BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Musician is Defined by New Content

This is my first debate on the website, and I worded the topic wrong. It should be "A Musician Should Be Defined by New Content," and as it is not, then you would obviously win by simply defining it. However, I meant this to be a debate about what the definition should be, not necessarily what it is, and if, in the spirit of continuing and having a good time, my opponent would accept this change in wording in the topic, then I would be happy to proceed with the debate. So, as it is my turn, I will begin my argument. Musician, as defined by the Free Online Dictionary "One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music. " While this is the generally accepted way of defining a musician, this definition is incorrect. Instrumentalist to musician is like the comparison of construction worker to architect. While the construction worker builds the project created by the architect, the construction worker does not put his or her own spin on the project, thus leaving him or her as the simple task doer. It is the same with instrumentalists who play the music laid out to them by the composer without interpretation. They are simply doing a task that they were trained to do. It is no different than a construction worker building a house according to plans. Is the construction worker a musician too? In order to be considered an architect (which is defined as a person who designs buildings by the free online dictionary), one must have a certain level of creativity. The architect must find designs they like and improve them to make them cheaper or more efficient, or create something new. The same goes with a musician. A musician is one who takes their knowledge and understanding of the instruments he or she plays to create something new through composition, and interpret (and hopefully improve) already existing compositions through improvisation or unique ways of playing the songs. I thank my opponent for joining me in this debate, and once again, I apologize for my mistake in wording of the topic. If my opponent would agree to the change of topic to what should define a musician instead of what does define a musician, I would be grateful, and I look forward to continuing the debate in this new form!
A Musician is Defined by New Content

I will be arguing that an instrumentalist who performs pieces of music is by definition, a musician. I believe this debate will probably come down to definitions but I guess I will see where it goes. The word Musician is defined by thefreedictionary. com with two separate definitions. 1. One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially an instrumentalist and 2. a person who plays or composes music, esp. as a profession. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Both of these definitions state that someone who performs music is defined as a musician, proving that you do not have to come up with new content to be considered a musician. This proves pros resolution wrong. Here are some other definitions of musician to show that I am not trying to twist websites definitions to my advantage. . http://dictionary.reference.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://dictionary.cambridge.org... . http://www.yourdictionary.com... . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
A Musician is Defined by New Content

I thank whoever is joining me in this argument for participating. I would like to use this post to express my viewpoint and define the argument. It is my viewpoint that an instrumentalist who does not create new musical content, be it through composition, improvisation, or interpretation, is not a musician. I would like someone who believes that any individual who plays an instrument is a musician to take the counterargument. I will allow the opposing viewpoint to make the first post.
The Rebel Flag is a disgrace to this country.

That you for your over the top, desperate, mindless liberal drone assault on the truth and our rights. By saying that you don't care about what it actually means in your first sentence, you announce that you deny the truth AND logic. But in a lighter subject, the live science website is actually very interesting. I thank you for bring that up. Back to the debate. One major counterdictary statement I found was that the website said that the union went to war not for slavery, but to keep the union together. I consider it strange because then why did they go to war? The confederation left and tried to form their own nation because the union wouldn't let them leave. If they couldn't leave, why did the union fight them? I have to refer you to anther website because i have to go. also, i have no internet on the weekend, so no responses on Saturday or Sunday. http://www.historynet.com... see you on Monday.
The Rebel Flag is a disgrace to this country.

I don't care what it was 'meant' to mean. I need some sources to prove to me that's what the flag was meant for. Secondly, it doesn't matter what it was made to stand for. The problem is what it did stand for. And yes I do know what the Civil War was about, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume that "I was taught wrong and that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery". Well guess what, that myth has already been busted. http://www.livescience.com... The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010). "It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'" In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery " the greatest material interest of the world " a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws " at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states. In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable." The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society. "People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said. "[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."
The Rebel Flag is a disgrace to this country.

Challenge Accepted. The first round I will explain just what the flag means. The second round I will explain why it's not racist and my god given right of free speech, and round three will be final closing statements or arguments, depending on how this goes. I look forward to having an excellent debate with you. The red stands for the blood of Christ. The blue stands for the christian cross of Saint Andrew, patron saint of Scotland and first disciple of Jesus. The white border stand for the protection of god. The 13 stars stands for the 13 united Confederate states that succeeded from the union. Thus, the message of the Virgina Battle Flag is "Through the blood of Christ, with the protection of god, we, the 13 states, are united in our christian fight for liberty. Do you know what that means? And do you know what the civil war was about?
Computers have become an important part of our daily lives.

Well this is certainly a unique debate! I look forward to seeing how this plays out! Firstly, it is necessary to note that not all things that are a part of our daily lives are by virtue of so being also important. For instance, many people use a pencil on a daily basis to write in a book, but that pencil isn't necessarily an important part of their daily life. So simply because something is prevalent in our daily life, does not necessarily mean it is important. Furthermore, though computers sometimes complete tasks more rapidly than traditional methods, the traditional methods are usually more effective, though slower. A person who learns how to swim from a human instructor will probably be better than a person who learns to swim from a computer. Computers are indeed used for many things in our daily lives. But that does not actually mean they are important in and of themselves. If a person were to use a pen all day to write everything down, it's not actually the pen that is important. It is the function the pen serves as a writing utensil. (This function could easily be filled by a pencil other device.) Similarly, it's not actually the computer that's important; it is the tasks the computer completes that are important. To determine the importance of computers, we must consider this: how many daily tasks are performed by computers that can only be done by computers? The answer is very few, if any. One can indeed book airline tickets online. But one can also book airline tickets in person. One can look up kitchen recipes on a computer, but one could also look up kitchen recipes in a cookbook. There are very few tasks that a computer does, that could not be done by some other method. So if the daily tasks completed by computers could be done without computers, it seems illogical to say computers are important to the completion of daily tasks. Computers certainly play a role in our daily lives, but it's importance really just a social construct.
Computers have become an important part of our daily lives.

"Computers"!!! Oh, a world without computers these days; impossible!! I do agree that computers have become an important part of our daily lives/ Digital technology has made our lives smooth and comfortable and computers help us a lot. Having the capability of storing as well as processing, computers absorb enormous amount of information at a very high speed. The computer saves our information and its right there when we need it. The internet has information of the whole world and with the very help of the internet, the computer helps us in various kinds of way like booking railway and airline tickets, providing location of different places, kitchen recipes, etc. It also helps us to fill up forms for various jobs or admission to schools and colleges. Well, so much so that computer based technology has found application in various fields like engineering, medicine, information technology, biotechnology and what not. Technology based on computer is so good that it has made our lives come from black and white pictures to color pictures. Just imagine a home without a computer, oh they would be leading such a dull life. There may be some disadvantages of computers and I do believe there are cons of computers. But looking at the brighter side i.e., looking at the pros of computers, we can lead a far better life. With computers, don't you think booking railway and airline tickets is just a snap of the finger?!
Retaining Privacy Is More Important Than Forfeiting It In The Fight Against Terrorism

Without further ado, here is the basic and fundamental problem in my opponent's stance. My opponent would like to believe that after the terrorist organizations grow too large, we can still protect our privacy from that. I believe that if we suspect any one individual for cyber terrorism or other reasons, we should inspect and search. Of course, the one who is skeptical needs a warrant or could follow a process that could be implemented. (The government wouldn't be able to search anyone they would like, just because. ) Going back to cyber terrorism, if they have access or are in close location to you, the easier it is to attack you. Therefore, if we CAN do something, we should follow all leads possible.
Retaining Privacy Is More Important Than Forfeiting It In The Fight Against Terrorism

My argument is as the topic says. I believe that retaining privacy, both from corporate entities and government, is more important than the fight against terrorism. Take note: I'm opening this debate up, so that you can argue about the value of privacy instead of our fundamental right to it. I recognize that most people feel we need a "right" to privacy, but the vast majority willingly forfeit the right to privacy in spite of the government launching massive data collection programs and also in spite of their "CISA" bill which allows them to grant legal immunity for corporation to collect data on anyone without their knowledge or consent.. so long as they share that data with the government. So I won't argue on the necessity to have privacy as a right. I think we all agree we need the right to privacy, but in a world where we give it up on a massive scale; I think we should talk about the implications of that.
Retaining Privacy Is More Important Than Forfeiting It In The Fight Against Terrorism

In closing, On a massive scale, data that can define very specific and seemingly benign personal information is being collected. The government is proactively participating in this collection, and also working very hard through legislation to create pipelines for data to flow from corporations to their data centers. You can take whatever stance you like on the legitimacy or legality of this, but it has the same intrinsic implications. To outline those, I could go on at great length. History goes on at great length. The government proposes it can protect us from terrorists. We generally accept that to be a basic truth. The government proposes that we must compromise on the protections that we levy against the government in order to allow them to protect us from terrorists. We generally accept that to be a basic truth. In 1962 the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the CIA approved operation Northwoods. The proposals called for the CIA or other US government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. Where was the outrage, where were the corrective actions? Lost, after the events of 9/11 that followed our discovery of this proposed operation. When did the need for government protection against terrorism outweigh the need for fundamental protection against government? After terrorist attacks; that's when. After 9/11, San Bernadino, Paris, Chattanooga, the TN Military Shooting, the Washington and New Jersey Killing Spree, the Oklahoma Beheading, the Boston Marathon Bombing, Little Rock, Fort Hood, the Seattle Jewish Federation Shooting, the Los Angeles Airport Shooting This is when the government says that we must forfeit the protections we levy against them. Since forfeiting much of this protection against government, how much protection against terrorism have we garnished? Well, that's another debate. NSA Director Keith Alexander gave us the grossly exaggerated number of 54 attacks prevented, while under pressure from a Congressional hearing, following the leaks presented by Edward Snowden. He later retracted this statement, unsurprisingly, after it proven to be a lie. A new analysis of terrorism charges in the US found that the NSA's dragnet domestic surveillance "had no discernible impact" on preventing terrorist acts. The supposed reason for the ineffectiveness of the NSA, of course, is due to the shackles we place upon their power. Can you think of anything that might change our minds about the need to restrain the NSA? I certainly can. You don't need to make any wild accusations about what the government is doing. You just need to look at what they have done, and what they currently have the organization and motive to do. You just need to look at what they're capable of doing. That, is all you need to see if retaining privacy is more important than forfeiting privacy for the fight against terrorism.
Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions

Implicit in the question is the assumption the death penalty should be used but asks whether it should be used against all murderers, rapists etc or limited to just some of them. The real question is which is more fair. One which bases application of the penalty on the crime only without any regard to who the defendant is. The second while not ignoring the crime puts greater weight on the present and past circumstances of the defendant. The problem with the second is it is applied inconsistently-- what matters what is a disqualifying mental conditions varies widely from case to case and from person. The first by requiring death penalty in all cases where the crime qualifies avoids the discrepancies based on subjective factors If a 13 year old girl stands before the judge facing sentencing for murdering her parents, a crime she committed because she said they were abusing her the judge's duty is to send her to the gas chamber (or lethal injection). If that bothers people and it should-- the answer is not to tinker with but to abolish capital punishment in all cases.
Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions

just for the record I do not favor the use of the death penalty in any circumstance including for genocide. For the purposes of this debate question let me cite what the law is concerning the execution of mentally ill persons Basically the person to be executed must be aware of the fact he or she is to be executed and have a minimal awareness of how and why. That very minimal level of competence is the least which should be required for an execution of mentally ill person to occur. Anything less than that and it is hard to get less than that is simply unreasonable
Should the death penalty be authorized for murders, rapists, etc regardless of mental conditions

Yes their are people in the world who exit that are sexually assaulting people, and or murdering with out a care in the world, and they deserve death, but if that person is a mentally impaired person who can change, shouldn't they be allowed the chance to change and be fixed. Many have gone through a mentally traumatizing moment, or are mentally impaired and do not fully know what they are doing, and can not fully control their actions, and even not fully understand what their actions are to begin with. Over the course of this argument I will bring up multiple court cases in which a mentally impaired person has committed an act of the most heinous standards and is either punished accordingly, or given an unfair punishment.
Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

Thanks for a friendly, educated debate. It was my first, but won't be my last. I do agree there are some benefits of online college, in certain situations. If you can not afford traditional college, and can't get the scholarships and programs I mentioned above, then online college is a very viable option. I don't entirely agree with your last point. What kind of opportunities? If you mean being able to pick a particular major without having to go to a select choice of colleges, then yes, I agree. Online college does not offer the social opportunities and athletic opportunities traditional college can offer. Certain jobs will look to see how confident you are working alone and with others. Traditional college is a life experience, that will really shape the way you look at the world. Thanks for debate, voters please vote.
Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

Actually, you can find this information at college; go to your dorm, turn on your laptop, connect to the college wifi. I think it is safe to stay that in America, almost all colleges will have wifi. My last point was colleges allow students to socially interact. Going to college is much like high school, in the sense that you will have to adapt to your new surroundings, and make new friends. It is also said that in college you are more likely to find other students with similar interests and ideas, and thus better able to connect with them. Going through college will be a struggle at times, but the experience and people are well worth it.
Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

That is true but when you said that students wont put in 110% in their work, maybe if they liked working and got to choose where they wanted to work then that would motivate them to work harder. Sure some students would prefer to work at a traditional college then that's fine but online college would make students more comfortable to work at home. Also there are more human resources online then at a college. I like to call this resource the internet. You cant find this kinda information at a college.
Is Online College better then Traditional College (Pro=Yes) (Con=No)

When I say resources, I am referring to human resources, mainly your professors and peers. The best way to improve your math or writing skills is face to face with a professor who is knowledgeable and willing to help you. Google and Yahoo answers can not give you the help a professor (who did what you have to do) can. Peers can also give you valuable input and help you study for quizzes and tests. Infrastructural resources would include labs, libraries, etc. Outside of education would be sport stadiums, tennis courts, pools, etc. I could go on but I will move to my next point; motivation. College will motivate you to learn and excel in class. I remember reading an ad for an online college course, and in bold font, "Take college in your pjs!" (Something to that effect). However, is this really a good thing? To me it seems to promote a laid back nature of simply getting the diploma, not putting in the 110%, and actually trying to learn something. Traditional colleges will allow (and encourage) students to take place in debates and class discussions with different professors and different students. Students will learn to take opinions and back them up. Traditional colleges will also teach students how to work under time and pressure, something online colleges can't do. It is also a lot easier to cheat taking on an online college course, which is caused by lack of student motivation to actually learn. You also say that online colleges are cheaper than traditional, which is indeed true. However, there are so many scholarship opportunities available, both academic and athletic. Some colleges also offer jobs on site is allows students to raise some money. Also note that there are programs that will help pay for college tuition.