BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why is it that experimentation and improvisation within music is usually perceived as "pretentious"

NOTE TO VOTERS: Due to discussion in the comments, I move that the motion be: "Is experimentation within music pretentious?" New waves in music have come to the charts over the decades, and some have caught on (e.g. jazz, reggae, electronica). This does not, however, mean that every new wave of music will sell hundreds upon thousands of copies for each song that adheres to that genre. However, although some of the time, these new genres catch on due to the success of a single artist, track or album, it can be seen as quite pretentious that one person or band thinks they can single-handedly change the music landscape. Your friends think that the artists just assume that the new style will catch on, and therefore label it as pretentious.
Why is it that experimentation and improvisation within music is usually perceived as "pretentious"

Why is it that experimentation and improvisation within music is usually perceived as "pretentious, strange, ridiculous, joke, or too intellectual or over my head" I think none of those things, I am very humble when it comes to music and listen to various styles of music, I never think oh I shouldn't listen to this because they're pretentious, I just listen carefully with an open-mind and appreciate it.
The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.

As the CON position, I will argue that evolution – the process by which living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth – is validated and supported to an extremely high degree by a vast array of scientific data. My opponent will be arguing that (1) the theory of evolution does not adequately explain life on earth and (2) that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility. These are interrelated issues but I will most likely address them separately.
The Theory of Evolution Cannot Explain All Organisms.

The Theory of Evolution is an ineffective method of explaining life on this earth. Through the careful examination of specific organisms and their structures, we see evident the insufficiency of the theory. Evolution, which explains life in small, gradual steps, does not provide the answers we seek. While Microevolution occurs within the gene code and is evident all around us, Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility. The idea that all forms of life derive from a common ancestor is absurd.Needless to say, I affirm the resolved.I will disprove evolution in this debate. I will provide examples of problems that evolution cannot solve, and thus arrive at the Conclusion that all life cannot evolve from one common ancestor.
Summer is better than Winter

"Summer is a truly enjoyable experience when by the pool or on a beach, but i've discovered there is no where to go that makes winter an enjoyable experience other than staying in my bed. However, the demands of life don't allow for that, further increasing my winter sadness."My family is taking a vaction in the winter....to go get some snow before summer. Literally. That is why we are going in the winter. To get some cold. Play in the snow, ski, snow board. All that. As my life demands forces me to work in the heat of the summer, I believe I win in this respect as you can put on more clothes, while I burn. "I can see how summer would be terrible having to work hard labour jobs the heat, but when possible i avoid that at all costs, totally not worth getting heat stroke for."Not jobs, I actually work indoors at a pharmacutial company. I'm taking about work on my property, tending to our animals and crops. We also mow, plant, build, landscape, and all that. You know, things my wife would like me to spiff up. "And in my location, winter lasts about 8 months and summer lasts for 2 months. SO not fair."Winter lasts maybe 48 hours here. About 72 if we're lucky. Summer is typically from April to August. For the rest of the year we get a mix of all the seasons each day minus the winter. It'll be 70 degrees in the morning, 100 at noon, and 85 with 40% humidity in the evening.
Summer is better than Winter

I recognize that location is a huge factor in determining the "win". I see we're on both ends of the extremes. I experience extreme Canadian winters, and you experience extreme Texas summers. Summer is a truly enjoyable experience when by the pool or on a beach, but i've discovered there is no where to go that makes winter an enjoyable experience other than staying in my bed. However, the demands of life don't allow for that, further increasing my winter sadness. I can see how summer would be terrible having to work hard labour jobs the heat, but when possible i avoid that at all costs, totally not worth getting heat stroke for. And in my location, winter lasts about 8 months and summer lasts for 2 months. SO not fair. (I really only made this argument because winter feels like it is never going to end and i just can't wait for summer)
Summer is better than Winter

Summer is the better than winter in all aspects. In the winter, you have to travel through treacherous snowbanks, wear many layers of heavy clothing just to feel even a little warm, scrape/sweep your car off, shovel driveways, and hide indoors until the temperatures go close to 0 degrees (which takes many many months) Travelling through snowbanks is the absolute worst, especially when you get snow in your shoes. Not to mention, it doubles or almost triples your travel time. Having to adjust my driving and go super slow is not enjoyable. Summer is so much better because you don't have to wear multiple layers of heavy clothing. I love feeling the warm wind in the summer and not having to worry about getting hypothermia or frost bite. Also, multiple layers of heavy clothing makes you feel like a marshmallow and I definitely ain't about that. Shovelling is such a chore especially when the snow is heavy and its cold out. You have to dress up warm so you don't freeze, but shovelling is such a big workout that you sweat in your heavy clothes and you feel drenched in clothing while simultaneously freezing. The ultimate confliction, if you ask me. Finally, what the heck is there to do in the snow besides extreme snow sports (which i am not a fan of). In the summer, the activities are endless and enjoyable as the sun is out and the temperatures are warm and you can eat ice cream without freezing on the inside and out.
Summer is better than Winter

We have lakes. I must end this debate with the following; science has proven over and over again that the summers cause more deaths and extreme heat even leads to more crimes. "Researchers have long known that heat waves kill more people than other weather-related disasters do. And amid the hottest year on record and a scorching summer in the United States comes new research warning just how deadly heat waves can be." (http://www.livescience.com...)Thus! Winter is better than Summer. But of course, like this debate has proven, neither are TRULY better than the other when considering all factors.
Summer is better than Winter

Yikes it does not get that humid here. However, I personally would rather be burning hot as opposed to freezing cold. Nor do I enjoy being a marshmallow with layers. I believe it is much easier to cool off than it is to warm up. I also do not have the responsibility of owning a property with animals to tend to, so I would not understand what that is like, especially in the heat. I could imagine it is a lot of work and very difficult to do while burning. Winter lasting 48 hours is a dream to me, along with your high temperatures. However I hope you have a pool or a lake near by to attend to when it gets super hot!
Should the failing grade be 40%/F. That mean 50% is a D.

First I would like to welcome my opponent, winnerdude, to debate. org. I hope this is a good debate and I give many thanks for you starting it. To clarify, I will first attack some arguments presented by my opponent while proceeding to construct my case. First, a contradiction: "The kids need to try harder" " Its there [the adults] fault that the kids are failing. " Ergo, to clarify whose perspective we are valuing in this debate, I ask my opponent specify in his next speech whose blame it is, or both. Second, my opponent says that there are several problems evident in adults' attempts(or lack thereof) to help their children. "the adults needs to push little. Instead of letting them sit around on Facebook. Or letting them play there Xbox360 or Playstation. Its there fault that the kids are failing. " To summarize, my opponent suggest parents aren't helping enough. Therefore, we must ask: why aren't the parents helping? The answer: the present system skews failure to mimic success, inherently making it more difficult on the parents to help and less likely the children will succeed. Next he asserts: "They sit around and do absolutely nothing in class. " I can contest that, from personal experience, Being off task in class reflects upon the children themselves, particularly their drive to succeed. For many, particularly those disenfranchised enough to be raised in less affluent neighborhoods, have difficulty summoning such confidence because of the glaring impossibility of the monumental task of getting a good grade. Therefore the problem with the drive of students to succeed lies in their ability to motivate themselves due to the current system. Because of all of this, I suggest a reformation of the current grading system. This is because it has, time and time again, proved to provoke more issues than not. The current system alienates students with learning disabilities as well as those unfortunate enough to not recognize the significance of education. However, such issues CAN be averted, it simply takes a system that permits students to continue to push themselves while simultaneously not being overwhelmed by such(relatively) towering tasks. Ergo the solution to the issues addressed above^ can be mitigated with the simple solution of making the passing grade be a 40% and a 'D' be a 50%.
Should the failing grade be 40%/F. That mean 50% is a D.

I think not.The kids need to try harder. A lot of them are sorry. Even if they say were a dumb country, the adults needs to push little. Instead of letting them sit around on Facebook. Or letting them play there Xbox 360 or Playstation. Its there fault that the kids are failing. So when a child parent ask me that question I may go off. They sit around and do absolutely nothing in class. Which makes my job harder than it needs to be. Then the kid parent get mad at me when I don't give them one point to pass. So no the system should stay the same as far as that is concerned.
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

In the final round my opponent to brings up a point that at least has a shred of evidence attached to it. Their argument about suicide. They now attache an article talking about this. Apparently they didn't read the article very well, because when I read it, I see that the main causes of these suicides are, internalized transphobia, discrimination against trans people, physical violence against trans people, and rejection by friends and family for being trans. Now the reason that this evidence from my opponents source discredits their argument is because they go on to say "This can't be because society treats them incorrectly." Even though the article they are using as evidence, lists only societal problems. My opponent then moves on to concede the resolution by saying "This is a free country and people can do whatever they choose. " Now my opponent has deviated from this resolution, but it is still the resolution. It is still the idea we are debating and still the basis upon which you should decide the round. And I have made a better case. My opponents few arguments that are actually based on any from of evidence, I have shown to be false. I have used evidence to show that my opponents world is, illegal and immoral. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote.
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

People should not become trans for there own good. As I have stated before trans people suicide at a rate higher than American Black Slaves, and Jews in concentration camps/WW2. This can't be because society treats them incorrectly. https://www.huffingtonpost.com... I want to make clear, it is okay for to be trans. This is a free country and people can do whatever they choose. I simply am trying to point out why they are incorrect in switching.
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

"Why do we need transge[nde]rism." This is the only argument my opponent brings up. They ask why we need it. I have two responses to this. First, as pro your burden is to show that it should be banned, not why you personally believe it is unnecessary. Second, because it saves lives. As I presented in my previous rebuttal 81% of people feel less like committing suicide after the transition. So if my opponent wants a reason to "need" trangenderism there's one, because someone feeling another person is a "weird loser" is no reason to marginalize and drive people to suicide. From this it is clear, my opponent has know rational, evidenced based arguments left. They only have their bigoted feelings that "Nobody likes those weird losers." And this is not a real argument. For this reason you are obligated to cast a con vote. P.S. It's a widly accepted fact that gender roles exist, some people just think that they shouldn't exist.
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

Why do we need transgerism. You as a leftist (I assume) believe there would be no gender roles. The reason trans people switch to the other gender is because it is socially unacceptable for a man to wear a dress and vice versa. In a world with no gender roles it would be fine for men to wear dresses and vice versa illuminating the need to switch genders. F*** trans people. Nobody likes those weird losers.
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

"Honestly, I don't care how you feel because truth almost never agrees with feelings." This quote from my opponent exemplifies everything that is wrong with their argument. This entire time my opponent has presented almost nothing but their feelings. They present their feelings that transgenderism is weird as a viable argument. The two non feelings based arguments that my opponent has presented are these, transgenderism is gender dysphoria and 40% of transgender people commit suicide. So let's look at those because by my opponents own admission, feelings don't line up with truth. Well start with the gender dysphoria part. There seems to be some confusion about the definition of gender dysphoria, so let's clear that up. According to the National Health Service this is the definition of gender dysphoria, "Gender dysphoria is a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress because there's a mismatch between their biological sex and gender identity. It's sometimes known as gender in congruence." Now this shows that gender dysphoria is not the reasons why transgender people are the way they are, it is an effect of this. Now onto the idea that 40% of transgender people commit suicide. Now this is not strictly true. 40% of transgender people attempt to commit suicide and according to TENI after transition 81% of people feel release from gender dysphoria. In fact one interviewee said this, "I couldn"t live anymore as male, however that has changed during and post transition. I love life and I love being able to enjoy it." What this shows is in my opponents world where we block this transition, more people would likely commit suicide. Now let's look at my side of the case. Every argument, feelings based or otherwise, that my opponent has brought up, I have shown through evidence to be incorrect. I have shown that by definition, there are more than two genders. I have shown that it is illegal and immoral to ban transgender people from being transgender. I have shown that any societal issues that may arise, will not. I have also shown that gender dysphoria is different from trangenderism and that banning trangenderism would actually increase suicide. In conclusion, my opponents arguments are almost all based on feelings, which they themselves noted was not truth, the ones that are I have shown to be untrue. On my side I have used fact and logic to show that it is illegal, immoral, and unnecessary to ban trangenderism. And for these reasons I strongly urge a con vote. Sources: TENI - http://www.teni.ie... NHS - https://www.nhs.uk...
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

I disagree. The definition of gender dysphoria is - the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex. I don't want to ban it as we are a free country. People can do things as they see fit. I am only pointing out how they are extremely wrong in doing so. Another example of society is that I don't think people are ready for them. I feel extremely weird being around a trans person or anyone in the LGBTQ2...(who gives a **** about what comes next) community. A lot of my friends and family share that same experience. Until that is gone for the whole of the USA I don't think we are ready. It also shows how much society has gone backward accepting people for no logical reason. I believe society should have a norm and standards that people are expected to follow. Trans people, after all, are only 1.4 million people. IN my opinion, it's quite simple. If you have a penis you are a male. If you have a vagina you are a female. There is nothing you can do to change that. Honestly, I don't care how you feel because truth almost never agrees with feelings. I also think not changing is better for the person. 40% of the trans people suicide. I don't think that's a coincidence. If you say it's because of people harassing them that only shows more how society isn't ready to accept them. Some really good videos to watch:
Transgenderism Should Be Banned.

I"m sorry that I didn"t state the title right. I don"t mean for it to be banned as you mentioned in your argument. Now to transgenderism. As I assume you agree there are only two sexes we will go to gender. The problem is that it simply wouldn"t work. 1. Transgenderism is actually a mental disease called gender dysphoria. It makes the person feel or think they are the other sex or something else. To accept them would be to accept mental illness. 2. To fully do it you would have to change society as we know it. Especially the stupid pronouns thing. Nobody ****ing goes around asking what people"s pronouns are before taking or having a conversation. 3. The pronouns thing itself thing wouldn"t work ether. Them is sleeping; isn"t English. 3a. In pretty much every other language besides English every single thing is assigned a gender (even inanimate objects, I know it"s weird I speak French), people demanding you have to use gender neutral pronouns would have to make them restructure and make their whole language again. 4. You can"t change your age, you shouldn"t be able to change your gender. These things are not malleable. I encourage those with gender dysphoria to seek treatment.
Lebron James is a better player than Stephen curry

Actually, you might find that Buckethead is the best player. Bucky can play blistering solos while also soothing the soul with his ballads.Not to mention his loyal tributes to his basketball idols with hits like 'Jordan'[1] and 'Lebrontron'[2].Lebron and co can play, but Buckethead can play.Sources:1. 2.
Lebron James is a better player than Stephen curry

Lebron James is a better overall player than curry because curry hands down is the best shooter but cannot defend and play all 5 positions. We have seen Lebron play all of those positions and is good at all of them. Curry is the best shooter of all time, but cannot compete with lebron because lebron has the physicality factor and he can change a team from the likes of the Lakers into a championship contending team.
The Penal code/Islam where men rule the world, and the penal code of justice in America.

Yes, both justice systems kill those deemed worthy of execution. The difference lies in the reasoning behind the executions. To earn a death sentence in the U.S, one must commit heinous crimes such as murder. Under Sharia law, one can be killed for adultery, being homosexual, sex out of wedlock, and many other "crimes." Justice in the U.S. is controlled by a (mostly) democratically elected government, while Sharia law is based on a holy book. Women are tremendously oppressed by Sharia law; they are not allowed to drive or show their hair, and are treated as lesser beings. In the U.S, women aren't discriminated by the nation's laws. Neither system should rule the world. Morals vary between different societies, because every culture is unique. However, some forms of justice violate logic and basic human rights more than others. You're right, I am denying your "factoids." Humanity is not at war against tyranny, humanity breeds it.
The Penal code/Islam where men rule the world, and the penal code of justice in America.

The "justice system of Islam", and the "Justice system of America", both kill ignorant humans every day. Which system should rule the world? You should decry it or disavow both. It is what it is. Git er done! Blah, phooey on your denial of factoids. Humanity is at war against tyranny, of kings, religions, races, sexes, and nations of.......Islam and freedom. Period.
Debate.org App

Excellent research, however, I'll but a little meaning behind the word addicting. Addicting define: tending or to cause some to be addicted to an activity, etc. Addicted define: physical and "mentally" dependant on a particular substance, and unable to stop talking about it without adverse affects. There is a difference between physical and mental addiction, and I will not go into this now only because this requires an immense explanation. As for the topic on driving, yes, your point is true, and I will not go furthermore because I cannot. But driving isn't the only thing, I've also done research on phone use in schools, and students who do use their phones in class sit in the back row. Which is mostly unnoticed. Seeing that a student would not have time to write their debate must plagiarize just to win a silly argument. And yes, many arguments on DO are silly, such as rapping contests. And as you know, plagarism decreases your grade academically.
Debate.org App

I agree with Con that mobile device use while in the middle of the road is terrible. I did plenty of research to learn why people do this, and if Debate.org (let's call it DO) is the kind of thing they're doing. For the most part, mobile device usage while driving is usually to answer calls or texts.I found that one of the main reasons people text and drive is a sense of urgency[5]. They feel like they need to get their message sent right away, or the other person could get upset or worried[2]. DO will be much less likely to give people anxiety. Most initiators allow three days to post new arguments. This eliminates the stress to respond immediately, as you'll have plenty of time later. Many arguments for DO also require focus and research, which very few people would even think to attempt to do whilst driving especially not many DO users who are highly intelligent. The internet is most often accessed at home[3], where there is no danger of a car crash. Most people don't bring their tablets on the road, and people use tablets mare than anything else to access the internet[4]. I use my tablet more than my laptop, but using Safari DO is difficult to navigate. An app designed specifically for mobile use would operate much smoother, and may even be better organized. DO is a great website, and apps will soon pass websites in popularity[6], so it is a smart business idea. It can even be done cheaply and easily[7]. A DO app would be convenient and risk free, so it should be made a reality. [1] https://www.edgarsnyder.com... [2] https://www.google.com... [3] http://www.amstat.org... (Figure three) [4] https://econsultancy.com... [5] http://www.cbsnews.com... [6] http://www.htmlgoodies.com... vascript.htm [7] http://lifehacker.com...