BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is listening to music good while studying

Debate: Is listening to music while you study beneficial? Burden of Proof: This debate requires both sides to provide substantial evidence to support their side. Thus, outside sources and prior knowledge should be used to effectively support one's arguments. Point of Clarification: Music, since it is not specified, can be any type or genre. This means that if I prove that any form of music is beneficial, I have effectively supported the resolution and proved my argument. Arguments: {1} Study by the University of Dayton This study, according to their summary, was performed in order to determine the effect of music on the cognitive and spatial processing of students. To summarize, fifty-six males and females were chosen, and were each subject to test while excerpts from Classical Mozart. The results showed that background music - like the compositions of Mozart- in fact increase the speed of spatial processing, and the accuracy of linguistic processing. Thus, as the article/report shows, and as explained above, Classical music are beneficial while taking a series of cognitive test, and thus improve one"s neurological abilities when subject to the music. {2} Article by University of Phoenix The linked article was written by Robert Pela about listening to music while studying. He mentions other articles and scientific studies in the article, then continues by adding some information that was discovered. Studies show that listening to classical music- called the "Mozart-Effect"- stimulates brain activity, and "provides short-term enhancement of mental tasks- including memorization- known as "spatial-temporal reasoning."" Personal Anecdote: While studying and working for a long time, I listened to a long track of Beethoven music {3}. This classical music was very nice, and helped me be relaxed while working. I not only listen to that, but I also have a long playlist of music that I listen to. All this music is very effective in the background. Thus, from personal experience, I can say that listening to music helps one work better. The resolution was: "Is listening to music good while studying?" I have showed multiple arguments and examples of why it is, and have linked sources for further study. Most of the sources say that listening to classical music is indeed beneficial, thus proving that listening music is good while studying. Thank you. - Shadow-Dragon - {1} http://www.amsciepub.com...; {2} http://www.phoenix.edu... {3}
Chuck Norris is way over-exaggerated

Take a look at these sites... A)http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... B)http://4q.cc... C)http://www.chucknorrisjokes.net... D)http://www.chucknorrisfactoids.com... Da)Chuck Norris has become an Internet Phenomenon and has a huge cult following. Ever since Conan O'Brien started airing Chuck Norris clips on his show people have jumped on the bandwagon and started posting Chuck Norris facts on the Internet. It has become so popular that there is even Chuck Norris T-Shirts and Apparel specially made with Chuck Norris facts. You can even make your own custom Chuck Norris T-Shirt and include your very own Chuck Norris fact. Get discounts and online coupons on Chuck Norris Apparel from Mr. Cheap Stuff. E)http://reviews.ebay.com... F)http://chucknorrisisgod.com... G)http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com... Do you need more?
Chuck Norris is way over-exaggerated

*bows* Greetings. Perhaps you simply do not understand the nature of Chuck Norris. Perhaps you're relying on faulty information about Chuck, rather than the facts. In this debate, I will attempt to remedy this situation. Unfortunately, I have next to nothing to which I must make a rebuttal. You've simply made the naked assertion that people think Chuck Norris is cooler than he really is - without providing anything to back it up. Maybe tell us what it is that prompted you to make this debate - what did someone say that was an exaggeration of Chuck Norris' abilities? Without that, we have no reason to simply assume that you're right. Especially those of us who know the true reaches of Chuck Norris' abilities. It is quite impossible for me to believe such an extraordinary claim based on hearsay. I wait now for my opponent to back up her claim. (Examples of people 'over-exaggerating' (which is redundant) about Chuck) Just as you would have me provide evidence if I said something as unbelievable as "France and Britain just switched places geographically!" (which is more believable than someone supposedly exaggerating about Chuck Norris) *bows*
Chuck Norris is way over-exaggerated

You claim that the things Chuck Norris does or can do (according to facts you have provided us with) are not physically possible. However, these are facts. For example: When Chuck Norris goes in the water, he doesn't get wet. The water gets Chuck Norris. This may seem physically impossible if we apply the same rules that apply to other people to Chuck. However, Chuck Norris is not required to follow all the rules of physics (and that's a fact). There are many unexplained phenomena in our universe, and none of them are physically impossible. They simply are not explained by existing scientific theories. With a brief look at the facts, it's plain to see just how awesome Chuck Norris really is. It is nigh impossible to exaggerate his abilities, and my opponent has failed to show that this is in fact happening.
Chuck Norris is way over-exaggerated

I believe you've conclusively defeated yourself. Your sources, which I agree are valid sources, list these so-called exaggerations as Chuck Norris facts. I'm right about now going to give you my own definition of fact, which I think wecan all agree on. Fact: something that is true. That said, stating the truth, as all Chuck Norris facts do by their nature, cannot be exaggeration. This is because exaggeration is by definition untrue. Thus, Chuck Norris facts do not exaggerate Chuck's actual abilities. He really IS that cool. And that's a fact.
Gay Marriage should be Illegal (6)

!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!ResolutionGay Marriage should be IllegalBurden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionNO VIDEO LINKS !!!PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.Round 5Round 5 is the last round, no new material or arguments are to be presented in round 5. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.Definitions:Gay = "Gay is a word that commonly refers to a male or female whose sexual orientation is attraction to persons of the same sex."Marriage = Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union, often formalized via a wedding ceremony, may also be called matrimony.Gay Marriage =(Obviously we are talking about people of the same sex who want to marry each other hence the term "Gay Marriage", also known as Same Sex Marriage.Illegal = Illegal, or unlawful, is used to describe something that is prohibited by law.!!! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !!!We will begin arguments in round 2.
Christianity is a religion.

Jeez, I posted this as a joke. But I guess I'll defend my point. Essentially, a cult is of a smaller scale. Both are systems of worship to an object or figure, but cults are usually classified more as the systems which have few followers. As for your remark about Jesus, he didn't gain anything, really. He had a following of twelve and got crucified, which is classified as one of the worst ways to die. Muhammed, on the other hand... Due to my current geographical location and the local laws of said territory, all I can say is that he was a bit different from Jesus in many ways. Even if accounts of Jesus are exaggerated, Christianity can still be classified as a religion.
Christianity is a religion.

Perhaps this should've been better phrased as, "Christianity is more of a cult than a religion." Please defend the difference between Christianity and a cult? Those are the exact same definitions and criterion for cults, only held by less people. "He claimed that when he was a child, God had spoken to him and said, "You"re the chosen one. You are my messiah,"" - David Koresh Jesus, Muhammed, Krishna...how were they different from any cult leaders today? They exploited peoples' naive beliefs for their own self gain. Sure, some of them believe they've actually spoken to some divine authority, but where is the proof in that? Sociological experiments have shown time and time again the followers, in some sort of delusional state, tend to exaggerate all that about whom they follow, whether they ascribe to them divine powers or otherwise. Typically, this "guru" is able to perform some sort of "miracles" that aren't humanly possible.
Walt Disney is Cryogenically Frozen (and will be thawed in the near future)

Note: Con clarified in the comments that thawed means “to be restored to life.” Arguments: This round shall be short as it’s reserved for arguments not rebuttals, but pro has attempted to pre-refute key points; leaving me unable to address them until next round. Cryonics: To avoid wasting voter time; I agee that it is theoretical but possible (next round there will be a couple rebuttals to points made on it, but not the premise of it being a possibility). Not The Near Future: While the technology may have a promising future, there have been no recorded attempts at reviving a human from clinical cryonic suspension. Lower levels of cold only slow decomposition, which is why we could not just thaw out the hypothetical dinosaur trapped in ice; if in doubt please check your freezer for expiration dates (most people have had the taste of an unopened item ruined by being in there too long). The greater levels of cold used which lead up to Liquid Nitrogen, massively damage the body; newer techniques can decrease this, but not stop it entirely. Walt would have to have been frozen before the official first case of it. Being a Guinea Pig for the first step, does not line up with being a Guinea Pig for the more risky single chance revival. Newer cases of it would have a better chance of survival anyway, and thus would be assured to be the first attempts; meaning the attempt at reviving Walt, would only be made after the technology is well tested on less important people. Expert Opinion: According to the American Cryonics Society “we do not know the technology that will be applied for such reanimation. Please keep in mind that there are no guarantees that anyone frozen with today’s technology will ever be revived” [1]. While it can be hoped one day frozen people can be restored to life, what precise technology is needed to even undo the freezing damage remains a mystery; the other technologies involved for each patient may be even farther out. Further they allude to a likely first in last out policy, which would make sense seeing how the more modern the methods the less the body needs to be repaired. According to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation: “It is not proposed to bring back old people only for them to die soon afterwards. It is proposed to keep them frozen until their aging can be significantly REVERSED” (all caps from original text) [2]. Walt Disney was in his twilight years, revival in the near future only to die again soon after recovery would be pointless. Cause of Death: Walt died of lung cancer. Cancer tends to metastasize before it kills, his was no different. He would not be revived at least until cancer is cured. That cancer may be treated today, is not the same as it being reliably cured. Sources: [1] http://americancryonics.org... [2] http://www.alcor.org...
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

Under capitalism property is privatised under the presumption that it will not harm anyone or even that it will benefit everyone. This is not the case and what actually takes place is that property becomes concentrated into the hands of a relatively few well-off people leaving the rest more or less without property. The capitalist's bargaining position is far superior in comparison to the worker's (since he is a capitalist) and he can use it as an advantage in order to concentrate wealth for himself. If the capitalist has everything and the worker nothing it leaves the worker with nothing more than the mercy of the rich for work, charity, etc. Even if the capitalist offers the worker a salary on which he can survive (in comparison to unemployment a salary on which he can survive "makes him better off') it is a forced contract out of necessity from the worker's part [1], [2]. Consequently private ownership is by no means on par with the possibilities of owning goods in common and is thus contradictory to the capitalists premise of not harming others [3]. Capitalism makes the majority more dependent on a minority than they would have been if property were shared. [1] Marx, K. (2010). On The Jewish Question. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 17, 2011 [2] Marx, K. (2009b). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy - Preface. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved March 19, 2011 [3] Cohen, G. A. (2008). Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve Liberty. Erkenntnis (1975-), Vol. 11.
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

The right to own property is central to man's existence since it ensures him of his independence of survival. It provides a means to sustain himself without relying on others inasmuch as he has control over a property and can make a living from it. However in order to acquire property the person must gain it from his own labour, if he takes the fruit of someone else's labour without consent that would be plain stealth. However, this is not the only requirement which must be fulfilled in order to gain property: imagine a scenario where I pour out tomato juice into the ocean, I have mixed my own labour with nature and made an "own" creation, but could it be said that the ocean is my property? Most people would certainly say no and therefore one of the following two provisos must also be met before one can fully acquire property: 1. It does not impact on others chance of survival/ comfort of life 2. Leaves the others better off than before. Let us presume that we have a wasteland which generates very little harvest since it is uncultivated. If I privatise and cultivate a bit of this land it will generate more harvest since I have put work effort in it. Presuming that the privatisation does not leave the others worse off than before e.g. there is plenty of other wasteland they can cultivate on their own and does thus not harm anyone else's opportunities/chances to cultivate their own land, privatisation is allowed for the individual good. Alternately, others are better off if they do not have the skill to cultivate land themselves and can lease their labour working on my privatized land, they would win on the deal since the wage I pay them would be better than what they would have gained on their own. (1), (2) (1) Locke, J. (n.d.). Chapter. V. Of Property. Constitution Society. Retrieved June 7, 2011 (2) Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

'Credit bubbles' and resultant credit crunches (financial crisis) are inherent in the capitalist system. The economy undergoes a crisis whenever productive economic sectors begin to undergo a slowdown resulting in falls in profits. The recent crisis was caused due to the fact that there was an inflated investment in real estates. It was invested in with the purpose of keeping up profits which lead to a rise in the price of properties. Because of the increased price in property many people took out loans on their house and bought goods for the credit, thinking they could easily pay back their loans since their house would be more valuable at sale. However, since the rise of price was fabricated and not corresponding to an actual need (it was a bubble), house prices had to invariably go down at some point. When the prices eventually went down people could no longer afford to pay back what they had bought on their loaned houses and the installed payments were the trigger of the financial crisis. It could perhaps be said that the economy was surviving on money which did not exist (thereof the name 'credit bubble'). The result was that there were countless goods which no one could buy because no one could afford to pay for them, in turn this lead to a stagnation in the economy and hence to a crisis. A socialist system would not produce overconsumption since its aim is not profit but human needs, it would not have a reason to fabricate an investment for the sake of keeping up the profits and would therefore not cause a capitalist crisis[1]. [1] Roberts, M. (2008). The credit crunch - one year on. In Defence of Marxism. Retrieved June 7, 2011
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

In practice capitalism and environmentalism do not necessarily have to clash with each other as can been proved by small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. Because the free market is directed ultimately by its consumers if the consumers demand more eco-friendly products the suppliers will also increase its efforts to be eco-friendly, thus the two of them don't have to be incompatible. Here are a few suggestions of how capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand: I- energy-saving and other cost-cutting measures are advantageous to companies; II- compliance with whatever regulations may be enforced by a government to avoid fines III- maintaining good public relations with consumers involves having an eco-friendly policy. (1) (1) Wallis, V. (2010). Beyond "Green Capitalism." The Monthly Review. Retrieved 2011
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

Capitalism always acts on the cost of nature and its ecological balance. With its imperative to constantly expand profitability, it exposes ecosystems to destabilizing pollutants, fragments habitats that have evolved over time to allow the flourishing of organisms, squanders resources, and reduces nature to the exchangeability required for the accumulation of capital. Socialism requires self-determination, community, and a meaningful existence. Capital reduces the majority of the world's people to a mere reservoir of labor power while discarding much of the remainder as useless. The present capitalist system cannot regulate, much less overcome, the crises it has set going. It cannot solve the ecological crisis (e.g. global warming) because to do so requires setting limits upon accumulation
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

A free market gives the power to the people to choose and decide what products and services should be offered to them. If many people want the same thing the demand will be higher and it will be profitable to offer them on the market since it will sell, therefore the people are in command of what products are being offered to them through their own want. The market is thus decided upon what people need and therefore there will be no excess products or services offered e.g. let us presume that many people want to see high quality basketball, a person like Michael Jordan who has a talent for basketball and has honed his basketball skills would in this case be much in demand. People are ready to pay for the service he offers (excellent basketball) and consequently his high wage will be justified. On the other hand a mediocre basketball player would not be paid at all since there is no demand to see mediocre basketball, his service does not have an attraction on the market and will thus be eliminated (1), (2). This is all part of what could be called a "dynamic capitalist system" which values individuality , rewards ability and risk-taking. (1)-Adam Smith. (n.d.). The concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Retrieved June 20, 2011 (2)- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy State and Utopia (pp. 54-56, 137-42). Basic Books.
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

The gap between poor and rich countries has never been as great as it is today, Warren Buffet's wealth was estimated to be a net worth of approximately US$62 billion in 2008 [1], this while one in seven people on earth goes to bed hungry every night and 6.54 million children die of starvation and malnutrition every year [2]. The absurd inequality between people's wages is because of the capitalist system, since the capitalist's only aim is to generate profit there is no reason to keep anything other than a minimum wage for the workers. In a globalized world, rich countries can outsource industries to poorer countries where workers will not expect so high a wage. The lower the wages a capitalist can pay to the labourers, the more profit he can generate. A capitalist does not care whether his labourers' living standards are good, acceptable or bad (although he does want to maintain a level where the labourers will not die or rebel), as long as they deliver the work for the lowest wage possible [3]. Therefore a company CEO can gain an absurd amount of money since he will reap all the profit made from all the labourers in his company while the lowest worker in the hierarchy will only earn enough to survive. The ordinary worker does not have a free choice whether he wants to work or not since he is at such an inferior bargaining position that he has to accept the capitalist's offer in order to survive. According to socialism this inequality is atrocious, it can by no means be justifiable that an ordinary labourer who works equally as hard, or harder than a CEO should struggle for his survival while the CEO lives in unimaginable luxury. In socialism, production and wages are directed to human needs, there is consequently no need to maximise profit and thus this gross inequality would be evened [4]. [1] The World's Billionaires: #1 Warren Buffett. (2008, March). Forbes. [2] Hunger. (2011). World Food Programme. Retrieved June 7, 2011 [3] Engels, Frederick. (2005). The principles of Communism. Marxist Internet Archive. Retrieved June 7, 2011 [4] Marx, K. (n.d.). Critique of the Gotha Programme: I. Marxist Internet Archive.
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

Many people believe that capitalism is the best mode for the country, as it brings an invaluable benefit for the economy. Economic freedom helps political freedom. If governments own the means of production and set prices, it invariably leads to a powerful state and creates a large bureaucracy which may extend into other areas of life. There are no better alternatives. As Winston Churchill, ""It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." A similar statement could apply to capitalism.
This house believes that Capitalism is better than Socialism

Socialism has a number of theoretical benefits, based on the idea of social equality and justice. Advantages of socialism relating to social equality include a focus on reducing wealth disparities, unemployment and inflation (through price controls). Advantages of socialism related to economic planning include an ability to make good use of land, labor and resources, as well as avoiding excess or insufficient production. Additional benefits of Socialism: Nationalization of key industries, redistribution of wealth, social security schemes, minimum wages, employment protection and trade union recognition rights.