BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The difference between metal and pop.

This:"Metal is a lot harder to play and write on guitar, bass, drums, and to sing." Is just an opinion. You have to look at other bands other than just stating as a fact. Now I know that we have a lot of people in opposition to the <3Jonas Brothers<3 so I'm not going to even bring up the fact that Kevin is a beast on guitar and Nick can out drum anyone. but I am going to go ahead and list another band that I know can "rock out" harder than any metal band I know. Maroon5 and also Black eyed peas has had some pretty interesting music/drum solos and guitar solos. (Boom Boom pow and She will be loved are classics.) And so you mentioned that Metal is harder to play/ write on a few *selected instruments..* http://www.wayango.com... the bands that created heavy metal developed a thick, massive sound, characterized by highly amplified distortion, extended guitar solos and emphatic beats According to this article here, all metal is is an extended guitar solo and emphatic beats....I think my little sister banging on pots and pans would be similar to the sound that comes out of Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, and Deep Purple's mouths. Its very do-able. all I need is one of those plastic Rockband guitars.. Ahh. Pop. Definition:intended for or accepted by a wide audience, features a noticeable rhythmic element, melodies and hooks, a mainstream style and a conventional structure. http://www.google.com... Since the mid-1950's pop music has usually been identified as the music and the musical styles that are accessible to the widest audience (the widest audience.) http://top40.about.com... Okay. and about this>>>>"Pop sometimes even consists of just loops strung together, drum machines, and heavily altered vocals with unoriginal lyrics, while metal almost never does" Sorry but I had to do it...just watch this. Not for ur disliking.....but. if u just forget that its Jonas and listen to the music. Jonas Brothers concert on good morning america...it is proof. it is proof.
The difference between metal and pop.

For this debate I will be arguing that metal is better than pop. Metal is a lot harder to play and write on guitar, bass, drums, and to sing. It is an even bigger challenge to play metal live. In my opinion, it's also a lot more fun to listen to and see at concerts than pop. Metal also often has more creative and complex lyrics, and instrument parts than pop. Pop sometimes even consists of just loops strung together, drum machines, and heavily altered vocals with unoriginal lyrics, while metal almost never does.
In Canada the Drink Age should be raised from 18 to 21

I accept this challenge. I intend to demonstrate that raising the drinking age does not accomplish any significant reduction in alcohol related fatalities or crimes, nor is it commensurate with other responsibilities legally placed upon those 18 or 19 years of age in Canada. A note- as I am American, a member of a nation that once raised its drinking age from 18 to 21, I will be using the data on this change in the United States as a statistical example.
In Canada the Drink Age should be raised from 18 to 21

I believe that, Here in Canada, The permanent drinking age should be raised to 21. When people turn 18/19 they are still to young and trying to figure them selves out. Under the influence of alcohol can and will ruin there life. And They also don't know hazards and what responsible drinking is. Raising the Drinking age, would prevent: Less Care Crashes due to drunk drivers, and less drunk sex.
The basic defense of bieng pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty.

I believe you are out of the context of the topic of this debate: "The basic defense of being pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty." Basic: The fundamental principle or underlying concept of a system or theory; a basis. The main and most common defense given. (basic) The BASIC defense of PRO LIFE: Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a human being. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any alleged benefits to others, as such benefits come at the expense of the life they consider as a person. The BASIC defense of PRO DEATH PENALTY: In your (con) own admission: "Based on the ideas of the Social Contract, those people who violate the rights of others, in turn forfeit their own rights. Thus, a person who is on death row does not retain the "right" to life once choosing to commit some heinous crime such as murder." Definition of CONTRADICTION: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another www.merriam-webster.com The inherent factors/propositions, contrary to one another,…. 1. Pro- life: Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any alleged benefits to others, as such benefits come at the expense of the life they consider as a person. 2. Pro- death penalty: a person who is on death row does not retain the "right" to life once choosing to commit some heinous crime such as murder." However,… I respect your interesting angle you provided with this debate, though out of context, and will touch briefly on your points. -" As my opponent and I both reside in the U.S., I must assume we are debating rights, the death penalty, and abortion as they relate to U.S. laws/customs/ideas." -In terms of U.S. laws, or federal laws on abortion none such exist that give liberties to the unborn life and not protecting them from being killed. -Yet federal laws (fifth amendment protected) give right to capital punishement for heinous crimes such as murder. Murder by definition: the crime of killing a person especially with malice aforethought Malice aforethought by definition: intent to cause serious injury or death So ALL of this mumbo jumbo is one big conrtadiction.
The basic defense of bieng pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty.

As my opponent and I both reside in the U. S. , I must assume we are debating rights, the death penalty, and abortion as they relate to U. S. laws/customs/ideas. "By Jefferson's own admission, the ideas contained in the Declaration of Independence were commonly expressed throughout the 17th and 18th centuries. [5] John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is probably the predominant source from which Jefferson drew inspiration. [6]" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Given that the basis of "rights", specifically the right to life, as we know them are the by-product of social contract theories expressed in the Declaration of Independence, it is rather simple to see that these two viewpoints are not, in themselves, contradictory. Based on the ideas of the Social Contract, those people who violate the rights of others, in turn forfeit their own rights. Thus, a person who is on death row does not retain the "right" to life once choosing to commit some heinous crime such as murder. "Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968). " (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) On the other hand, a fetus (given that you are Pro-Life I assume you accept it as a person) has committed no such act, and therefore retains its right to life. To conclude, there is no inherent contradiction in being Pro-Life and in favor of the Death Penalty, as the individuals involved in both cases do not posses the same right to life based on their actions / inactions.
The basic defense of bieng pro life abortion is a contradiction to the defense of the death penalty.

As a conservative and absolute no exception pro life believer, I feel it is contradiction to favor the death penalty. Most conservatives I know find it interesting that I am against the death penalty. Yet they argue time and time again the basic liberty of man is the right to be alive, in the topic of abortion. In logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle's law of noncontradiction states that "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." On a side bar,.. asking my mother about abortion and the argument given about the "health risk of the mother," she told me,... Any good mother, if even the smallest chance that her child would live, would give her own life for that small chance.
Anger is a good moral motivator

Well before the avengers the hulk was uncontrollable it took time and a lot of innocent people got hurt because of him. So it is IRRELEVANT for you to state such a thing because no matter what before the hulk could manage o control his power the slightest he had to face all the unexpected outcomes. That is anger it bring unexpected outcomes that the person or country that uses it does not expect to occur. So when you say it can be controlled it really can't. My conclusion to this whole argument is that anger everyone faces but cannot control. So if it is viewed as something that cannot be controlled and brings unexpected out comes then guess what that is anger that is why it is so dangerous. That is why anger is not a good moral motivation because its like motivating the people to have unexpected outcomes when really they shouldn't. again anger is the emotion that defies them all so anger is a beast such as hulk but it is one that could never see the controller.
Anger is a good moral motivator

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT the hulk cannot controls his anger. He feels conscious when he transforms into a huge beast. He fights the criminals and crooks. He doesn't attack his allies, only his foes. He is tamable. In The Avengers, he is a force that is controlled by the avenger team. He has perfect control of his ability of anger. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT sharks use anger to hunt. They use their amazing senses to hunt under water. Their sense to smell the blood is keener than most animals. They do not use anger or rage to ripe apart their preys. They use their ability and strength to do it. The reason they do it is to eat and prosper. Ripping apart the prey might not even be anger. It can be their will to feast, or there might not be any emotions. A shark can control its emotion. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT emotions are uncontrolled. Emotions are controlled to whatever species. From humans, to hulks, to sharks, they can control their feelings such as anger. A person will use anger to avenge their death mothers. Hulks will use their anger to smash.
Anger is a good moral motivator

It IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT the hulk controls his anger because he does not know what he is doing when he is the hulk. If you can recall in the movies he does things he does not want and people try to make him control the beast but he can't. SO for you to compare anger to the hulk is not a good example because your basing your facts on a character that was made up for destruction and UN tamable. It is like you comparing anger to sharks. Sharks do not have control over there thirst for blood because once they smell it they have to chase down its prey whether it be human or a fish it does not show any sympathy. Sharks use there anger and rage to rip apart there prey and they cant control when and how much anger is enough. So when you compare it to a lot of things anger is an emotion that is UN controllable that is why they call it anger. It is an emotion but it is one that no one can harness. So anger is another beast itself.
Anger is a good moral motivator

IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT emotions can be controlled. But some emotions can be controlled. Emotions are abstract and cant not be defined. Anger is not viewed as something that wipes other emotions away. Anger can be controlled. For example, the Hulk turns into a beast when he is mad. Therefore, he controls his anger. He does this to not harm people. He only turns angry to fight for what he feels to fight for. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT if all emotions defies other emotions, it breaks the norms and rules. Yes, emotions can break rules. That's why it is important to keep feelings and emotions protected. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT you do not feel anger without being disrespected. You do feel disrespected when your view is argued back. You are feeling slighted. Therefore you are feeling anger. As I am debating against you. You are feeling frustrated because I do not agree with you. You are feeling disrespected because I do not agree with you.
Anger is a good moral motivator

It is IRRELEVANT to view anger as an emotion that can be controlled because it is viewed as uncontrollable. Anger is viewed as something that wipes out all emotions. Basically just defies all of them and breaks the rules. But when you deem it as controllable and follows rules it should not be called anger it should be called something else. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT anger is a good moral motivator when it comes to fighting because drunk people and angry people can target innocent people. It is basically putting the innocent people who did not harmed the anger person at risk for there health. If anger is deemed as a good moral motivation when it comes to fighting then safety as we know it will not exist because everyone will be afraid and edgy. That is a lie because you can feel anger without being disrespected. as example if i feel irritated by your answer in class i will feel angered to give my view to counter claim your arguement. Like we are doing know we are debating and im getting angered without feeling disrespected because i feel fustrated you don't agree with me.
Anger is a good moral motivator

Anger can be a good moral motivator. It can help justify and make the best decisions for a person. Anger is an emotion that is based on a person's own beliefs, values, and thinking. It can make wise and just decisions. Anger is an emotion that can be controlled by the owner. Having values to emotions are important. For example, you can't feel anger towards people if you haven't been disrespected in any way. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT, ANGER IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT CAN MAKE A PERSON INSECURE OR LESS CONFIDENT. The situation can also add more values to the emotion of anger. Such as fighting, anger can play a great motivator to the person. The person that feels anger will have more emotions and values. He wants to protect his own values. ANGER IS NOT NECCESARILY THE CASE BECAUSE A PERSON CAN JUST FIGHT ANOTHER PERSON FOR FUN. Drunkenness would also be useful. It makes the drinker more hasty and fearless to fight. IT IS IRRELEVANT IF A PERSON JUST PASSES OUT, ANGER WILL BE USELESS. It brings inspiring ideas to a person to fight. Anger can be a replacement for courage. So, anger can be used to make people better.
There is nothing wrong with being homophobic.

Firstly, two of your sources ([4], [5]) are exactly the same webpage. Two others are simply dictionary definitions and the last is Canadian rights, which doesn't have much relevance to this global issue. I urge my opponent and voters to look for quality sources as opposed to the quantity.I agreed in round three that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but having an opinion does not necessarily mean it's right. The debate is whether there are things wrong with having an opinion -- homophobia -- and there are.I explained why homosexuality was acceptable because it directly links to this debate; why would it be right to disapprove of something that was not wrong? What if someone disapproved of heterosexual relationships? They are entitled to that opinion despite it being unorthodox, but it's actually no different than disapproving of homosexuality in regards that both practices do not affect or harm society as a whole. Disapproving of people that cause no harm is inherently wrong, hence making homophobia wrong.Unfair disapproval of people is wrong because... You claim homosexuality "can easily induce depression onto the homosexual statistically."Have you ever stopped to wonder what causes depression in the LGBT community? Homophobia is the direct cause [1]. Unfair disapproval of people is wrong because it isolates and discriminates against the group, causing depression and other signs of unjust anguish. Using the LGBT's depression as a reason to support homophobia is a paradox. You go on to cite higher HIV levels as a good reason to be homophobic, despite it being incredibly unlikely for a homosexuals to spread HIV to somebody that does not engage in sexual acts with them [2]. The issue is contained within the LGBT community and thas no relevance to heterosexuals. Stop pretending to care for gay people just to justify homophobia -- another paradox."Having a belief should not harm anyone, and if so occurs, then this is unfair." ~ my adversary. Read my above paragraph on the effects homophobia has on the LGBT community. Pro has shot himself in the foot.Your argument that it's acceptable because the rights Canadian's have does not hold much ground because that does not change the fact that discrimination, which includes 'disapproving' of people (homophobia), is a global issue that is wrong outside of any national human rights.Conclusion:Having an opinion such as homophobia is 'allowed', but there are things conclusively wrong with that opinion as mentioned above. The title of this debate, 'There is nothing wrong with being homophobic', is therefore proven incorrect as I only had to show one thing wrong with homophobia.[1] - http://www.apa.org...[2] - http://aids.gov...
There is nothing wrong with being homophobic.

I'm going to try and keep this debate short and informal because you've taken it down an opinion-based route which is very difficult to argue. The fact that you are homophobic is wrong because it does not sit well in Western society. There are many different people from many different backgrounds; society is not optimal when there is hatred and intolerance ingrained within the population. If you look at homosexuality from a universal perspective, forgetting your personal and religious feelings, you will find that there are no consequences or harm being caused. Why would somebody be phobic of something that does not cause harm? Homophobia is just an excuse-word for people that find it disgusting -- often due to their religious beliefs, which have been imprinted within them from a young age via their parents. It's very hard to see from a clear perspective when you have been told how things are from childhood.
There is nothing wrong with being homophobic.

Firstly, homosexuality cannot be changed or 'fixed'; I know this because I am gay myself. When I was growing up, I was ashamed and tried to force myself into liking girls -- it didn't work. I could try and stay celibate for the rest of my life, but after thinking about it from a completely logical perspective, I came to the conclusion that homosexual relationships cause no harm whatsoever, except to people who simply "don't like it". I don't like a lot of things in life, but I'm smart enough to realise that anything that doesn't cause harm to other people is not morally wrong on any level. I don't like the hatred that many religions promote, but I tolerate them because (in Western society, at least) no physical harm is coming to anybody. You say that homosexuality is unhealthy. I can assure you that it would be far more detrimental for a homosexual person to force themselves into a relationship with someone of the opposite gender -- they would be living a lie; depressed and isolated. Homosexual people can practice safe and healthy sex just like any other couple. Sexually transmitted infections are not limited to gay people. "People don't tell children about homosexuality" is a massive statement to make. What's true in your circle of friends is not true for the rest of the world. Sex and relationships is a difficult topic to talk about to children, regardless of sexuality.
Ultimate Team War - On Location

Sadly, my opponent has forfeited Round 4. Originally, this debate was supposed to leave Rounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 for actual arguing, but this was cut twice, first by my opponent's ignorance of the acceptance procedure of this debate, and second by my opponent's forfeit. If any of my points seem unclear, this is the reason. I shouldn't have to summarize my last round, at nothing has changed. I will merely point out that my opponent's arguments rest almost entirely on faulty assumptions that have been thoroughly refuted. Team MONG's victory is undeniable, and my opponent doesn't seem to want to deny it, either. As this is the last round, my opponent may not make any new arguments, and as he has no effective plans for killing about half of my team (Count Bleck surives just on the Chaos Heart alone, which is enough to win this war) or bypassing the defenses of the other half, he cannot win, period. Vote PRO. Please, don't forget the voting rules for this debate, as well as the rules of the debate in general, as outlined in Round 1. Thank you, readers, for reading this debate.