BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CD's vs, Vinyl

One common term among record listeners, is warmth. This term is referred to that fuzzy sound heard when playing a vinyl. Once in a while a classic may emit a crackle, snap, or pop, but that sound is really a price sound for collectors and only adds to the vinyl experience. The "warmth" described by vinyl users is often characterized as a kind of deep bass that is fuzzy and less accurate. Many find it difficult to explain and some find it difficult to understand until they actually drop the needle on the record and hear it for themselves. Often times the reason behind the crackle in the background of some records is that they are simply old. The vinyl has been used many times and the quality is a bit worn, but the overall listening experience is rarely affected. The pops that can be heard on some records are caused by a similar phenomenon. The record could be aged, or for new records, although rare, there could be a pressing error. Skips on records are easily explained: scratches. Many times, before arm levers were introduced, people found it nearly impossible to own a record for a long amount of time and not get an accidental scratch on it. Vinyl"s also attract dust due to static electricity. Luckily, every time the LP is played, the dust is mechanically pushed out of the grooves by the needle. At the end of the day, consumers have found that the best way to preserve their vinyl records is to simply put them away when they aren"t being used. True record collectors and players know there is no such thing as a "bad" to LP records. However, one small "issue" is the fact that high pitched frequencies and sibilance are difficult for the needle to trace. This can cause "the ugly crackle of distortion, while deep bass panned between the left and right channels can knock around the needle." (Greenwald) Another small concern is that the beginning of an album side will always sound better than the end. This is because as the needle gets closer to the middle of the album, the needle speed changes and it is unable to follow every millimeter of the groove. This can cause a slight change in sound, especially when the last song of the album has a fast tempo. In addition, the vinyl records can generate little noises like pops and crackles. However, these signature sounds only add to the authenticity and the whole record listening experience.
CD's vs, Vinyl

I am aware that we can put modern music in vinyl form, I was pointing out that it isn't commonly done, and is viewed more like a collector's item. In order to argue that digital music has no soul and vinyl does you would first have to prove the existence of the soul itself since nothing has ever been proven to have a soul. The "soul" that I hear when I listen to vinyl is inferior equipment and an impossible to ignore graininess. Digital music doesn't sound like its missing some sort of magical element to me, it sounds like a nice crisp and clean version of whatever song I've chosen to listen to. I'll also make the argument that digital music is much easier to store than vinyl records, which take up much more physical space. I'll add to that the fact that the bulky machine needed to play vinyl is inferior to the modern (of various sized but rarely "bulky") machines we use to play digital music. I was going to end this argument there but I'll go ahead and pile on the fact that I don't know of, nor have I ever heard of, a vehicle coming out with a vinyl player installed. I imagine there wouldn't be much space for anything else if there were such a vehicle.
CD's vs, Vinyl

Actually, there is technology that allows conversion for vinyl. And digital lacks something very important: soul. Listen to vinyl. Listen to digital. Something sound missing? That's soul. Digital music looses its soul because of all the conversion. Vinyl: The singer sings into the mic. The sound is recorded on a master disc. Then the vinyl is pressed and shipped. So you get sound as if they are right there in the room. Digital: Singer sings into mic. Gets recorded onto computer. Get edited. And edited, and edited (since hardly anyone sings god anymore). So you see?
Proof That God is Real

I would also like to give my sympathies about your father, and I know how painful the death of a close one can be. I would like to make my final argument with these points: 1) While it is true that Judaism and Christianity were early monotheistic (one God) religions, they were in no means the first. Most religious historians will point to Zoroastrianism as the world first monotheist religion, so again, what puts the Christian God above that God or the God of any other religion? Personally, I would say nothing, and it comes down to cultural differences that makes you say that the Christian God is the true God, much the same that if you had been born in Iraq you would believe that Allah and the Islamic principles are the one true God and one true religion. 2) I have no qualms about someone using God and religion as a source of morale guidance and as a spiritual center, but I do take issue with someone seeing God as the ultimate creator. That does a huge discredit to science and what we have discovered about the natural world. We have discovered so many amazing systems that allow that govern the universe and allow it to continue its ever going change and expansion that just saying "God did it all" almost makes it seem unimpressive in comparison. To think that billions of years of evolution lead to seems so much more awe-inspiring and poetic than to just think God snapped his fingers and man was made. 3) While there are certainly issues with the various scientific theories as to the origins of life, they hold much more weight for most scientists than the God hypothesis. The fact that Charles Darwin had no concept of genetics does not discredit his theory of evolution, if anything, it further shows how much weight the theory has, since genetics was actually able to provide a vehicle for the changes we see in species from generation to generation. Meanwhile, there has been no evidence beyond blind faith that would support the existence of God. This is surprising because there are many, many ways that other theories could be disproven. For instance, if just ONE fossil was found in a geographically incorrect place, then basically the entirety of evolution would be thrown out the window, but that hasn't happened. In conclusion, thus far, we have found very little, if not zero, proof that would point to the existence of God. It is simply illogical and in the face of theories that have been tested and peer reviewed, the God hypothesis is a failed theory that exists on blind faith and belief alone.
Proof That God is Real

Thank you for the quick and well written response. I'd first like to address your point on science, how you state "Science is ever changing, and proof today might be different tomorrow." This isn't a folly of science, but rather an integral and important aspect of it. Our understanding of the world around us changes based on the new evidence that we are able to find. This is important because it allows our understanding of the world to grow and change as we learn new evidence and rethink old ideas. For many years, people believed in strictly the Biblical account of creation. However, Charles Darwin later found evidence and he created his theory of evolution. Science later found further evidence that provided proof that evolution is the best model for creation. This shows how our understanding changes from generation to generation with new discoveries and understandings. With the dinosaur extinction example you use, most of the evidence that science had pointed towards the volcanic eruption theory. Then, the Yucatan Peninsula was discovered and science incorporated the new evidence into their belief system. That is how science works. While some may say that this shows that evidence may later be found for the existence of God, that logic can be applied to literally anything. Currently, I don't believe in leprechauns, but why shouldn't I because proof may be found that point to their existence on a later date? You state that you approach God from a spiritual standpoint, and that is a standpoint that I can respect. However, from this standpoint, God can neither be proven nor disproven. In fact, God can neither be proven nor disproven from a science standpoint. Science is understanding of the world based on discovered evidence, so by the very nature of science, science cannot disprove anything. Science cannot say that God is not real, but science can say that there is a large lack of evidence for the existence of God. I respect your stance that you will find God in your heart, but as I've mentioned before, this belief system can be applied to anything. I could say that I found salvation in fairies, but because I take a stance on it spiritually, you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a fairy. I would also like to address a theme I read in the comments, a point that I was actually going to make in my first argument: that you look at God only from the Christian standpoint and do not give merit to any other God. If you believe in the Christian God, what causes Him to have any more merit than the Islamic Allah or the Hindu God Vishnu? Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." I would like to end my argument with the question I had above: what causes your God to have any more merit than the Gods of any other society and what proof shows that He has that higher merit?
Proof That God is Real

Many are seeking proof that God is real. They stubbornly argue, "prove that God is real!" My questions are these: 1.) What is it that I could say that would cause you to change your mind? 2) What exactly do you want God to prove to you? 3) Why do you think He has to prove anything to anyone? One could argue about creation Vs. the big boom, or one could argue about the existence of things that can't be seen with the naked eye, like air or love. Although these arguments are true and good, for the most part they won't change a persons mind. Those, along with many other arguments have been going on throughout history, and I'm guessing that not many have been convinced. The real proof is in a personal relationship with Christ Jesus, believing in Him is the first step, sincerely seeking the will of God is the next. Those who know, simply know that He is real because they have that personal relationship. Yet, those who believe in Jesus are not seeking proof. They are seeking the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Himself addressed this, "proof," issue when He told Thomas this: John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. What kind of "proof," would make you believe? How many have attempted to "prove," to you that God is real? I'm guessing that if anyone takes this debate, that person will say that many have tried to convince him or her. In the bible there is an account of a rich man and a beggar. Both die, and the rich man goes to hell. The rich man begs to have the poor man warn his five brothers of what lies beyond this life so that they won't end up where he ended up;. The response was that "They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them." The man replies,"Nay, but if one who has died went to them, then they would believe." And the final response was: Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. I believe that those who are seeking proof really do want to know Him, and the answers are right in front of them yet they, like the brothers of the man in the above account haven't set their heart to seek the truth for themselves. The odds are highly likely that nothing that I or anyone else says will produce the "proof," that will change a person's mind. Why are you seeking proof through others rather than seeking it in Christ Jesus? The truth is, one did die and was raised to life and still many do not believe. Now, I can picture the arguments that will come up. I'm pretty sure I've heard them all. But go ahead and set your arguments in order. Along with that, please tell me what I could say that cause you to change your mind? If you have no interest in a debate that involves scriptures, then don't accept this one because every response will involve the written word.
Does God exist

1. Take for example the planet, everything that exists on this planet is from the remains of a star gone super-nova, star dust you could say that about 4.56 billion years ago (as radio metric dating has shown) formed our planet and solar system from the remains of those many stars gone super nova. The elements such as Carbon, Iron, etc. are all formed through continuous fusion that takes place in the center of a star and the super nova (which results from the creation of iron) provides the rarer elements that can only be created via that kind of heat. -the deeper question is where did the stars come from, everything in our universe has a begining As for the complexity of life, that is accounted for by biological evolution via natural selection. This conclusion can be arrived at by acknowledging these simple facts A. Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms. B. Organisms produce more progeny than can survive. C. These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce. -how come this process is not occurring now, we dont see species that are between phases of evolution -the question is where did the diversity of animal come from with the inherent complexity. -to try and explain all this complexity as a random star explosion is at best a weak argument. -the existence of variation is does not negate creationism -how come humans still have the appendix, by your reasoning this organism would have been done away with through biological evolution -how come these random and non-random mutations are not occurring now, we dont find a half monkey half human or something in the middle of this million year evolution -what controls the random mutations, there is precision, order and functional complexity in creation which points to a designer and intelligent designer who made everything for a particular purpose. 2. However, we do not require some sort of being outside of time and space somehow continually sustaining our existence, we are autonomous beings who have the capacity of individual thought and thus do not require an outside source. -if we are self sustaining how come we dont live forever. there is something that sustains life. life is not the mere combination of blood, cells, organs and bone and oxygen. That which sustains life is God 1. We don't really know how we exist. -The Bible account of creation is being proven true by history as the correct account of how we came into existence
Does God exist

Species Without a Link Proves you Wrong The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution. Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.
Does God exist

1.The complexity of our planet & human anatomy points to a deliberate Designer who not only created our universe, but sustains it today. 2. We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music. Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist. But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent"but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent. Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us"and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
The Safavid's had a good chance at becoming a Great Power

Hello everyone! I'll be arguing that the Persians under the Safavids had the potential to become a great power. Possibly even an imperial one. My opponent will argue otherwise.Now its important to note that most scholars agree that the Safavids were a great power, but I want to argue that they had the potential to compete with the Eurupeans as an imperial power.The BOP will not rely on semantics. It will be shared as wellGreat Power great power A great power is a state that is recognized as having the ability to exert its influence on a global scale. po·ten·tial pəd2;tenCHəl/ adjective 1. having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future. "a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers" synonyms: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable; More Voting Rules - Whomever won the debate gets the argument points. Not who was the most convincing- The S&G point will become the Source Point- Terrible S&G will be a conduct violation- Voters must address every argument in their RFD (Reason for Debate)
Classic Music is Superior to Modern Pop Music

I must admit it’s difficult for me not to use my statement for rebuttals, and will try my best to only say this before my rebuttal turn. I, and many professional musicians, would take issue with my opponent’s definition of music. An organization of vocal and instrumental effects is not a good characterization because it is not always accurate. There are many organizations of vocal and instrumental effects that are not music, and there are many combinations of vocal and instrumental effects that lack organization but are most certainly music. I chose to debate this topic because I don’t agree with the premise. There is no comparison between what is popular now and what was popular then when the two styles are so different. Certainly, there were more physical instruments used in the 60’s then there were in the 80’s, and more in the 80’s then there are today, but there’s no correlation between the two facts. If we look farther back in time, when minstrel’s were the popular singers of the day and folk music was “in”, a band consisted of very few instruments, and certainly less technical proficiency than can be seen in 80’s rock and roll.At the same time that the two are not comparable, the two are not separable. Just as 80’s rock was influenced in timbre by 60’s rock, 60’s rock influenced by 50’s jazz and disco, 50’s jazz influenced by 40’s swing and musical theater, musical theater influenced by operetta, operetta by savoy opera, and savoy opera by the many stages of opera before it, popular music in the 80’s and 90’s used aspects of 80’s rock to evolve. These are only a few examples of the evolution of music, for music evolves with society. It is very easy to look at it in a very linear fashion, and through that fashion to choose to ignore the many directions that music evolves.I will address my opponent’s use of the terms “appeal”, “emotion”, “harmony”, and “real instruments” during my rebuttal phase.
Classic Music is Superior to Modern Pop Music

Great! Thanks for accepting this debate, and I will be looking forwards to debating you on this subject. "I try not to turn on the radio often, but when I do I feel very sad for humanity, my future children, and the soul, or, the lack thereof, of the music industry." ~Jordan Taylor Modern pop music cannot be an improvement upon older music because pop music is a stretch of the definition of music. Music is defined in the dictionary as vocal and instrument sounds combined in such a way as to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion. So how can a collection of sounds lacking real instruments, harmony, true emotion, and any beauty at all be defined as real music? So here I use the term "music" very broadly. My second argument is about the sound appeal of music. 30 or more years ago big band instruments like trumpets and saxophones were often incorporated into music. Some songs featured full orchestras, or even cow bells and church organs. On top of all this 4 part harmonies are often incorporated. These days you’ll be lucky if you can find a 2 part harmony. The simplistic nature and similarity of today’s music has been a big disappointment to those of us that have been exposed to music from earlier eras. In fact, only 6 different chord patterns can be found in the list of top most listened to songs in America today. Older music has more diversity, so it naturally gains more appeal. There is actually scientific proof to back this up. When a person listens to music, a chemical reaction called the Dopamine reaction occurs, releasing """feel good” chemicals into our brain. Studies show that the simplicity and predictability of pop music actually reduces the amount of these chemicals that are released. My third argument is about meaning. Today pop music focuses mostly on relationships, having fun, and making it big. Believe it or not, there used to be a lot more to writing lyrics. Yes, there were some songs about relationships, but they were less about how good their partner made them feel and more about the other person. But back then music went a lot deeper than that. It often presented ideas that make you think for a moment, or told an exciting narrative. It is a proven fact that you will continue thinking about the meaning of a song long after you have stopped humming the tune.