BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Marijana

One thing drugs are man made and you can overdose from them. Marijuana is an herb from earth and you cant overdose from it. Also you said that "society" does not want drugs but why is alcohol and cigarettes legal? They are both drugs in society but yet it is legal. If Marijuana was harmful to peoples health why would some states have medical marijuana to give to a cancer patient. Marijuana slows down the cancer growth, not only that but, it also help curve the appetite of somebody who has HIV/AIDS, it helps people with chronic pain, and helps vision with people who have glaucoma. Marijuana can also help cigarette smokers stop smoking cigarettes. And if somebody want to have a good time and actually know what they are doing the whole time instead of blacking out, throwing up, getting into violent confrontation, and/or wanting to drive home under the influence I would prefer marijuana (if it was legal). Some people say that marijuana kills brains cells but that is not entirely true. The lack of oxygen from holding the smoke in is killing brain cells. Like swimming, swimming does not kill brain cells but the lack of getting oxygen while holding your breath is. Marijuana only gives you short time memory loss when you are under the influence. And only certain types of strains will have the effect. 'Skunk' type strains will give you short term memory loss while, "Hash or herbal cannabis blends performed equally well whether they were stoned or sober," according to http://www.nature.com....
Legalizing Marijana

Marijuana must be illegal because we as a society have decided that we don't want drugs in our society. It doesn't matter if some individuals disagree with the law. SOCIETY ultimately determines what constitutes acceptable personal behavior. Pepole need to learn to suboordinate their personal opinions to the will of SOCIETY, not the ther way around. Remember that rights are social constructs created by society, and only society has the right to create rights. Another thing, Drugs are bad, m'kay?
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

http://www.youtube.com...Twas a pleasure! This is the first time I've sung to anyone else but myself. Although this debate has left me feeling slightly embarassed, I've thoroughly enjoyed it.SING!!My last song of choice is one of my favorites. This song has been repeated often over the past few decades, but the original is written by Joe Raposo for Sesame Streets (from where I first heard the song). This song has been adapted in many forms, one of the more popular ones being the cover done by the Carpenters, featuring a selection of instruments (this version uses the tambourine to emphasize the beat). However, this song is not constrained to any selection of instruments. It can even be performed with voice alone. The song's versatility makes it easy to sing and is an anthem to aspiring singers if there ever was one. I love this song, and am very glad for this opportunity to share the original with you.Conclusion (to my performance in this debate!!!)I believe my analysis to be much more comprehensive than that of bsh, who uses emphasis on only a small segments of his songs to provide a general characterization of them. I've extracted the various lyrical, melodical, thematic and artistic facet(s) of every segment of each song analyzed and pooled it into a characteristic whole: by disseminating and reconstructing the song piece by piece, I am able to analyze every portion: its lyrics, its meanings, its melodies, its effects, its moods. By critically examining every piece of my songs, I could better judge the song as a whole and construct a holistic view of its overall aesthetics.On another note, Pontoon's tiny range of keys is severely outmatched by the wide range covered by Summer.Additionally, it is presumptuous to assume that such a limited set of songs can determine variety.I believe my R4 song of choice's greater difficulty and my, IMO, better form of analysis, gives me an edge in this debate. Thus, I ask for your vote. Thank you for reading and listening!.
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

Thanks again to Beginner for a great debate! I think that this was a fun and interesting debate, and I hope anyone who read, listened too, and voted on it enjoyed it.-----------------------------------------------------------STARRY EYED"Starry Eyed," by Ellie Goulding, is a fantastic song, managing to seamlessly incorporate folk, pop, dance, and other influences into one production. The vocal effects, with her voice fading in an out, almost mimic the twinkling stars, her main reference point. Her voice--breathless and energetic--embodies the "star-struck lover" that she is personifying as well. As she works up to the final "we're touching" sequence, it is if she is almost begging for sex--dragging out each line in breathless anticipation. Danceable and upbeat, this song is appropriately cheerful, fun, and easy to listen to. I'd say it's worthy of an 8.5/10.CONCLUSIONI am going to use this space, and the 1,000 character allotted to me, to ask you for your vote. I believe that my analysis throughout this debate has been more critical than Beginner's. By this I mean that Beginners has focus a lot more on summary vice actual analysis. Take, for example, the following passage (R2): "The song consists in majority of Olaf's describing what he imagines Summer would be like when he finally sees it. The song's lyrics begin with the image of bees and playful children." This type of summary-heavy reflection doesn't really do anything to explore the deeper meaning of the piece, nor to critically evaluate it.Additionally, I covered a more diverse range of songs (alt rock, pop rock, country, and folktronica/indie pop) than Beginner has. In fact, he even did the same song in two of his rounds (R2 and R4). My willingness to delve into different genres and songs shows, IMO, greater breadth in my ability to explore the realm of music. So, for these reasons, I ask for your vote. Thank you.http://www.youtube.com...
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

Nicely sung, bsh. :)The pressure to produce this video was surprisingly much greater than I thought it'd be. Any thoughts of procrastinating this were swept away in one badly slept night (I didn't want to go through another).Anyway, the song I'm covering is the very same song I used in Round 2: Josh Gad's Summer. I enjoyed the movie song, and I absolutely love this particular song. Thus I believe it deserves another, albeit worse, iteration; an oncore.http://www.youtube.com...;Lyrics: Bees'll buzz, kids'll blow dandelion fuzzAnd I'll be doing whatever snow does in summer.A drink in my hand, my snow up against the burning sandProb'ly getting gorgeously tanned in summer.I'll finally see a summer breeze, blow away a winter storm.And find out what happens to solid water when it gets warm!And I can't wait to see, what my buddies all think of me.Just imagine how much cooler I'll be in summer.Dah dah, da doo, uh bah bah bah bah bah booThe hot and the cold are both so intense,Put 'em together it just makes sense!Rrr Raht da daht dah dah dah dah dah dah dah dah dooWinter's a good time to stay in and cuddle,But put me in summer and I'll be a — happy snowman!When life gets rough, I like to hold on to my dream,Of relaxing in the summer sun, just lettin' off steam.Oh the sky would be blue, and you guys will be there tooWhen I finally do what frozen things do in summer
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

I don't profess to be a good singer, but, for my level of talent, I am happy with this...so, y'all better not laugh ;) I covered "Pontoon" by Little Big Town. As a loyal country fan, I cannot go through this entire debate without paying homage to my first musical love. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.lyricsmode.com...
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

Thanks once more to Beginner! ----------------------------------------------------------- The role of a good music video is to convey the meaning of the lyrics. It would be patently ridiculous, for example, to take Amy Winehouse's classic, "Back to Black," and pair it with a comedic video of her at and her entourage at a circus. Videos can serve, when used well, to emphasize the meaning, emotion, and context of a song. When done incorrectly, the video and the song feel disjointed and unconnected; the video leaves one confused, rather than enlightened--it is a quintessential "what the fvck" moment. Videos like that become all the more cringe-inducing when they are paired with a good song. You almost feel as if the video is an embarrassment to the lyrics, as is unfortunately the case with One Direction's "Steal My Girl." The video starts out with some very poor quality, obviously rehearsed dialogue between the bandmembers, who then, in predictable fashion, exclaim "Look!" as--guess who!--Danny DeVito drives up. Unfortunately, this video was not sunny, and that desert certainly wasn't Philadelphia. Danny DeVito's monologue was, a series of unfunny comedic tropes, for instance: "Any questions? No questions!" There wasn't an original line in that segment, and it clearly had nothing to do with the song, which is about a boy being protective of his girlfriend. The only actually amusing line DeVito contributes is his pronouncement of "Balls" at the end of his diatribe--and even this is barely chuckle-worthy. The scene then transitions into a series of vignettes where the One Direction crew lip sync to the song. Sumo wrestlers, chimpanzees, circus paraphernalia--all of these things abound. It's as if Pandora's box as opened, and everything got out except any relevance to the lyrics. Probably the example of this lack of connection is when Zayne is singing "She's the one," and the camera zooms in on the face of a male Sumo wrestler. Now, to be fair, the video's goal was to encapsulate the sense of fun that the song exudes. Besides several badly delivered lines from DeVito, the video does achieve that goal. But, perhaps, this same sense of fun could be captured in a way that stayed truer to the actual text of the lyrics. The current video, while it does get across an upbeat feeling consistent with the song, does not really emphasize any lyrical meaning, and in fact detracts from the songs lyrics. Therefore, it earns a 4.5/10. Not the worst possible video that could have been made, but certainly nowhere near the best. http://www.youtube.com...
A Music Debate--With A Twist: No. 3

PrefaceI have been hooked recently on Meghan Trainor's latest (posted to the side). I got the urge to do another one of these on DDO. Hence, this music debate with a twist--the twist being that each round will focus on different elements of music appreciation and performance. You don't have to be a music prodigy to accept--I am certainly not the world's best vocalist. I cannot sing to save my life, but I am willing to let DDO see that for itself. Really, I just want a fun, good-humored, relaxing debate where we can talk about something of mutual interest: music! I wish whoever accepts good luck, and I thank them in advance for accepting! StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Select a Song and write an analytical review of the Song (you're are NOT to review the video)R3: Select a Song and critique its official music video, emphasizing the appropriateness of the performance/video regarding, and their link with, the lyrics.R4: Select a Song and provide a video (or audio) of you Singing itR5: Show us a Song that you like (you may post a description of the song in 625 characters or fewer); also provide a 1,000 character statement or fewer of why you believe you won the debateJudgingThe winner of this debate should be decided holistically. Rounds one and two should be evaluated based on the depth of the analysis, the clarity of the message, etc. Round four should be judged based on the singer's ability (were they pitchy, did they choose an easy song technically, did they stumble, etc.) Round five has lesser importance than the other rounds, and judges should give weight to the song they personally enjoy more.Rules1. No forfeits2. All songs in all rounds must be cited using a link to Youtube or to a reputable lyric site (e.g. Metrolyrics). Citations may not be in the comments.3. Songs must all be "clean" versions4. For the purpose of this debate, "rapping" shall not be topical5. Stay civil and decorous6. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the R1 rules or setup constitutes an automatic lossThanks...to whomever decides to accept this musical bonanza!http://www.youtube.com...
Should a qualified muslim canidate be elected president

Well, I suppose that I don't even have to actually argue this topic then; PRO has openly conceded the debate to me; in the future, let this be a lesson that you have to be very specific with the way you word a topic. This is especially true for the topic that you're trying to get across; because your new topic is 'would you vote for a qualified muslim candidate if you agreed with his/her policies'; obviously, if one agrees with the candidate's policies, and the candidate is qualified, there's no ground for CON to say that one should not vote for that candidate.
Should a qualified muslim canidate be elected president

Quickly rounding up some definitions before the debate begins: Should - implying a morally binding duty or obligation qualified - having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like. Muslim - of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam. and, a stipulation on 'president'; for the purposes of this debate, we are discussing the President of the United States. Now that we have clear definitions in place, allow me to clarify the burden for my opponent: By asking if a qualified muslim candidate should be elected, the PRO must prove that, if said muslim candidate has all the experience, qualities, accomplishments, etc. that we are morally obligated to vote for him or her (meaning that we would have to perform the action of voting for him or her, and that we would have no real choice in the matter, since we're morally bound). My burden, therefore, is to prove that, even if a candidate is qualified for the position, we are under no morally binding obligation to vote for him or her; NOT to prove that we shouldn't vote for the candidate at all. Normally, I would make my case at this point, but, seeing as my opponent has crafted a 5-round debate, and we will very likely run out of things to say before round 5, I will simply leave my opening statements as they are, and allow my opponent to begin arguing (as he is both the PRO and the Instigator in today's debate). Good luck.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

" Hitler and Lenin both thought critically and deeply, But I wouldn't follow their thoughts. " Hitler and Lenin are extreme cases and don't represent humanity. What about people like Gandhi and John Lennon? Are you going to say that humans like them can't dictate morality as Hitler and Stalin existed? " We are back to what I asked before, Is adultery/polygamy "natural"? Or for that matter, Is murder natural? Is theft natural? All these behaviors are common among animals, And so in some sense, Are "natural. " I don't know if you chose to ignore my previous point or if you honestly didn't notice it. So ill explain myself AGAIN. Ok murder and theft are not natural, They are a choice someone makes. Gay people at least real gay people, Didn't choose to be gay therefore it was natural. " It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to enforce gay marriage on the states without their consent as happened. " Could you imagine how horrible the US would be if we had to consent with every single state in order to get a law passed? If that was the case slavery and the prohibition would still be a thing. " However, I am not arguing anymore from a moral, But a Constitutional perspective. For me it is still immoral I don't care what a state decides, " Well this is NOT a debate about a logical perspective, It is a debate about whether or not it is moral, And you still have not proven to me that gay marriage is immoral.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

"People who have thought critically and deeply about a subject should be the ones dictating morality lol. " Hitler and Lenin both thought critically and deeply, But I wouldn't follow their thoughts. And even then these people would not be perfect and would differ with other peoples morality. "What I meant by natural is that its a natural occurrence and its not a choice. " We are back to what I asked before, Is adultery/polygamy "natural"? Or for that matter, Is murder natural? Is theft natural? All these behaviors are common among animals, And so in some sense, Are "natural. " So many people could attempt to justify sin by claiming that it"s "only natural. " Why not be cannibalistic? Praying mantises are, After all! " Being a sodomite actually is more of a choice than natural. Yes, States should be allowed to decide in our Constitutional system. However, That is not what happened, The judges forced it on all the other states. However, I am not arguing anymore from a moral, But a Constitutional perspective. For me it is still immoral I don't care what a state decides, But it is unconstitutional when it is forced on states who do not agree with its morality. It is unconstitutional for the Federal government to enforce gay marriage on the states without their consent as happened.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

" Wait, You said not to bring God into it. So you agree that humans are not a good choice to make moral decisions for all of us then why should I allow a government to decide for me that gay marriage is moral. " Actually your the one who brought religion into the argument when you said. " So morality is not very good to be left up to people, For they could become pretty cruel. However, With God, Morals never change, But stay constant no matter if it is popular or not. " " If the same government decides to support Anti-Semitism and order me to turn in any Jews I know, Do I turn them in. So who is going to ultimately decide my morality? Can you tell me? " Ok when did I ever advocate for blindly following orders? People who have thought critically and deeply about a subject should be the ones dictating morality lol. " You say that people are naturally gay, But let me ask you, Is adultery/polygamy "natural"? Or for that matter, Is murder natural? Is theft natural? All these behaviors are common among animals, " What I meant by natural is that its a natural occurrence and its not a choice. Murder and theft are not natural and they are choices you have to make. " But we also do things Constitutionally. Which gay marriage was not approved Constitutionally. " But didn't you say earlier that it should be the states who decide what to do? Besides so what if the constitution doesn't say it I mean this is the same document that allowed slavery to pass. Plus the constitution doesn't allow or not allow gay marriage. So going off of that. I do not believe that it is unconstitutional to legalize gay marriage.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

Wait, You said not to bring God into it. So you agree that humans are not a good choice to make moral decisions for all of us then why should I allow a government to decide for me that gay marriage is moral. If the same government decides to support Anti-Semitism and order me to turn in any Jews I know, Do I turn them in. So who is going to ultimately decide my morality? Can you tell me? "Being gay is natural" You say that people are naturally gay, But let me ask you, Is adultery/polygamy "natural"? Or for that matter, Is murder natural? Is theft natural? All these behaviors are common among animals, And so in some sense, Are "natural. " Humans dwell in natural bodies that are predisposed to sin because of the Curse. So many people could attempt to justify sin by claiming that it"s "only natural. " Why not be cannibalistic? Praying mantises are, After all! Even ignoring the animal kingdom and focusing on humans, We see that humans are prone to many behaviors-murder, Rape, Theft, Deceit, Etc. -that could be called "natural, " yet that are not endorsed by most people. So simply showing a behavior to be natural is not the same as showing it to be right. Furthermore, The entire idea of what is "natural" hinges on one's idea of the origin of nature. If all nature is random, And if humans share common ancestry with all other living things (and, Theoretically, Non-living things), Then it is understandable for humans to try to justify behavior as "natural" by showing that animals behave in the same fashion. But if humans were created in the image of God, Separate from animals, Then what is "natural" for us"in the sense of "how God created us""is to obey Him. "No scientific study to prove that gay people have some sort of mental disorder. " I agree, They just like sin like everyone else. We don't cater to a certain religion, But we also do things Constitutionally. Which gay marriage was not approved Constitutionally.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

"My answer would be that morality is never good to be left to humans whether individually or collectively. Anything wicked or evil can come out of it. " I will agree that humans are not the most moral of creatures however you forget that god advocates for immoral behavior too. For instance god at least the christian god advocates for slavery, Stoning disobedient teenagers, And is anti women's rights. " The one thing I do want to ask is how is gay marriage moral? " Legalizing gay marriage is moral as being gay is natural and there is no scientific study to prove that gay people have some sort of mental disorder. Going by that if it causes no harm to anyone and its natural and gays want to, I don't see any reason as to why they can't marry. If we as a country our going to pride ourselves of our " freedom " than why should we deny men to marry other men when there is simply no valid reason not too. If your religion states that homosexuality is wrong, That's fine however in the USA we can't base laws favoring a certain religion.
Legalizing gay marriage is morally good, Change my mind.

My answer would be that morality is never good to be left to humans whether individually or collectively. Anything wicked or evil can come out of it. For instance Nazi Germany where people were ok with making the Jews into slaves. How about Rome where they thought it was ok to feed certain people to lions. How about Carthage where they sacrificed children. Or the Canaanites who sacrificed children as well. How about the Greeks who left children who had deficiencies or who they thought were to weak or thin to survive. How about Iraq where they thought it was ok to exterminate the Kurds. The Russians who killed many of their own people under Lenin and Stalin. So morality is not very good to be left up to people, For they could become pretty cruel. However, With God, Morals never change, But stay constant no matter if it is popular or not. As far as gay marriage goes I believe it should have been left to the States to decide as our Constitution dictates. So I will end with saying that the way gay marriage was legalized was unconstitutional. The one thing I do want to ask is how is gay marriage moral?