BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship.

≈THE PROPOSITION≈ The full proposition for this debate is as follows: "God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unworthy of worship." I shall be defending this statement, while my opponent will be refuting it. Therefore, it will be my opponent's duty in this debate to prove to the audience that the God of the Bible is, in fact, worthy of worship. And it will be my duty to prove to the audience that He is not. ≈DEFINITIONS≈ God: the main protagonist/antagonist of the Bible. The Bible: for the sake of consistency, we shall both be referencing our verses from the New International Version. Worthy: deserving of. Worship: reverence and adoration. ≈THE DEBATE STRUCTURE≈ Round One: Acceptance only Round Two: Presenting main arguments only Round Three: Refutations of opponent's main arguments Round Four: Refutations of refutations/closing statements I thank my future opponent and the audience for making this debate possible.
Dubstep is Music

I apologize for not submitting my argument, I was in utah packing up our old house and had no internet access. Anyways, the reference to Scary Monsters was simply background info for those who needed a refresher on what dubstep was, and was not in anyway part of my main argument. Con also stated what the purpose of the computer was by SEED's standards, which was to computer mathematical equations. Although that may be true it is quite obvious that is no longer the computers purpose, a computer now and days is used in business, gaming, production, and much much more, saying the computer is limited to its original purpose counters Con's earlier statements, from which he stated its being used to type and read these arguments. Con also provides no sources for his definitions, for he only used one source to define "instrumental" because of this we cannot consider con's arguments as authentic. Now I would like to move on to the production of music itself, production of Dubstep follows the basic music theory, this includes notes, chord progression, scaling, melodies and so on as shows in Varien's tutorials on EDM production and analysis of Datsik's bassline production.[1][2] That being said its quite obvious that dubstep easily fits into more than one category of the official definition by Merriam Webster was "vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion.[3] Sources: [1]http://http://community.edmdistrict.com...-(Almost)-Everything-Music [2] http://blog.dubspot.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Dubstep is Music

As my opponent clearly states, music is "vocal or instrumental sounds combined in a such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion". My opponent referenced the Skrillex single "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites". Although through the track, a melodic pattern can be heard, it is composed of electronic tone, and can hardly be considered instrumental. The word "instrumental", as defined by Webster's Dictionary, means: "serving as an instrument or means in pursuing an aim or policy". These electronic tones are produced on a computer, much like the one I am using to type this entry, and you are using to read this. To be very clear, the definition of a musical instrument is simply "an object or device for producing musical sounds." Now, while looking on a scientific level, anything object you are using to complete an action, or ease the process of an action is defined as an "instrument". However, on a musical standpoint, an "instrument" is an object who's specific purpose is music making. The computer, according to SEED (Schlumberger Excellence in Education Development), was created to "compute" complex mathematical equations accurately. So, by the intended purposes of the computer, it is a mathematical instrument. Now, the computer has expanded its purpose past simply mathematical calculations, but its intended purpose did, and does not include the creation of musical sounds, or preforming the function of a musical instrument. Therefore, by definition, the Computer is not, in fact, an instrument, and therefore any sounds produced from a computer in any arrangement or tonality cannot be described as music, by definition. The tones produced by a computer may, however, be defined as a beat. Since the electronic tones of a computer have not been produced by a melodic instrument, it cannot be described as "music", such as if you were to listen to a percussionist preform a lengthy drum solo. This is not music, it is a beat. In summary, if the Computer is not a musical instrument, then Dubstep is not music. It is a beat. I await my opponent's response.
Dubstep is Music

My first argument will be as goes, the definition of "music" by Merriam Webster is as goes "vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion." So lets look at all three of these 1. Dubstep has many vocal tracks over the music, this also implements the pitch, and the fact that most melodies cover the basics of the music theory including harmony, pitch, and structure. 2. It is quite obvious that "dubstep" or any EDM genre can easily express emotions, as shown below www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFNrVFt3DjER06; 3. Now this will be my main argument, dubstep is in fact produced on an instrument. The computer, now of course many people will not see a computer as an instrument, though I must ask you, how do you view a computer? You probably see it as a gaming platform, someone else sees it as a platform to do business on, and some see it as access to cat pictures. What exactly do these three examples have in common? Context. The legitimacy of a computer being an instrument is the context, if one sees a computer as an instrument then it is an instrument. Its the same with a trumpet lets say, the context makes it an instrument, one sees it as an instrument when another can see it as just a bunch of metal. These are a few arguments, I await opponent.
Dubstep is Music

In late 2010 dubstep artist "Skrillex" dropped the single "Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites" which quickly launched dubstep and even the EDM community into the mainstream. This is return sparked high numbers of debates over dubstep, questioning if these electronically produced sounds could be considered "Music" Of course the question must be asked "What is dubstep" dubstep in short is a genre of EDM (Electronic Dance Music) that follows 140 BPM in a song, starts with a build up, and then a "drop" in most cases as shown below: www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIr5Eamemv8 My argument is that dubstep is indeed music, con will be saying that dubstep is not music, the first round (this one) is acceptance and opening statements, from that point we will present and counter any arguments we wish to, and the final round is closing statements. I await a response and a debate :p
Should money go towards getting back to being first in space exploration or work on other problems

I do agree that the United States has a spending problem in many areas, including some that you listed. However, just because we already spend all of that money does not mean we should further head down that path of pointless spending. Let me ask this, would you be willing to agree that space exploration doesn't need to be funded by tax payers money, if it could be sustainable being privately funded? And as for cutting taxes in other areas and placing them into space exploration, I believe that it is still spending too much money just placing it under a different name. I would say at this time it needs to be prioritized towards other important things, such as saving our own planet and finding solutions to fight global warming. Space will still be there in a couple of years but at the rate that global warming is taking effect, it is unknown what the condition of earth will be in the future. I am not against the idea of space exploration being funded by tax payers in the future; however, at this point and time due to the United States economic position I do not think it should be funded. I will admit that I am not an expert at what space exploration includes. Do you mind explaining some of the benefits that space exploration could provide for us besides just the ability to be proud of it? I disagree that it is the only thing the United States has to be proud of, but I do not want to drive the argument off topic.
Should money go towards getting back to being first in space exploration or work on other problems

When I say money yes I mean tax payers money. Yes we are 13 trillion dollars in debt but that doesn't stop our government for using our tax money on other pointless stuff. And another thing space exploration was really the only thing we as Americans had to be proud of. Other then space exploration we have beer and NASCAR, an army who jumps into places they don't need to be and a obesity problem. And also not a lot of the tax dollars would have to go to that, there are 2,418,352 jails in the United States not count the prisons and most of our taxes go to them and the schools but for an unknown reason the prisons and jails are higher priorities. Well why don't we cut down on our taxes going into the jails and prisons and put like 1/8 of our tax money into space exploration?
Should money go towards getting back to being first in space exploration or work on other problems

First I have a few questions to clarify. Who is we ? Second, are when you say money, are you talking about tax payer's dollars? If we are talking about tax payer's dollar, I do not think we should put more money into space exploration. I argue that the United States is already trillion dollars in debt, and do not have the resources to support the funding. Instead, I believe we should be finding areas to reduce spending, not adding more.
Why do Americans try to be like Europe in education when it's the first thing they cut from budgets

Sorry for the lack of response I was having difficulties with my Internet connection. I guess my problem was that I didn't see the logic behind the action being taken, I understand where you're coming from though, in the sense that the budget is like a plant and that you have to prune it time to time in order for the plant to produce more fruit. But still, how is it that by cutting governmental funding for schools going to help the them do better? And I guess I can understand that maybe the American government isn't trying to copy the European education system. But my point still is how can they expect to see improvement in a system if that system is underfunded? I mean it's like a body trying to heal an injury but at the same time being malnourished.
Why do Americans try to be like Europe in education when it's the first thing they cut from budgets

First of all, Americans are not trying to compete with the Europeans. They are trying to make their education system stronger than what it was (like most countries). Although according to many different magazines America does not have the strongest Education system, it is slowly trying to raise to a higher level. For example, when you are trying to achieve a goal you must cut back before starting. To add more systems and educational programs to school they have to cut back on money to pay for all of this. One must remember, MONEY DOESN'T COME FROM THE SKY. Sure Europe has a better education system, but America is trying to regain their system and become bigger than what they were before. Thank you (great topic, also my first), I am now ready for the next round...... (good luck!!)
Why do Americans try to be like Europe in education when it's the first thing they cut from budgets

As this is my first argument on DDO, I would plead that my opponent doesn't bear down hard on me, and I apologise for any spelling, format errors that occur due to me using my IPod Touch as my medium. So to begin this debate, (Though I take the stand as Pro, in this debate, the positions are arbitrary, as this is intended to be more of an informative discussion than a debate between two well defined sides.) I just don't understand why America tries to compete with us Europeans in education yet they underfund their faculty and schools.
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

As a hedonist, I have some difficulty finding a response that properly refutes my opponents my points. However, I will try my best. Even with crotchless pants that would accommodate for the winter, the seperation between the pants and the crotch attachment would still cause a draft. Quite an unpleasant one. And as most of us know, a man's penis is not exactly at its regular glory when exposed to extreme cold. Keeping this in mind, it would be an embarrassing event for men to expose their less than proud genitals. If we were to embrace crotchless pants then the need for pants would only become a matter of weather and season. In winter pants would be necessary but in the summer there would be no point, and there is a strong possibility that a society so open with nudity would inevitably abandon the useless clothing. Even if fashion remained in some small part, the industry would undoubtedly be downsized. Finally, in a society where a father is able to teach children the missionary position, the question of pedophilia arises. If this practice becomes acceptable, which I think it should, then how would we be able to discern the difference between father/son bonding and pedophilia? There are obvious examples of when it would easy to say that a father was pedophiling his son, however there are a number of possible situations where the truth would be difficult to discern. Thank you. This was a wonderful debate. Go hedonism!
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

I feel that crotchless pants would work and nudity would not become a normal thing. Crotchless pants would and fashion designers would make them glamourous and appealing to the public. For winter, our privates would have little coats that we would be able to slip on and off with ease. And in the world I one day want to live in ( where men do not need to hide erections but flaunt them in crotchless pants) people will not be critical of STD's and other odd "things". A STD would be like a battle scar. And in terms of sexual education, our children and the next generations to come will be brought up in this society and wearing condoms and protection would be second-nature for them. Instead of a father teaching their children how to ride a bike, instead he teaches them the old missionary position and so on. It has been fun debating with such a down to Earth person and together we will make this dream come true.
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

When I came up with the time of minutes, I was including the process by which people remove clothes, become aroused, and finally reach orgasm. While the idea of crotchless clothing is a possible solution I can see a few issues with it. For one thing, what about winter? And for another, what if someone was secretly hiding their genitalia for various reasons: intersexed, STDs, etc. Also, if everyone is bearing their genitalia to everyone else, then we will become desensitized to nudity, therefore nudity would become meaningless. While fashion may change initially, it will eventually become obsolete with the exception of weather protection. And my final point is in regards to sexual education. With everyone masturbating with one another frequently, supposedly, we would need to educate our children on how to do it correctly and how to protect themselves by an accidental pregnancy (not necessarily simply from the masturbation). If we masturbate with one another, it could lead to sex, and if we our children don't know how to use condoms correctly, then all hell will break loose. Although I do agree, it is nice that we both enjoy the idea.
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

Well I am glad that we both share an opinion that this form of greeting would be nice, we disagree if it is realistic. And I am here to tell you it is! For your first point, it takes me a good 20 seconds for ejaculation and I am normal, so does it really matter if we are forced to give up an extra 12 seconds of our busy schedule just to give strangers the greeting they deserve. and if it takes you minutes, you should probably see a doctor. For my next point, I was thinking of crotchless pants. Call me crazy but imagine pants just without cloth over the penis and vagina. Therefore, it is easy access for masturbation. Fasion would just change, not be eliminated. And for your last point, either the porn industry would need to step up the anti, and blow out mind with something new and unbelievable or they would have to combine to make a super sex movie industry. However, if neither of these work, we come up with laws that restict the amount of nudity to a film and leave all the fetishes to the porn industry. Nicely thought points my friend.
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

As wonderful as this new form of greeting would be, it is extremely flawed. 1)My opponent does not take into consideration how time consuming such a process would be. If I were to mutually masturbate with everyone, or even just every member of a certain sex, then I would never be able to accomplish anything for I would be constantly masturbating. And unless anyone is willing to admit to having premature ejaculation problems, then every simple encounter requiring a handshake, spanning several seconds, would take minutes to simply give acknowledgment. 2)If we were constantly taking off our clothes in order to mutually masturbate, then there would be no need for clothes and they would simply become a hassle. With that, clothing will eventually become obsolete and therefore the entire industry built around clothing will collapse. This may not seem terrible, but that would mean that all employees of the clothing companies across the entire world would lose their jobs. Fashion would also become obsolete and therefore fashion designers, models, and magazines would be eliminated. This would be a devastating economic and social blow to our world. I don't want to live in a world without America's Next Top Model. 3) If nudity and mutual masturbation become widespread, so will an acceptance of sex and other sexual behavior. Sex becoming more accepted will lead to movies being more risque, which would mean that the MPAA is essentially worthless and the porn industry would be pointless as their movies would be only slightly more entertaining than regular movies. I think it is obvious how this would end. And for these reasons, I implore everyone to see the dangers of public mutual masturbation in the place of a handshake.
Mutual Masturbation Should Be The New Form of Handshake

When I meet a stranger, right away a imagine them naked. Woman only of course (and Cary Grant if he was still alive). So instead of shaking an AIDS ridden hand, why do we both just strip down and touch each other inappropriately. I have all the facts right here so someone please accept this. For instance, there is a 97 percent better chance you get a STD from a simple handshake then from making sweet whopee with a girl. And afterall there is no condom for the hand.
Haiku Contest

Okay, I love Haiku's let's F*ing do this. Rules: Haiku Template: 5 syllables 7 syllables 5 syllables First Round is acceptance, although you MUST except with a Haiku (I ask voters to penalize for failure to follow this) After the acceptance round, I will throw down my Haiku, in which you must counter with your Haiku. You MUST counter my Haiku and not create a new one. (Voters you know what to do) I will do the same to yours and it goes on as such. Please do not accept this as a Joke, I am 100% serious Good Luck (:
Stalin is worse than Hitler

"http://www.americaslibrary.gov...; this website never said anything about Hitler ending WWII "http://www.bloombergview.com...; This website is just a bunch of computer code, made by someone who obviously THOUGHT he knew it, but didn't. "http://www.cliffsnotes.com...; This website never said anything about HITLER starting the war. And, btw, wtf is a wart machine? Is it a machine gun that fires acne cream? It would be awesome, but it doesn't exist. Thank you.
Stalin is worse than Hitler

Was Heimlich the one that was the leader of the whole Nazi party? Did he attack his biggest ally, and spark a world war? Also, you need more punctuation in that sentence.Heimlich was not a leader but was a superior in the Nazi Party. Hitler attacking Stalin's Russia was stupid of him, but if he didn't Stalin would of attacked him, in fact it was beneficial because it lead to Stalin siding with with Britain and the USA. Also Hitler once again had nothing to do with the wars in Asia. "Hitler also pulled the world out of the great depression which was the worst economic crisis ever and was the main problem in every country at the time" Well the war sparked many factories to produce wart machines which lead to jobs and company gaining money. They then ignored the national debt and taxes and then took advantage of the generous contracts.http://www.americaslibrary.gov...http://www.bloombergview.com... http://www.cliffsnotes.com...
Stalin is worse than Hitler

"Also Hitler himself may not even be the most evil person in the Nazi party, Heinrich Himmler than man who engineered the Holocaust and created the Nazi Death camps who showed no remorse when has captured and was treated as a criminal." Was Heimlich the one that was the leader of the whole Nazi party? Did he attack his biggest ally, and spark a world war? Also, you need more punctuation in that sentence. "Basically if a serial killer took control of the one the worlds most powerful countries." Serial killers wouldn't starve people to death, they would bloodshed with a knife/gun. "Hitler also pulled the world out of the great depression which was the worst economic crisis ever and was the main problem in every country at the time" I would like to see proof of this plz. Thank you.
Stalin is worse than Hitler

Sorry I could not get on the computer to post my second arguements.Hitler almost wiped out an entire RACE of religion. Plus, he didn't just focus on one religion, he took out Homosexuals, Muslims, and even straight up poor people.Though Hitler did try to commit genocide. Stalin also tried to commit genocide in 1929 forced a famine on the people buy 1993 he wiped out 25% of the population including 3 million children. He wiped out the Kulaks. The forced famine was only ended in 1941 when inroncially the Nazis stormed in and ended the famine. Stalin also was not nice to homosexual outlawing it after Lenin made it legal. Also during world war two also did ethnic cleasining of Muslims. Stalin was caught himself.Clarify, he died in office he was caught he was ruthless death machine even after his death 500 people died.Hitler was psycho enough to betray a superpower that was BIGGER than his whole army, the Russians.Yeah psycho, not like Stalin a sane man just a ruthless death machine. He also did the one thing I hope I won't die by: gassing people.Forced Famine I think is worse and Stalin is not stranger gassing people.The one key factor that I think is most important is this: Hitler started a World War, a war involving many different countries all over the world.Hitler did not singlehandly start the war, he didn't start China vs Japan, Japan vs America. He was just the spark that lighted the powder keg like the black hand in World War One.