BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Greedo shot first

Again George Lucas automatically has power over whats canon or not. Well he used to. Just like how Disney officially made the EU non-canon he made the bar scene non-canon in 1997 Ok now this is going to get a little tricky. I don't want to spoil "The Force Awakens" so if you haven't watched it yet don't read this. In the movie (which is officially canon) Han Solo is met with people who have guns pointed at him. He has Chewie by his side and he still doesn't fire. Again he has a wookie with a bow caster and a DL-44 but he still doesn't shoot. Con also brings up that Han Solo is a "different" kind of anti-hero because he is sarcastic and doesn't follow orders well. You don't have to be a order following robot who doesn't have any personality to be a hero. In fact its the opposite. An anti-hero goes through any means to get his goals and has a cold heart. Han Solo obviously does not have those traits. We also have to understand the context of why Han Solo doesn't care about the rebellion initially. He is a smuggler who is sucked into all of this drama really quickly. His goal is to just make money. That's because that's his job. His job is to smuggle and make money. Not caring about a cause doesn't make you a anti-hero. Actually quite the opposite. Having conviction actually drives you to take brutal actions to get the job done. More conviction the more apathetic you become to everything but your cause.
Greedo shot first

My opponent has mentioned that George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, said that Greedo shot first. But what a creator says about their work does not change canon. Just like books belong to their readers, movies belong to their viewers. My opponent claims that Han only shoots first when he knows that his victim will probably shoot him, but Greedo wasn't going to shoot him because that would have defeated the purpose of bargaining money from him. But Greedo was putting Han at gunpoint in order to get the money. Greedo was pointing a gun at Han, so of course Han shot him first. My opponent says that my definition of an antihero is false. My opponent says that an actual antihero is a character who uses questionable means to achieve a just goal. That is one kind of antihero, indeed, but a sarcastic individual who doesn't take orders from anyone but their self is another kind of antihero. The Wikipedia definition says, as my opponent has quoted, "An antihero or antiheroine is a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, and morality". My opponent says that, since Han has all 3 of those things, he's not an antihero. Han definitely has courage and idealism, but what about morality? Han is, at the end of the day, a good guy, but he does do some questionable things, making his morality ambiguous. He does help Obi-Wan and Luke, but he makes it clear that he doesn't care about their Rebellion (initially, anyway), and that he's only in it for the money. Does that sound like someone with a pure heart to you? Not to me. My opponent points out that, contrary to what I claimed in Round 2, stormtroopers actually aim rather terribly. My opponent is right about that, and I admit that I was incorrect.
Greedo shot first

Im guessing round 2 is just rebuttal because my opponent hasn't brought up any other arguments. When it comes to George Lucas the main creator himself who created the character of Han Solo said that Greedo shot first http://content.usatoday.com... Now of course Han Solo sometimes shoots first but only in a situation where he knows the other person will most likely open fire. That happens all the time. But in this specific situation Greedo wasn't going to shoot him because that would defeat the purpose of trying to get money from him. My opponents definition of an anti hero is very misleading and just not true. An Anti Hero would be someone who has a good goal but does bad things to get to it. A perfect example is Lelouche in Code Geass. He wants to free Japan of a tyrannical government but he ends up killings thousands to get to his goal. His goal was great! But he massacred thousands of his own people just to get to his goal. Being sarcastic and not following orders doesn't make you an anti hero. The Wikipedia definition of being an anti hero: An antihero or antiheroine is a protagonist who lacks conventional heroic qualities such as idealism, courage, and morality Han Solo has morality, courage and idealism. So in turn he is not a anti hero. My opponent also states that blaster fire is accurate and (hilariously) uses stormtroopers as an example for their accuracy. ANY star wars fan knows that stormtroopers are TERRIBLE with their aim http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com... Other characters like Obi Wan have actually never encountered a stormtrooper. He has never been in combat with a Stormtrooper. Of course he has had exchanges with them but he has never fought with them. Obi Wan could've just been recounting the deadliness of the CLONES. Sources: http://content.usatoday.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com... http://www.cracked.com...
America is not founded on Christian morals.

The Pro debate was supposed to be about the founding of America but Pro's number 4 is about current affairs. Or maybe Pro believes that America was just founded yesterday. Uhhh- Have you ever read, (heard of would be a better question)- Pro have you ever even heard of the Puritan book "The Scarlet Letter"? Maybe I should explain the question- The Puritans were part of a Christianity that actually helped to found America. What the Puritans would do was to place adulterers in the stocks, (Pro the word "stocks" here is not a financial term). The book "The Scarlet Letter" was authored by a Puritan to protest the practice of shunning. Now I know that people like you Pro think that because the Puritans frowned on adultery that that proves the 10 Commandments were written by Christians but I assure you that the 10 Commandments were written by a Levite many hundreds of years before there were any Christians. Further I submit that the entire OT was written by non-Christians. Now the New Testament is a Christian work. If you would like to debate whether or not the New Testament moral code made a government like that of the Puritan U. S. Constitution then that would work out fine. But the OT and the 10 Commandments would never be able to produce such a Nation as the United States with the freedoms that we have today. Not even if Moses were to come back from the dead.
America is not founded on Christian morals.

the ten commandments are shared between Jews and Christians so they belong to both they are christian and Jewish morals. that and there are other commandments that contradict u. s law like we don't outlaw adultery you cant go to jail for that. this is not even limited to the ten commandments. we also don't enforce things like executing gays "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. " Leviticus 20:13 or a witch "You should not let a sorceress live". Exodus 22:17 or fortune tellers "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death". Leviticus 20:27 so america is not founded on christian morals due to contradiction of the bible and u. s law.
America is not founded on Christian morals.

Claiming that the Ten Commandments are Christian property is like saying that oxygen is Christian property- 1)Christians must breath air. 2) Christians must obey the law. Therefore Air and the 10 Commandments are Christian property, (sic). Everyone must breath air. Everyone must obey the law. Pro's main point in this debate is based on the false premise that the 10 Commandments are Christian. The 10 Commandments are not Christian, they are not Jewish and they are not even the property of mankind in anyway shape or form. The 10 Commandments are the building blocks of all society just like the Elements of Chemistry are the building blocks of all the physical universe. Can the Elements be changed? Yes. Can the 10 Commandments be changed? Yes. But neither the Elements or the Law are property of Christianity.
America is not founded on Christian morals.

they are christian there in the christian holy book the bible and Christians consider them theirs they are christian commandments and the old testament does matter within christianity because in the new testament says that jesus sad this "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."" mattew 5:18 . the treaty was with the ottomans but the point that they felt the need to add that america is quote "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;" still matters. I contunie my points. but you never even said anything to prove america is founded on christian morals.
America is not founded on Christian morals.

Con Rebuttal round 2: 1) Pro failed to list even one Christian moral in round number two a) The 10 Commandments are not Christian. The 10 Commandments were written by a Levite several hundred years before there were any Christians. b) The entire Old Testament was written before there were any Christians. 2) Pro failed to explain the Christian meaning of 'treaties' a) Do Christians have a treaty with God? b) Do Christians have a treaty with non-Christians? c) Does God have a treaty with non-Christians? Con argument round 2: The Canaanites received the Land of Canaan by treaty with God. The Canaanites failed to live up to their treaty with God and lost the right to live in the Land of Canaan. The ancient Israelites entered into a treaty with God and received the right to live in the Land of Canaan. The ancient Israelites failed to live up to their treaty with God and lost the right to live in the Land of Canaan, (Babylonian captivity). By treaty God brought ancient Israel back into the Land of Canaan. Again ancient Israel failed to live up to their treaty with God and again God forced ancient Israel out of the Land of Canaan, (General Titus and the Romans). Roman justification for the invasion of Palestine was the fact that Jerusalem broke the treaty it had with Rome. After the destruction of Jerusalem, General Titus went back to Rome and conducted a Triumph. After the Triumphal parade a Jewish Menorah was carved on a stone pillar for the following generations of Romans to remember. Also the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem was razed and the stone works were used to build the Roman Coliseum. Con point number 1: The First Amendment that Pro listed in round 2 is a Christian Triumph on the order of General Titus'. The First Amendment was never meant as a Christian Moral. Con point number 2: The treaty of Tripoli is a simple statement that the U.S. was not interested in a religious war. Con point number 3: The treaty of Tripoli is an inferior treaty for explaining Christian intent. Real Christian treaties are of the type used to subjugate the American Indians.
America is not founded on Christian morals.

first off the first amendment contradicts three commandments here is the text of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."-first amendment u.s constitution. this contradicts these three commandments "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."-first commandment. this contradicts freedom of religion. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."-second commandment. this contradicts freedom of speech. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."-third commandment. contradicts free speech again. this is just what contradicts the first amendments there is more evidence than this like article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli also proves that america is not founded on christian morals. "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."-article 11 treaty of Tripoli.
Music Battle

Thank you tejretics for this wonderful debate.I saved the genre of progressive rock for my final song. I wasn't sure what to put initially, but I finally decided on the song "Firth of Fifth" by Genesis. A perfect exposition of progressive rock, it features keyboard, synthesizer, flute, and guitar solos, the former two built around the same theme, and the latter two built around another theme. The keyboard theme features 13/16 and 15/16 time signature. The guitar solo features violin-like guitar tones. In addition, the guitar solo is beautiful mastery.The path is clearThough no eyes can seeThe course laid down long before.And so with gods and menThe sheep remain inside their pen,Though many times they've seen the way to leave.He rides majesticPast homes of menWho care not or gaze with joy,To see reflected thereThe trees, the sky, the lily fair,The scene of death is lying just below.The mountain cuts off the town from view,Like a cancer growth is removed by skill.Let it be revealed.A waterfall, his madrigal.An inland sea, his symphony.Undinal songsUrge the sailors onTill lured by sirens' cry.Now as the river dissolves in sea,So Neptune has claimed another soul.And so with gods and menThe sheep remain inside their pen,Until the Shepherd leads his flock away.The sands of time were eroded byThe river of constant change.The song's lyrics, while having an ambiguous meaning, still have a majestic quality to them, especially in the way Peter Gabriel sings them.http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

Thanks, Subutai. http://www.youtube.com...My song this time is Civil Twilight's "Human," a very deep song about a dispassionate person feeling emotions for once. "There's one way out and no way inBack to the beginningThere's one way back to home againTo where I feel forgivenWhat is this I feel? Why is it so real?What am I to say?It's only love, it's only painIt's only fear that runs through my veinsIt's all the things you can't explainThat make us humanI am just an image ofSomething so much greaterI am just a picture frameI am not the painterWhere do I begin? Can I shed this skin?What is this I feel within?It's only love, it's only painIt's only fear that runs through my veinsIt's all the things you can't explainThat make us human, that make us humanThat make us humanIt's only love, it's only painIt's only fear that runs through my veinsIt's all the things you can't explainThat make us human, that make us humanThat make us human, oh, that make us human."It talks about an emotionless person -- a psychopath, almost -- who realizes he has emotions. He doesn't understand what he's feeling, and it's painful, but his realization that he no longer is a psychopath almost overpowers him. He realizes, for once, he's like every other human. He realizes there are things much greater than him, and he has to be reborn. He asks if he can shed this skin of his, and comes into realization that he's "just a picture frame . . . not the painter."
Music Battle

Your songs seem to have an impressive ability of making the listener feel melancholy longing. It's attempted often, but rarely successful. But in your cases, it is.My next song is "It Was a Pleasure Then" by Nico. Both of my previous songs have been instrumentals (except for that short narrator introduction in the last one). I thought it was time for me to post one with vocals. This is in a bit of a different vein from the previous two. Nico's music, particularly this song and the two albums that succeeded it, treaded into waters previously never even approached. Her music was heavily influential to the female rock persona, particularly what would later become gothic rock. The instrumentation was sparse but very atmospheric, and Nico's vocals were a powerful exposition of Teutonic majesty. This song specifically indicates the direction she was going to take in her next two albums. The rest of the album the song was on, Chelsea Girls, relied on a bit more of a non-experimental theme. Nico's voice spans a large portion of the accessable vocal frequency range, and her parts, particularly when she's not singing words, are glorious. The instrumentation, save Cale's viola (particularly around the 5 minute mark), are minimal as usual, but still add greatly to the song's nature. http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

That was quite interesting. The song really felt like an auditory hallucination, and was a good one, though it's higher pitches were painful to hear. My next song is Rickie Lee Jones' "On Saturday Afternoons in 1963," which talks about traveling back to one's childhood. "The most as you'll ever go Is back where you used to know If grown-ups could laugh this slow Where as you watch the hour snow Years may go by And years may go by So hold on to your special friend Here, you'll need something to keep her in Now you stay inside this foolish grin Though any day your secrets end Then again years may go by And years may go by You saved your own special friend 'Cause here you need something to hide her in And you stay inside that foolish grin When everyday now secrets end Oh and then again years may go by And years may go by Years may go by And years may go by." The song's rhythmic tune and its lyrics talk about blissful reminiscence of childhood. It truly qualifies as "beautiful music," and was introduced to me early last year -- once more in a "House" scene, where Dr. House reminisces when he used to play golf. Now with a limp induced by a limb infarction in his quadriceps muscle, he imagines watching a game of lacrosse going on, and the song plays to display his reminiscence. It's an amazing moment that pushes nostalgia into you. I'd recommend listening to the whole song, because it's really brilliant. It talks about thinking of one's closest friend in those childhood times, and how the years have passed.
Music Battle

That was an interesting song. I felt emotions of sadness and contentment at the same time.My next song is "Watermelon in Easter Hay" by Frank Zappa. Zappa was a chronically interesting musician. At at least some point in his life, he has played blues, doo-wop, experimental rock, musique concrete, jazz fusion, comedy rock, 20th century classical, and electronic, along with parodies of psychedelic rock, disco, and 80's pop. He wrote two rock operas as well. As you can imagine, his music was often very weird. It was also often discordiant and chaotic. The album this song came off of, Joe's Garage (one of Zappa's rock operas), while not one of his weirded works, still has a strong discordiant theme. "The story is told by a character identified as the "Central Scrutinizer" narrating the story of Joe, an average adolescent male, who forms a garage rock band, has unsatisfying relationships with women, gives all of his money to a government assisted and insincere religion, explores sexual activities with appliances, and is imprisoned. After being released from prison into a dystopian society in which music itself has been criminalized, he lapses into insanity."[1]This song represents one of his lapses into insanity. He dreams of imaginary songs and guitar solos. It's one of Zappa's most beautiful guitar solos (and he wrote many guitar solos), and I'd consider it to be one of the most beautiful ever composed. It is one of the most beautiful moments in rock history.[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Music Battle

Thanks, Subutai -- that was a great song. http://www.youtube.com... My next song: My song this time is called "Not As We," by Alanis Morrisette. It's of an entirely different theme, and has lyrics. I like this song because it came to me at a hard time in my life. Listening to this song actually gave me some cure to the sadness I felt at having lost someone close to me. The song reverberates of contemplation after losing a loved one. But what makes it so special to me is the meaning of the song when it premiered on the medical drama "House," in the episode "97 Seconds." In the episode, Dr. Gregory House comes across a clinic patient who's had a near death experience and has had the "best 97 seconds of his life." House is skeptical, and contemplates putting his life at risk for the same reason. At the same time, he contemplates if his life has had any worth to it, and this song plays in the background. This song was the inspiration for me to argue against God's existence on a platform like this. It inspired me to get a grip with my life. That's why I like it.
Music Battle

That was a very good song. I'd never heard of Yanni or listened to any of his work before, but I'm impressed with the liquidity with which he can play the piano. My piece is in a very similar vein to Tej's. It is the adagietto from Mahler's 5th symphony. His most famous work, it is an extremely powerful piece steeped in the beauties of chromaticism. Written as a love piece to his wife, it was accompanied by a poem in German: Wie ich dich liebe, Du meine Sonne, ich kann mit Worten Dir's nicht sagen. Nur meine Sehnsucht kann ich Dir klagen und meine Liebe. (How much I love you, you my sun, I cannot tell you that with words. I can only lament to you my longing and love.) While Mahler intended this piece to be played at a moderate pace (it was supposed to be a happy love piece), I much prefer it when it is played slower. It sounds much more melancholy that way. As I said earlier, while the piece is supposed to be in the key of C-sharp minor, it is heavily chromatic. The piece was scored only for strings and a harp. While I'm generally not moved by much, whenever I listen to this piece, I am overcome by a sense of undeniable beauty. The chromaticism, timbre, and tempo are powerful. http://www.youtube.com...