipedia.org...As far as relativity is concerned:Modern music listeners are much more dumbed down than they were in the 70's and don't appreciate good music anymore.All you have to do now, is get a drum machine, an auto-tuner and a few words to sing over and over, and you have yourself a hit song. Conclusion: Katy Perry may have a better "track record", but the quality of her music is much lower. She wouldn't stand a chance in the 70's against REAL artists that had talent and didn't need auto-tuning and a sexy image to sell records.
England Dan & John Ford Coley is better music than Katy Perry

Argument I: Sales and Chart Rank.England Dan & John Ford Coley, while good, had 11 albums/compilations, and none of them reached 1st place on the US/Canadian charts. They may have had 11 songs reach 1st place on the charts, but their accomplishments hold nothing on Katy Perry's.Katy Perry has a lot more going for her, even having the record for longest consecutive amount of time on the top 10 charts, with 69 weeks(1). This means she has spent more time on the charts then any other artist ever, which is made more of an accomplishment since she often had more than one song there at a time. Her album, Teenage Dream, was the first by a woman to ever have 5 number one billboard hits. Only Micheal Jackson has an album to match it (2). This means she is one of only two artists to have 5+ number one singles on one album. She has so far sold 11 million albums and 81 million singles, and has 8 entries on the Best-Selling list, tying her with Rihanna has the top (3).Despite her large gap ahead of England Dan & John Ford Coley, Katy Perry only has 4 albums out. Katy Perry has done far more than England Dan & John Ford Coley while only having half as many albums out. This is an even larger a case when you consider that all of her success is attributed to everything after "I Kissed A Girl." This means her success came from only three albums, not four.1) http://www.billboard.com...2) http://en.wikipedia.org...3) http://en.wikipedia.org...Argument II: Relativity.Despite this, which ever is best is a matter of perspective. Some might consider one song by England Dan & John Ford Coley to be better than all of Katy Perry's work, while others would consider them equal. Who ever is better depends on the person listening. To some, England Dan & John Ford Coley is better, and to others, Katy Perry is better. We must therefore conclude that neither can be better except through sales and the Charts, of which Katy Perry succeeded well above ED&JFC on a per album basis (and as a whole in general.)Conclusion: Katy Perry has a far better track record with a much smaller arsenal of albums. Although, who ever is better is ultimately a matter of perspective.
England Dan & John Ford Coley is better music than Katy Perry

I was trying to compare today's music with what was popular back when I was growing up I think this is a good comparison:England Dan & John Ford Coley "I'd Really Love to See You Tonight" 1976 vs Katy Perry "California Gurls" 2010 . Both are short, catchy, poppy songs that were designed to make you want to sing along. Of course neither are Mozart or Bach, but I'd have to say that even simple poppy songs have dumbed down over the years. First let’s take the artist's names: "England Dan & John Ford Coley". I doubt any kid today has the attention span or the capacity to remember all that. If you are going to sell music today, you need a short name with as little to it as possible. Katy Perry. Even Katy is shortened from Katie. Now the name of the songs: "I'd Really Love to See You Tonight". Wow, what a mouthful! Today the song wouldn’t sell unless it was "I'd really luv to C ya tonite"..and even that is too long! It has to be short and dumbed down like "California Gurls". Never spell a word the way it's supposed to be spelled. That's only for nerdy scientists now. Now, how about the "image" of the artists. Popular singers were always known to dress "outrageous" in order to catch attention. Long hair, leisure suits and mustaches are tame compared to the bras that shoot out fireworks Katy Perry wears. That is mainstream entertainment now? Yikes! OK. Moving on to the songs themselves. Back in the 70's you actually needed some talent. You had to be able to sing without some kind of digital device fixing your voice. Real instruments also had to be used, not synthesized clones. Sure, the technology is there so why not use it, right? I think it's OK to enhance somebody that has talent, but to create "talent" with technology is really going too far. Now, how about the lyrics? Well, I guess they are both supposed to be about sex in some fashion. Sex sells, right? "I'd Really Love to See You Tonight" is almost like a story. It is clever because it uses the lyrics as a one-sided phone conversation. Words like "There's a warm wind blowing the stars around" create romantic images that people can relate to. On the other hand, "California Gurls" leaves nothing to the imagination. Metaphores and similes require too much thinking. You have to be as frank and offensive as possible now. "Sex on the beach. We've got white sand in our stilettos". That's fit for radio? I'm all for free speech, but no wonder why America is number one in teen pregnancies. There's a difference between romance and porno. I don't think this is just another case of one generation saying their music is better. There really is a “dumbing down” effect that has destroyed the quality of what kids listen to now, and it won't change as long as it is tolerated. If you're a parent, which song would you rather have your kids listen to?
Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

I have had computer access issues as of recent. ===CON ARGUMENT #1=== To refute my opponents claim that Alpha and Beta ranked wolves mating with Omega rank wolves dismisses the claim homosexual acts is not primarily for domination, I would simply say it bolsters my argument. It could merely re-enforce the fact that the Alpha and Beta wolves are dominant over them. Homosexual sex would reinforce that notion. My opponents point on animal masturbation is somewhat irrelevant, due to the fact we are arguing about mating with other animals, rather than animals masturbating. In terms of my opponent saying ranchers stimulate stallions for semen collecting, he has no proof that Stallions fidn this pleasant or not. Therefore, it has no weight on this argument. Again, my opponent has no proof to assert Lions engage in sexual for pleasure whilst in small male bands. Again, this probably goes back to domination. The video of the Dog attempting to mate with the Lion helps my argument, the Lion clearly did not want to engage in sex, and therefore, the Dog was abusing the Lion. In a case of this with a Human, the Dog could be abusing the Human. ===CON ARGUMENT #2=== If someone is allergic to Animal bodily fluids, it is an abuse to their body to engage in sex with an animal. Despite the fact the person may consent to the sex, it still is an abuse of their body. C&BT provides very little harm to the user, and is mostly cosmetic. When compared to biting, it is not as harmful. A bite can bring an infection, as well as possibly kill someone if the person is bitten in the wrong position. However, C&BT does none of those things, therefore, cannot be compared to biting as an abuse. ===REBUTTAL=== If a human were to take a sign from an animal as a sign for sex, and he was wrong, then that animal would be repeatedly raped. Furthermore, unless a woman make sit completely clear she wants to have sex, and not by merely touching a man's arm in a provoking manner, then it should be taken as rape. Animals cannot enter a formal agreement for sex, and if they can't then it is rape, and rape is an abuse No formal agreement for sex ==> Rape ==> Abuse ===REBUTTAL=== Animals cannot have a formal agreement or give consent to engage in sex with humans. Therefore, it is rape if Humans have sex with them. I feel I have made this point clear.
Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

===DEFINITIONS=== I agree with his given definitions, and would like to add my own: Pleasure : The state or feeling of being pleased. ===CON ARGUMENT #1: BESTIALITY IS AN ABUSE OF NATURAL INSTINCTS OF ANIMALS=== In my opponents given link, he cites dolphins as finding sex pleasurable. However, Humans and Dolphins are the only species which engage is sex for pleasure. Also, I quote my opponents article in saying " Dolphin copulation happens belly to belly ". Therefore, Humans cannot engage in sex with Dolphins, because 1) The correct organs are not present. 2) Dolphins live under water. All other animals engage in sex for reproductive purposes. Dogs, Cat's, Goats, Sheep and Horses are the usual suspects in Bestiality. All of these animals engage in sex for reproductive purposes only. Off springs cannot occur from Bestiality, therefore, you are abusing the natural instincts of animals by engaging in Bestiality. ===CON ARGUMENT #2: BESTIALITY IS AN ABUSE OF THE HUMAN AND ANIMAL BODY=== Furthermore, many diseases, known as Zoonoses, can occur from Bestiality, or Zoophilia [1]. There is even such a thing as allergic reactions to animal, including anaphylaxis [2]. Biting can occur as part of natural sexual nature of animals, putting humans in risk [1]. This is proof Bestiality, or Zoophilia, is an abuse of the human and animal bodies. [1] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] = . http://en.wikipedia.org... ===PRO:=== >>Animals can consent. I prove by example: A cat indicates consent to be petted by purring either by responding with purring and 'nuzzling' a person petting them, or by themselves seeking to be petted by insistently nuzzling the being they wish to pet them in and/or meowing in a certain fashion. << ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) Petting an animal is different than engaging is sex with them. 2) Animals often give no visible consent for sex. If they do, it is often a misinterpretation. ===PRO:=== >>PAC #2: Sex is not, in all cases, abusive. (Need I establish an example to this point? ) I contend, in fact, that many species enjoy sex outside of procreation. I cite . http://en.wikipedia.org...... as an example -- and note the last sentence in the article which notes that dolphins (presumably in the wild, undomesticated) have been known to initiate sexual contact with humans. I believe this quite strongly supports my case. << ===REBUTTAL:=== 1) I have proven only Dolphins are the only non-human animals to enjoy sex. 2) You have not presented proof Humans can engage in sex with Humans. I await my opponent response.
Bestiality is NOT abuse in all cases

I am shooting for the moon here, taking a position that I expect will be nearly impossible to prove, but here goes ... === I contend that bestiality (the sexual congress between a human and non-human member of the animal species) is not, in and of itself abuse in all cases. I contend that an opponent taking the "Con" side of the argument will need to successfully prove that all forms of bestiality are abuse. I believe it necessary for both sides to establish definitions for the terms BESTIALITY and ABUSE. I expect the latter to be a point of contention, but of course I will not know until someone accepts this challenge and either accepts my definition or provides an alternative. I define ABUSE as violating the consent (or will) of an innocent being (that is, one not convicted of a crime -- confining an innocent being is abuse, confining a criminal is not abuse) and causing either physical or emotional harm BESTIALITY as sexual contact between a human being and an animal CONSENT as some form of indication that a being agrees to an interaction with them, relevant to this debate being sexual contact I contend that I need not prove that no case of bestiality is abusive, and that if I prove so little as a single exception to the notion that all bestiality is abusive that I have proven my side of the debate. Given these definitions, I present these "pro" argument contentions to support my argument that bestiality is not abuse in all cases: PAC #1: Animals can consent. I prove by example: A cat indicates consent to be petted by purring either by responding with purring and 'nuzzling' a person petting them, or by themselves seeking to be petted by insistently nuzzling the being they wish to pet them in and/or meowing in a certain fashion. PAC #2: Sex is not, in all cases, abusive. (Need I establish an example to this point?) I contend, in fact, that many species enjoy sex outside of procreation. I cite http://en.wikipedia.org... as an example -- and note the last sentence in the article which notes that dolphins (presumably in the wild, undomesticated) have been known to initiate sexual contact with humans. I believe this quite strongly supports my case. I contend that if, indeed, animals can consent and sex is not abusive, then it is not impossible for an animal to consent to sex and, therefore, an animal can enjoy sexual relationship with a human being and that sexual contact is not, in all cases, abusive. Therefore, I contend that bestiality is not abuse in all cases.
There is No God

I think there is no need for debate left.My friend has admitted that there can be a creator. From god i thought that he is talking about a creator. I think that he should have used the term religious god. But whatever, i stand by what i was saying, that we cannot deny the possibility of a god and a creator. And if my friend was talking about religion then i would say its an honest mistake. If he would have said in the topic itself then i would have not accepted the debate. Nevertheless i rest my case. Thank you
There is No God

I thank you for your reply. Problem is I said that the word "God in this Debate is referring to a religious one. And I too believe that there could be a "God" in scientific terms; a creator. We are arguing different debates now. This debate was base on the following definition of God: 1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. When I say There is no God I mean there is no religious God that is Moral and Just. I will explain his situation by following by quoting from http://godisimaginary.com... "Another way to approach the impossibility of God is to think about the concept of omniscience. If God is omniscient, then it means that he knows every single thing that happens in the universe, both now and infinitely into the future. Do you have free will in such a universe? Clearly not. God knows everything that will happen to you. Therefore, the instant you were created, God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell. To create someone knowing that that person will be damned to hell for eternity is the epitome of evil." Obviously when you think about it. The definition of God; A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. -- Is untrue. This is evidence that supports that what is said about a RELIGIOUS GOD in fact false. Thank you;)
There is No God

I strongly believe that there is no god. We exist because we exist, there is no "purpose" to life and we were not made. This debate will be based on the following definitions: God 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. Made made in a particular place or way. Past tense of Make Make 1. form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; create. 2. cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about. 3. compel (someone) to do something. 4. constitute; amount to. 5. gain or earn (money or profit). 6. manage to arrive at (a place) within a specified time or catch (a train or other form of transport). 7. prepare to go in a particular direction. 8. induce (someone) to have sexual intercourse with one. 9. (in bridge, whist, etc. ) win (a trick). 10. (of the tide) begin to flow or ebb. Exist 1. have objective reality or being.
Expletives Should Never be Used

I'll keep this short, as Pro's arguments have relied on reasoning which I have rebutted already.Rebuttals/Defenses1.Not only is my opponent reiterating a tired principle which he hasn't adequately defended, he also blatantly contradicts himself here. One of my arguments revolves arond the idea of different people looking at things in different ways. My opponent suggested that that was not good enough. However, here he turns around and uses that argument in his favor, saying discrimination is subjective. So I ask: which is it? Is my argument as valid as yours, or is your defense invalid?2.At this point, my opponent is arguing a point in a ridiculous manner. He states that it is his OPINION that children hearing expletives are bad, and then assumes that his opinion is valid with NO evidence backing it up. This same problem is riddled throughout my opponents arguments. Secondly, I remind my opponent that, in the agreement we made before, and just using common sense, it is not my responsibility to show when children hearing expletives is good--on the contrary, he must prove why it is bad. The resolution is talking about a complete stopping of something; ergo, he must show why we should end it other than baseless and unsupported assertions.This is in no way meant to be a copout of my responsibility, but the truth is that it isn't a given that expletives are what my opponent claims they are. Sure, they have a negative connotaion assigned to them, but my opponent is honestly just saying things now.3.The same thing applies here: my opponent continues to claim that expletives ruin lives and destroy relationships with no back up. Please prove your points. As well, who says that art doesn't add anything to art?4.I have indeed shown that expletives can indeed be used--namely due to free speech and artistic expression. My opponent's rebuttal of this relies almost soley on the assertion that "people could be offended; ergo, it shouldn't be used." But, I 'd like to offer the idea that, perhaps part of the art piece could possibly be to offend people. What my opponent is suggesting is a detriment to expression, plain and simple.Not only that, but if you see my #2 response, I do not have to show tht they are good to use (although I believe I have).5.Really, this section shows the fallacy in my opponent's thinking. He says that, in reality, we should ban expletives to prevent people from being offended/prevent the risk. However, he is using the same overzealous reasoning of risk that I deconstructed earlier.On top of this, what Pro really seems to be arguing against is bullying and discrimination, not the actual expletives themselves. His reasoning seems to be that expletives are a tool for bullying, and thus shouldn't be used. However, the same can be said for ANY form of expression. To make a special case for a certain set of words would be rather ridiculous.6,For this last section, please see my abve response for the children passage.Thank you.
Expletives Should Never be Used

Expletives should never be used because they can be extremely offensive. There is no good reason why people should use expletives as they can damage others seriously. Expletives also have bad meanings behind them and are often considered inappropriate. If anger is the issue, there are much better ways to get out the anger such as breathing, doing a sport, yoga, or doing a hobby. There is really no good reason for expletives in today's society, and many people view them as negative. My opponent could argue that all of the items I suggested instead of expletives take longer. This may be true, but you can do all of them within 5 minutes. This is longer than saying a word, but a few minutes could save someone months worth of damage and save friendships. Overall, expletives are extremely offensive and should never be used.