BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap has the best lyrics as a music genre

I found it very difficult to understand my opponent's first point as the grammar was hard to decipher. However, I believe my opponent is saying that it is not feasible to compare English Rap to Traditional Chinese folk song. I find this assertion to be illogical as both are types of song with lyrics and melody and both are a genre of music. Therefore, my example is legitimate. The difficulty in my opponent's stance is that he must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that rap is the best lyrical music genre. Not for me to prove him wrong. I have decided to argue for Chinese folk song, but there are a multitude of other genres I can detail. African tribal chanting is one. Latin Choir with biblical lyrics is another. Even the delivery of a Shakespearean sonnet counts. These are all examples of music, and all examples of music that are far superior in terms of lyrics to rap. Remember that we are not looking at specific things about rap to judge music. The beats and the active nature of rap isn't in question. Neither are the "flow" or "punchlines". We are examining the quality of the lyrics. The advantage that rap has over most other songs is the sacrifice of tonality and instrumentation for more focus on lyrics. Essentially, it is more poetic than other songs. The problem is that the Chinese language *in and of itself* is inherently poetic by its very nature, negating the advantage that rap has. ***SEE FIRST VIDEO*** Please examine the first video. It is a pop rendition of the Heart Sutra by the late Anita Mui. The Heart Sutra is a Buddhist Chant detailing many of the most profound philosophies of Buddhism. Luckily, I have it here in Chinese, or else I would not be able to preserve its meaning since there is a character limit. . http://www.rso.cornell.edu... . http://www.youtube.com... There is instrumentation, rhythm, flow, elegance in this song, but most importantly for the purposes of this debate, the lyrics are crafted in such a manner that no English rap song can possibly hold a candle to it. Even for someone fluent in Chinese, the very depth of the lyrics will confuse those who cannot fully grasp Buddhist teachings. But for anyone open to those ideas, this song becomes extraordinarily enlightening as it concentrates those philosophies using the innate imagery and contextuality of the Chinese language. ***SEE SECOND VIDEO*** Here is another example. I don't think the western language has a work of literature quite as great as the Bible, and most theological works for Mass in the original Latin have the most awe-inspiring and beautiful lyrics ever imaginable. How can it not be when these works are describing Heaven, God, Eternal Light and the Messiah? . http://www.youtube.com... I can list many other examples, but the point is, my opponent's bias is the only thing holding up his argument. Rap isn't the best, because there really is no objective measure for "the best". Simply by providing other examples, I have negated the resolution Thank you to the audience and my opponent.
Rap has the best lyrics as a music genre

It's hard to compare two languages and the one of the most popular genre of music are spoken in English. Just because Chinese has more dialect so it can't be comparable. Rap spoken in chinese can be compable with other music genre spoken in chinese. Believe it or not... A complete rappers would have: great metaphors, flow, delivery, punchlines, originality, writing skills, creativity, wordplay and content. Other genre uses instruments instead of using high level vocabulary and writing structure. Rappers can also change-up his/her lyrical pace and multi-syllable rhyme makes him truly unique and what makes them different from other musicians.
Rap has the best lyrics as a music genre

My opponent has decided to argue that Rap is the best in terms of lyrics when we compare music genres. Thus, I shall be proposing examples and reasons for other music genres that would theoretically have better lyrics. My opponent cites flow and metaphors as good indicators for great lyrics. In such a case, I bring up the genre of Chinese song-poetry. These can be in the form of Cantonese Opera (which has several parts resembling a merger between spoken word, Shakespearean poetry, Opera, and traditional music), or in classic renditions of great Chinese song. In terms of lyrics, Chinese songs reign supreme for a very practical and very objective reason. Each Chinese word is a syllable, whereas most English words are multisyllabic. Chinese words derive most of their meaning by context and imagery and metaphor, just as a language in and of itself. English relies less on these things as it is more direct and detailed. The result of writing Chinese music is two-fold. Because Chinese poetry is so heavily based on metaphor and imagery and context, a few Chinese words must be translated into several English sentences in order to retain the meaning. In essence, the phrase "A picture is worth a thousand words" might be more applicable to the Chinese language if reversed. In this manner, a rapper would either have to speak very, very quickly (making it likely to lose meaning since it is difficult to catch), or his song would have to be 10 times as long just to convey the symbolisms and metaphors of a comparable Chinese song. For westerners, this genre of music is not very pleasing to hear, but if my opponent is judging purely on lyrics, rap simply cannot hold a candle to traditional Chinese music.
Rap has the best lyrics as a music genre

Rappers nowadays rap about songs about dances, clubs, 30 inch rims, etc. Most of the rappers these days don't talk about real issues in the world. People think all rappers talk about is violence, drugs, and other things that makes them look stupid. Most people talk trash like R.A.P meaning Retards Attempting Poetry, which biased. There are rappers like Eminem, Ice Cube, 2pac, Nas that can rap. Rappers rap in bars and have great flow, metaphors, punchlines, etc. Rock does not. Prove me wrong
Affirmative Action is harmful.

THeHitchslap has declined my challenge, so now it's an open debate. = Disambiguation = I as the Pro will argue that Affirmative Action is harmful. Con will argue that it is beneficial. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If there is a need for clarity, it should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting. If I find it reasonable I will post it here before Con accepts. I repeat, Con should only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in his first round. I will add clarifications as necessary. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be one clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be balanced between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = Affirmative Action: Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group... http://en.wikipedia.org...
atheism is theism to the contrary

I'll run with the hat metaphor to close the debate, as I think it outlines what you don't seem to be grasping about my arguments. You claim you are wearing a hat. This claim is equally likely to be true, as there are only two possible scenarios; you are or aren't wearing a hat. And, since I don't know, agnosticism is the default position. The key difference is I know for a fact that you exist. I also know for a fact that hats exist. I don't know that God exists, nor does anyone. If you want to remain logically consistent, you have to say you are agnostic about all supernatural phenomena, because if I "believe" ghosts don't exist, you say I am taking "a negative positions on an imaginary claim," (Round 5). Yet you yourself say that "supernatur[al phenomena] are false by default" (Round 3). This is a contradiction. On one hand you say that supernatural claims are false by default, WHICH IS THE ATHEIST POSITION, and on the other you say atheists need to prove something doesn't exist. How exactly would you propose someone prove something doesn't exist? I don't know of anyone who thinks that Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is real, so it should be quite easy to prove it is not real. Except, it isn't. The castle is invisible, and well protected from being found by unwanted strangers. So how do I prove it isn't there? I can't. So would you say that you don't know if Hogwarts exists? If you don't know whether Hogwarts exists, then your argument for agnosticism is logically consistent, but you are crazy because you believe a magical castle from a children's book could possibly be real. However, if you disbelieve that Hogwarts is real, as I know you do, then your argument for agnosticism being more reasonable than atheism has been defeated.
atheism is theism to the contrary

agnostic=i dont know=true, unless i know belief=be lie, as i dont know is true theism is theism, no need to judge it theism cant exist without belief you have 3 options.. thats it.. now you have just added to the bs list m8 am i wearing a hat as i type this? you can believe my claim, disbelieve it, or accept you dont know, thats it, no other positions can exist belief=positive position on an imaginary claimdisbelief=negative position on an imaginary claimi dont know=true, as i know i dont know, and only know is true
atheism is theism to the contrary

Let's steer this back on topic. I think your position is that theism and atheism are both beliefs, and neither have evidence to support them. This leaves agnosticism, the position of ignorance, as the most or only rational intellectual stance. However, categorizing these three positions as separate entities may be fallacious. If we look at the Dawkins' Belief Scale, we get a better look at these positions. 1. Strong Theist: Absolute certainty God exists (think religious fundamentalists) 2. De Facto Theist: Not 100% sure, but lives life as if God exists (most religious people) 3. Weak Theist: Very uncertain, leaning towards theism (Easter Christians) 4. True Agnostic: God's existence and non existence are exactly equally likely. (Pro's stance) 5. Weak Atheist: Very uncertain, but leaning towards atheism (skeptics) 6. De Facto Atheist: Not 100% sure, but lives life as if God does not exist (most atheists) 7. Strong Atheist: Absolute certainty God does not exist (Carl Jung) Now, you claim that theism (1) and atheism (7) are both beliefs, and you are correct. Absolute certainty, in a scientific sense, requires evidence that neither can produce to support their position. So let's eliminate them. While were at it, we can knock off 3 and 5 as well, as they don't add anything to the debate. We are left with 2, 4, and 6. Now, 2 has no physical evidence and very flimsy logical arguments to support it, so we can throw it out as well. Now 4 and 6 remain, and you argue that 4 is a reasonable claim. God is just as likely to exist as not to exist. This seems reasonable, as if you were to say "a coin is just as likely to land heads as it is tails" you would be correct. However, we know that coins have two sides. We know the odds are 50/50. We have no (good) evidence that God exists, so to reduce the odds of him existing to 50/50 is fallacious. We have no reason to grant the theist that they are just as likely to be right when they cannot adequately demonstrate their claim. The true agnostic is unreasonable because he doesn't recognize who bears the burden of proof (the theist). Lets say you and your friends go to a magic show, and the illusionist claims he has magic powers. One of your friends believes him, the other laughs and says the claim is ridiculous, because he cannot prove he has magic powers. Would you say that your two friends are exactly equally likely to be right? Of course not. So why do the rules change when we talk about God? They don't.
atheism is theism to the contrary

reality is not a fact, gravity is not a fact. facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now, i dont have to imagine gravity or remember it truth can only be in the past know is absolute FACT=truth=knowledge=past=memory of know i know my experience of now, therfore i am. only know is true, i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it. belief=Be lie, as i dont know is true my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothing supernature is false by default, can never be real. anything i experience in reality, is not supernature, at any point imagination is false, and i dont know is a position i know. i have to see, to see that i dont see a dog right now, and i am certain i do not, which is to say i have to imagine a dog where you might claim it to be false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now unicorns are imaginary, imagination exist. god is imaginary, not real this is your belief, that others need to prove things to you, which naturally lead you right into a scientific belief system, the sure know how to keep people in line all imaginary claims are false by default so what evidence is sufficient for you to know that i am wearing a hat right now, but you still have to imagine it? i dont know is true even in the face of evidence, as its about possibility, belief god is information, a world creator if believed apples are not suspension bridges. scientific information is a belief system, as i dont know. evidence=belief system, belief=theism provide physical evidence that beliefs exist, now keep in mind, or that lies exist, or that your girlfriend ever believed anything you have said to her belief=faith science is all about faith, unles you do it yourself, and then the rest of science is still a belief system. faith is automaticly false, as i dont know is true is it true for you to say that i am wearing a hat right now? when the opposite could as easily be true, and even if i tell you that i am actually wearing a hat right now, you still dont know if your friend claims the shoe box on the floor is empty, you can believe him, disbelieve him, or accept you dont know. or ofc as you said create your own religion, the gecko in the box what evidence is sufficient for you to know that there is a gecko inside the box but you still have to imagine it? the gecko in the box is your god if you believe its in there, like the nut in a nutshell is insanity, or like water under the bridge even if it turns out you are right about the gecko, at no point did you know the future, therfore its true you didnt know, until you knew 1.i believe x is true 2.i believe x is not true 3.i accept i dont know only positions that exist on ANY imaginary claim lies are complicated by seperation, and true is simple now as one
atheism is theism to the contrary

it was really simple, i was talking about my dog, clearly your dog is not imaginary... and btw i dont have a dog, but, am i lying about not having a dog? facts dosnt exist beyond my own memory you are either male or female, or both, no escaping that, its absolute, and i know, thus its not an imaginary claim, thou if you say you have big boobs i have no clue math is absolute, even if i have to imagine it. 1+1=2 anywhere in reality, if you have a pen in your hand, and you put one more pen in it, you have 2 pens in your hand.. i know this can not be other ways supernature is false by default, and i have never experienced a unicorn in reality, but i dont know i dont know=i have to imagine it(=i know its false(higher level)) what evidence is sufficient for you to know that there are no unicorns in reality, but you still have to imagine it? evidence=belief system=theism=scientific information again, if i dont have to imagine it, its not a religious claim. if you are physically flying around in my room and you are a horse with a horn, there is nothing to believe, as i know the positions you mention are completly invalid in all exmaples you can mention. what if i disbelieve that you are a unicorn, what is my positon then?
atheism is theism to the contrary

We seem to be getting hung up on the timing of things. The existence of a god is, I think we can agree, an eternal one, whereas me wearing a hat or looking at my dog (both of which I'm doing right now, coincidentally) is a temporary one that can be easily changed. Let's change the analogy then. I am a woman. This is a true or false statement, and you don't know which. It has just as much chance of being true as it does being false, because there are roughly the same number of men and women. You have to reason to believe or disbelieve me, but you could find out. I can't change my gender the same way I can take off my hat or tell my dog to leave the room, and it isn't that hard to track a person down and verify their gender. But this, like the hats, is a bad comparison to theism, because we have documented evidence that women exist. I am a unicorn. This is also a true/false statement, and you don't know which. But now, one option is much more likely than the other. I'm very likely to be lying here, as unicorns have hooves and cannot type. We also have no documented evidence they exist, which means it is unreasonable for you to believe that I am a unicorn until I can prove to you that it do. This is because the burden of proof is entirely on me to prove what I am claiming (be it a hat, a woman, or a unicorn). However, it is also unreasonable to say you cannot know that I am a unicorn (agnostic). If i was a magical unicorn, I could very easily prove it to you. I could fly through your window and poop rainbows on your lap, and let you take pictures to verify you were not hallucinating. However, I offer no such proof. This doesn't mean it is impossible to prove, just that I'm incapable. So, to summarize: The "theist" position is to accept that I am a unicorn. The "agnostic" position is to say my unicornhood is beyond verification. The "atheist" position is to reject that I am a unicorn. This is why being atheistic about claims with no support is the most reasonable position.
atheism is theism to the contrary

i cant go back in time kNow=now i just looked at my dog, is that a fact? if i know your claim is true, its not imaginary, therfore not a religious claim. if i claim you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, feel free to try and argue with that i am sure that i dont see you wearing a hat, which is to say i know that i dont know your claim is true, and i am certain of that. so, if you believ that i didnt just look at my dog, or i believe that you are not wearing hat? what are those positons called? non belief=i know, i accept i dont know, i am unaware of the claim, i am dead, or i dont exist, or i have another religion you are not born with beliefs, i donk now is the default position on any imaginary claim, as its true belief is theism, if i believe, i am a theist or atheist, not agnostic belief in scientific information, is belief in god, theism
atheism is theism to the contrary

I am wearing a hat right now. This is a factual claim. It is either true or false. You do not know which, as you cannot see me. However, whether I have a hat on or not is something that you could find out. You could demand a picture, or fly to my house and look in my window, and then you would know my hat status. When I claim to be wearing a hat, you have no evidence to believe or not to believe me. This means that neither position is more plausible than the other. The ONLY rational stance is to be unsure about my hat status. However, when we talk about theism/atheism, the two positions are not on equal footing. You make atheism into a belief, when by definition it is not. Atheism is the absence of a belief. Agnosticism does not mean "I'm not sure," it means "it is impossible to know". Atheism is the neutral position. Theism is the belief in a deity, and agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know if there is a deity. Atheism is simply the rejection of those two stances. Let me try and bring back the hat analogy. Theism does not fit with the laws of the universe as we know them, but wearing a hat does. So let's now say I am wearing the magical Sorting Hat from Hogwarts. The "theist" position: I believe you are wearing the sorting hat. The "agnostic" position: I can't know for sure whether you are wearing the sorting hat. The "atheist" position: I have no evidence to believe that the sorting hat is real, so I can't believe you are wearing it.
atheism is theism to the contrary

if you claim that you are wearing a hat right now, and i disbelieve you, believe that you are not wearing a hat, i am a theist to the contrary, atheist negative is antipositive, atheism is antitheism theism=belief=i accept imagination a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imaginationagnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality yes=theistno=atheistmaybe=agnostic
Does God exist(christianity)

The thing I cant understand is why you push the blame to god? Yes you can quesiton him why for this case why the child was taken away from the parent but dont you see that this was the work of the anti christ? And for your point on medicine,yes I agree our scientific and medical discoveries are reliable but who was the one who made these discoveries possible? Dont you think someone made these dots for humans to discover? And on your point on genetics, who was the one who made it? Who was the one who made its structure? Dont you see there is someone behind all of this? For your point on eves creation,Id like to ask:if god didnt create eve from aadams rib,how was the first female on earth created? Dont you see that all the things you have stated, there was someone behind all this? Be it god himself or satan whichever one. Im not just talking about thre scenarios you have stated,lets focus on one big scenario:Big bang. So somehow in some way an asteroid hit the planet and thus earth was created right? How did the asteroid hit earth? Gravity right? But who caused gravity to cause the asteroid to hit earth? 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed. At this point of time we can all agree that there was light. No wonder in the bible god said:let there be light. 4.28 B.Y.A water started condensing into liquid form. In the bible it states on day 3 of creation god created the land and sea. 3.9 B.Y.A was the birth of organic life. In the bible god created aadam and eve. Dont you see that all these events happened one after another and in the bible the order is exactly the same? Bear in mind during bibical times no one knew about the creation of earth and yet in the bible the order and everything mentioned is the same? In conclusion I believe there was someone behind all these events, be it satan for catastrophy or god for creation, miracles,etc. After all, these things could not have just been a coincidence am I right?
Does God exist(christianity)

Yes, i think if you were to ask any parent that lost a child, they would question the existence of God with more scrutiny after you mention those, ummmm, miracles? You are relying far too much on faith to drive your points emotionally. Just remind me, how did god create Eve? Now, think about it, in less than 24 hours God created a woman from Adams rib? it is scientifically impossible and I'd have to say, our sciencific and medical discoveries have proven to be a lot more reliable than god's miracles #medicine