BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Instagram is a useless tool of narcissism and self-promotion

I think you are assuming that you / your use of Instagram is the majority, and that the people I am referring to is the minority. That is incorrect. Obviously, demographics have something to do with it, as well - I am not a young teen or close to that age group; however, I have been solicited by many users who are in that age group and fit the exact description in my previous post. I was intrigued by this and searched a bit further into the use of Instagram by that age demographic and was fairly horrified by what I saw. I think it is wonderful that you have been able to find constructive use of Instagram, actually, and I wish that were the case with the majority of our population. It's not though, and I am at an age where I am thinking about having children so I am constantly wondering what kind of a world I am going to be raising my children in. If you do some research and look at some articles on what is really going on with the society of youth in relation to some of these apps and sites, you will probably be able to understand why it's concerning to me. Kids in schools are addicted to apps like Instagram and post multiple times a day to let everyone know what is going on in their lives. They have 200+ followers, most of them strangers who leave comments and open the dialogue when they really could be anyone. I know it's an old argument that has been applied to every social network that exists by now, but it's concerning with Instagram because people actually think they have a modicum of discretion using the app when in reality, it was bought out by Facebook and own their information / privacy now. But my other argument is just as pressing - my kids will literally grow up to be self-involved, stupid people if this trend continues and swallows them in the process. Sure, it's up to good parenting to make sure that doesn't happen, but how much can you really control technology when the use of it is as common and natural as breathing now? I just want some more awareness to the perils of using Instagram in the wrong way and letting it consume your life.
Everyone should have a religion

I think people should be free to believe whatever they want, because religion might have benefits but it also has cause countless wars, genocides, and predjudices, the advancement of technology and many technical sciences came from people of a free thinking mind that explored outside the realms of a faith. Claiming only people who with a faith can be moral is a highly over used fallacy. Religion came about people having a fear of death and wanting to communicate with those who have passed on, and trying to find an explaination for things they cannot explain, because as humans we desire to understand, you could say it's a blessing(gift) and a curse of being the most self-aware mammal. I also would like to add darwinism has explained a lot more, than most faiths have. Religion does bring interesting stories, but for the most part, that's what they are, stories. I would like to pose a question "Does having a religion make it okay?" by this I mean if you have a book said to be created by gods, and in this book it says to commit actions you might consider immoral, does that then make it moral?
Everyone should have a religion

I believe that everybody should be religious, because of the benefits of religion. As we look in the middle ages, we saw illiteracy, poverty, inequality, women being thrown away like trash. Jesus came and taught treat everyone like you treat yourself. Love your neighbor like you love yourself. These were all things can calmed society. Prophet Muhammad came, and taught peace. There are consequences for throwing women into the dirt. Muhammad stressed education in his long seminars. People should welcome these things into society. These benefits led to western society. Don't throw these things away. We will go back to the middle ages.
Everyone should have a religion

If you will take this debate put "ACCEPT" and then make your argument. If not simply put "DENIED" and just leave it there. Now for the rules:ROUND 1:ARGUMENT PHASE this round isn't worth any points, but it will start things up. We're not making any rebuttals, but we are making our own argument. ROUND 2:REBUTTAL STAGE this round is worth 2 points for whoever refutes more points.ROUND 3:ARGUMENT PHASE(2) this round IS worth points and it's all about execution, and whoever makes the more compelling argument in this round.ROUND 4:REBUTTAL STAGE(2) this round the same as 2 refute the arguments from the previous round, whoever refutes more 2 points, who can ever make the most compelling argument without having to use some source and explain in their own words 2 points. Good grammar 1 point. GENERAL RULES:Sources are allowed but only in argument rounds, and you're only allowed 3 sources, anymore and points will be deducted. (-3) No ad hominem attacks, and eluding to personal attacks. (-1)No fallacious arguments(-2 points) THANK YOU ________________________________________________________________________________________________ARGUMENT:I do not believe everyone should be religious, I think people should be free to follow whatever they believe, I am agnostic and find more comfort in the bordering instead of subscribing to one system of belief. I find philosophy over religion to be far more interesting, religion is interesting but I will not subscribe to something if my heart is not in it.
Everyone should have a religion

I would like to note that I have enjoyed this debate. I believe that my opponent is very intelligent, and open minded. My opponent says in the previous argument that you should follow the faith that is consistent with your core principles. By using his logic, if I kill or steal for the BENIFIT of myself, than I should go find a faith that agrees with that. I would say that claim is completely absurd. That is exactly why we need religion. It keeps our society from not going to the middle ages, to the Darwinian time. My opponent also seems to go my his experience when he says "society seems more secular, but the majority of population claims its religious". I have put real evidence, and poles on the internet finding that most of America is non-religious. My opponent agrees with moral making a better society. So all I have to say is welcome religion. Let religion create a moral foundation for people. I have also provided statistics, and evidence for a secularized America doing poorly, and a religious America doing exceptionally well. The average student spends less than an hour on homework. 70% of teachers in America don't care about the kids. Than we looked at the religious time of America. The average student spent 3 hours on school work. 95% of teachers actually cared. Education worked in a religious society. I hope that the voter judge these arguments objectively. Vote pro, because I have provided actual evidence of religion out-performing a secularized society. I have also proved that my opponent is also basing his debate off of experience which makes him more unreliable. Vote for Pro because pro had more logic, and evidence to back up thee claims. I would also like to thank my opponent for making this debate possible. It has been fun. Thanks.
Everyone should have a religion

I think that me and my opponent can agree on having grudges on people that don't believe the same principles that you believe.To some extent my opponent might be right, but on that same note they could be wrong, let's say me an Agnostic male, and I'm going to assume my opponent is religious, this is just for making a point. If you asked me what religion I think you should follow, I would honestly tell you, to follow whatever one you think is consistent with your core principles, but religion requires faith in some kind of power, faith is faith, it is much different than just trusting in the humanity of people. Now religion is a very interesting thing, I will admit as I'm sure I have already stated before, however, we might live in a society that seems more secular, but the majority of population already claims to be religious. I'd say that's probably due to peer pressure in society, and the stigma that if you don't have a religion, than you are what's wrong with the world, evne if you've done nothing wrong. Letting people have free thought and find their own belief systems achieves more than forcing them all to have the same exact one. You didn't find greatness in painting the same thing as everyone else now did you? I believe the benefits of a society that has both religion and secularism co-exist outweigh the benefits of just one existing. You get to better places, and find out where your weak points lie, when you have someone else to challenge them. When you're separating things, you usually separate it by it's characteristics, and such. I know religion will never disappear (nor do I actually want it to) but secularism will only continue to grow. It's not the main thing in the world, it's just become more prominent compared to what it was years ago. People should examine all mind sets, forcing people to only have one kind of mind set is going against a human's ability to have free will. Morals do make a better society, I do agree with my opponent on that point. HOWEVER morals are a human construct, and not entirely a biological imperative like eating, sleeping, or sex. Therefore, I feel a good enough case has not been made for why everyone should have a religion. It would take more than morals, and high rate of people who believe in it, to convince me otherwise.
Everyone should have a religion

I think that me and my opponent can agree on having grudges on people that don't believe the same principles that you believe. I agree that we can never create a perfect society. But what I am arguing is that religion helps humans with morality. If you live a moral life, you can get rewards in the next life. I am not going to try to argue if afterlife is right nor not, but I will say that it helps humans with there morals. It helps humans. I think that me and my opponent can also agree that morality benefits society. I have stated many times in this debate that religion helps people with morality. If there is anything that will help morality, than we should run it. But secularism is ruining our society. Even though secularism can lead to scientific advancements, I believe that religions' benefits outweigh the benefits of secularism, because there are so many harms to secularism. The statistics that I have provided up in Round 2 are just a few harms.
Everyone should have a religion

I'd like to commend my opponent for staying consistent for the first phase of the debate. Now religion does have it's benefits, and if religions understand why secularism can benefit some of society, why try to force everyone to believe in something they don't want to or feel no need to? I don't see a benefit to that, those who have a hard time believing in a particular religion shouldn't belong to it. Unless of course you're saying people should be free to create their own religions, secularism and religion has done a fine enough job co-existing. No I have nothing against anyone with a religion, but I do stand against forcing beliefs on someone that they didn't ask for, we've got laws and regulations to help create a moral standard. Common sense helps create morals. There will still be people who defy things, society will never be perfect, no amount religious conquest will change that. http://www.secularism.org.uk...http://www.flatheadsecular.com...
Everyone should have a religion

Christianity's population is around 2.5 billion people. Islam's population is around 1.5 billion people. Hinduism's population is 1 billion people. Buddhism has 500 million people. There is another 58 million that are followers for other religions. Religion now has the job to control all of these people. Of course, there are going to be genocide, prejudices, and wars. Religion is controlling over 5 billion people. Islam also stressed in the Quran the importance of science, and education. Since Islam was so big, the beliefs became corrupted. Religion gives people a moral foundation. I won't argue with the science of God being accurate, but I will argue that the moral foundation it creates is viable. Scientific advancement is good for our society. I also bet that you accept that America is getting more secularized. and I assume that you think that this is a good thing. According to BusinessWeek, the average student spends less than an hour on homework. 70% of teachers are also don't care about there students. In the 1900s when America was more religious, the average student spend 3 hours of school work a day. 95% of the teachers cared for the students. Religion brought these benefits. Our secularized generation is doing horribly compared to this generation. Elders are respected in the religious age of America. The new generation on the other hand loves to revolt. Religion can solve our problems. It can create a moral society. Lastly, I would like to answer your question. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are the most widely accepted. We are not in the era in where people make a rule saying something absurd or else these religions would be gone. Christianity teaches treating others the way you want to be treated. Islam promotes peace, and equality. Hinduism promotes fairness, and order. Buddhism teaches more natural things. I would love to live in a society in where everybody followed these rules. We see in a secularized, bias against religion society that kids don't care about work. Disrespect there parents. http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.cnn.com...
Professionalism should be practiced no matter where you are

You can be individual and still be professional, although I believe there are some things that stand out that you never should do. Tattoos on the face for example (I'm speaking on the point of gang tattoos--where the tattoos cover all or a good portion of the head)--a little intrusive, especially for a professional workplace. Ultimately I believe that professionalism should come 1st in all situations (ie: if you're going to get a professional job, you might want to hold off on gang tattoos for a while--at least until you get a job that doesn't care if you have them or not). Mind Tools gives a great example of this in http://www.mindtools.com.... Ultimately, there has to be some rules that we go by or the world be in total chaos. So for example, using the tattoo on face example, should the other professional interviewing said to-be-professional be blamed if his 1st reaction to the tattooed individual is disgust or repulsion? Yes, free choice on both parties but ultimately that tattoo could stand between the individual and a paycheck, and which is more important?
Professionalism should be practiced no matter where you are

I completely and respectfully disagree that professionalism should be practiced where ever and when ever you are. To require such a thing would involve the removal of individuality of the people. It removes the right of choice and the right to be who you are. It is never OK to demand upon selective and subjective ideals, that people must act a certain way. If so, I hope people can be forced into a rational mind set and free thinking world view, but that is a pipe dream. This is my stand and I will let my opponent make his or her rebuttal. Thank you.
Music Competition of Awesomeness

ROUND 2: TECHNICAL PIECESMy Music SelectionsThe Little Shepard - DebussyPart of a six movement suite called the "Children's Corner", which Debussy reputedly wrote for his daughter, Emma-Claude. The lullaby is characteristic of Debussy's post-romantic style, featuring interesting rhythms and lot's of accidentals.This debate was fun to do. I hope I'll see another on sometime in the future.
Music Competition of Awesomeness

Rap RoundEstelle feat. Kanye West - American BoyI love this song due to it's tonal complexity and original chord progression. It changes keys three times in the chord progression E, C, F. It's difficult to solo over, but it's definitely a fun song to play. I hope you enjoy!"The English have been pretty complicit in some of our most addictive entertainment (Iraq War, American Idol, Amy Winehouse). Estelle, a John Legend protégé, returns the favor with “American Boy,” her naive two-fold nod to the geography and ego-happy males from the Land Of Opportunity. Her mellifluousvoice–meticulously feminine, by the way–entitles her to a beachy song, one with bashful disco rhythms and a chaos-free three minutes. She thrives on economy, possibly even deleting the unnecessary Kanye West from the song altogether. Pretty rad, to say the least." –Rodney Duguehttp://www.youtube.com...
Music Competition of Awesomeness

http://www.youtube.com...ROUND 2: TECHNICAL PIECESMy Music SelectionsInvention No.13 in A Minor - BachProbably one of Bach's most renowned inventions, this piece features two distinct voices in the left and right hand. I think I sped up a bit near the end, though.Etude – KabalevskyTechnically challenging piece that features flying arpeggios all over the piano.I think I'm getting slightly better with this video editing stuff. I actually finished early this time, and got the chance to fix the rotation, stretching, and quality issues. I added a bit of reverb with Audacity too, but I don't think it's really noticable.
Music Competition of Awesomeness

Round 2 -- MotownStevie Wonder - Sir Duke Steve Halvonik, staff writer of The Daily Collegian, called the piece "pompous", describing it as "the big brassy salute to Duke Ellington" and "the most engaging song on the album." He praised its "up-beat tempo, punchy horn lines and syncopated rhythm" and pronounced it the "brightest album" of the year. OneElephant's Youtube video is below mine!http://www.youtube.com...; http://www.youtube.com...;
Music Competition of Awesomeness

ROUND 1: CONTEMPORARY POP My Music Selections Friday - Rebecca Black My very own arrangement of the classic. Abridged due to video length constraints. The A Team – Ed Sheeran A song about a prostitute who overdoses on drugs. Also abridged due to time constraints, and loosely inspired by OrtoPilot’s brilliant cover of it. Link provided in comments. Will also be posted by WSA during his round. Thanks in advance!
Music Competition of Awesomeness

Clarifications: If you are a multi-instrumentalist, use each round's genre to your advantage. Jazz - Saxophone; Hawaiian - Ukulele; Bulgarian Wedding Music - Kaval. My Music SelectionsHungarian Dance No. 5 - Johannes Brahms This piece is a fast, challenging classical song that is difficult to get down on the guitar, especially when it's 86 degrees in your room and you're sweating like an obese walrus during mating season. Romance of the Roses - Simon SalzThis emotional Spanish, Classical guitar song features the use of volatile dynamics and soft whispers. I enjoy serenading and marinading women with this song. Enjoy! Good luck, OneElephant!http://www.youtube.com...;
Music Competition of Awesomeness

Music Competition of AwesomenessFormat1: Acceptance, Clarifications2-4: Instrument Shredding BadasseryRules1. Each of your rounds must be a different genre (e.g. Rock, Classical, Bluegrass). Our rounds function independently in this regard. Please state each round's genre in the argument space.2. All music must come from your instrument. No pre-recorded tracks.3. You can use effects pedals, but try to make the music come from the instrument, so it doesn't end up sounding like Megatron and a dragon having vigorous sex.4. Post your round as one YouTube video that is under 5-minutes in length. In the video, state your DDO name, so we know it's you.5. Name the song(s) you play in the round. You may use the character space to talk about the song(s), but no points will be derived from your descriptions.JudgesPlease, only vote if you are a musician or musically inclined. Judges should vote on three criteria on a score between 1-10, so the maximum score for each competitor's round is 30 and for the entire debate, 90. Only vote using the "Convincing Arguments" voting button (3 points).Musicianship (Mood, Dynamics, Style, Control)Presentation (Memorized, Comforatable, Captivating)Selection (Difficulty, Quality)Good luck, and kittens!
Murder is always wrong

I am glad we can agree on a definition. We are not using the bible as our standard of law. We are using current day laws set up by governments. While it is true that our laws also say not to kill, they differ greatly from the bible on many other laws regarding killing another person. Exodus 31:15 - Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Genesis 9:6 - Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Exodus 21:17 - And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:15 - And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. If we are using the bible as our guideline for laws regarding murder, then people would be dropping left and right. The bible, while it is a good guideline for life, is not what we use to govern our nations. Also, Capital punishment is not murder. The definition we agreed upon was the unlawful premeditated killing of one human by another. Capital punishment is legal (depending on where you live) and so it is not murder.
Murder is always wrong

I'll accept and argue that murder is not always wrong. Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another I believe that there are certain cases in which killing another human be can be justified. Obviously just going around and killing people for no reason is wrong. However, enemy soldiers, euthanasia or in some cases sacrificing one for the many can be justified cases of killing another human being. Thats not to say killing them is a good thing, and I would not do it but they can be justified.
Is democracy good or dictatorship good

So, I'm going to just preface this with the fact you didn't give a real stance on what you think. You stated you think democracy is very good but also bad. huh? To keep things simple, and since I'm pro-democracy in any situation, I'll simply take that side. Now, to start off, Let me give you a little food for thought: your in your home right? Your sitting on your couch watching some youtube and all of a sudden, some cops are at your door. You don't feel like letting them in, so you walk to your door and open up, and tell the cops to politely get the hell away from your house. this is okay because you have the right to privacy so long as you say "No you can't search my house, at least without a permit." Soon as you allow them in then they are able to search, but they can't unless their already inside. In a dictatorship, where rights are trampled on to all hell, the cops would just waltz in. they'd strip your house searching for (*insert anything illegal*) without your consent and they are completely protected by the govt. There is no such thing as privacy in a dictatorship, and there certainly isn't the same freedoms we are allowed in a TRUE democracy, such as free speech, freedom of press, right to bear arms and form a well regulated militia, freedom of protest, ETC. I'm actually confused about your reasoning for this debate as your preface was quite short and hard to really understand. Do you currently live in a place that claims to be democratic but really is simply under a facade and really is a tyrannical govt.? I await your concesion ;)