BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Classical Music Battle

Two of my favorite pieces. Thank you, pro and thanks for such a fun debate. I will add some of those piecs to my own classical repotoire. Song 1: Fantasie Impromptu by Chopin http://www.youtube.com...Song 2: Nesun Dorma from Turandot by Puccini. http://www.youtube.com...;Lyrics to Nessun Dorma [1] Nessun dorma! Nessun dorma!Tu pure, o, Principessa,nella tua fredda stanza,guardi le stelleche tremano d'amoree di speranza.Ma il mio mistero è chiuso in me,il nome mio nessun saprà!No, no, sulla tua bocca lo diròquando la luce splenderà!Ed il mio bacio scioglierà il silenzioche ti fa mia!(Il nome suo nessun saprà!...e noi dovrem, ahime, morir!)Dilegua, o notte!Tramontate, stelle!Tramontate, stelle!All'alba vincerò!vincerò, vincerò! English Translation of "Nessun Dorma"Nobody shall sleep!... Nobody shall sleep! Even you, o Princess, in your cold room, watch the stars, that tremble with love and with hope.But my secret is hidden within me,my name no one shall know... No!...No!... On your mouth I will tell it when the light shines.And my kiss will dissolve the silence that makes you mine!...(No one will know his name and we must, alas, die.)Vanish, o night! Set, stars! Set, stars! At dawn, I will win! I will win! I will win!Sources [1] http://classicalmusic.about.com...;
Classical Music Battle

Remember, two songs this round. For my final round, both of my final songs will be of Beethoven. Beethoven is probably the most well known of the classical composers and I think we have all heard the beginning of his 5th symphony. I will play some of his less familiar songs. The first song is probably my favorite piece of classical music I have ever heard. Most of us have heard the 1st movement, but most of us forget the 3rd movement. The 3rd movement shows the raw greatness of Beethoven. The 3rd movement begins at 8:05 of the video. Listen to the whole video. The second song is one of the most moving pieces in classical music. Song 1: The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C♯ minor "Quasi una fantasia", op. 27, No. 2, the Moonlight Sonata. Song 2: 7th Symphony, 2nd Movement. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Classical Music Battle

Fast forward around 200 years, and we arrive at Tchaikovsky, the composer of my next song. This song is one of his less popular songs, but is underrated and is still a very good song . I have picked a video for the song with the Russian National Orchestra playing the song. Song: Marche Slave in B-flat minor, Op. 31, also known as the Slavonic March or the Serbo-Russian March. http://www.youtube.com...
Classical Music Battle

Thanks pro. Pavarotti is my favorite singer who ever lived so I am going to bring another aria that he sang: Caro Mio Ben attributed to Giuseppe Giordani, though it predates him by 50 years. [1] http://www.youtube.com...;Lyrics and Translation [2] Caro mio ben, My dear beloved, Credimi almen, believe me at least, Senza di te languisce il cor. without you my heart languishes. Il tuo fedel Your faithful one Sospira ognor. always sighs; Cessa, crudel, cease, cruel one, Tanto rigor! so much punishment! Caro mio ben, My dear beloved, Credimi almen, believe me at least, Senza di te languisce il cor. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://www.folknouveau.com...;
Atheism is a LIE

chipmonkProI am Pro. I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate.There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate.I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically.My resolution is "Atheism is a lie."Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution.Theism. Belief in GodAtheism. Disbelief in God. A LIE. Deception. Pretending. Acting. Hypocrisy. To decieve another or give another a false or inaccurate depiction of the truth. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidenceDisbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence.Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence.Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence.Construct 1Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not.Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidenceConclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar.Construct 2Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists.Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions)Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists.Construct 3Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists.Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions)Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists.Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic.Report this Argument as flawless.
The USA is a Democracy

” This definition does not come from the link he sourced, or any dictionary known to me. Here is dictionary. com’s definition of a democracy. “government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. ”(1) Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition. “ a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting”(2) The USA has a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting. This is evident by the elections held within the USA. The US fits both of the dictionaries definitions of a democracy. Even East’s link A, which argues that the US is a republic, defines republic as “a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term. Even in a republic, it's the voice of the majority that rules through chosen representatives”(A) Once again this is consistent with both dictionaries definitions of a democracy. Our republic is a type of democracy. When East says “The USA was never meant to be a democracy but a republic” we realize that while the US was never meant to be a direct or “pure” democracy it was meant to be a republic, AKA a “representative democracy,” Still a type of democracy. My opponent essentially concedes this point saying “the USA is supposed to be a democratic republic. ” 2: The Princeton study East says “a recent Princeton study found that the USA is actually more of an oligarchy. ” Rather than dive into the link provided, Here is the link to the actual study. (3) This study shows the inefficiency and perhaps corruption of the US democracy. Even the oppression of said democracy by an Economic-Elite. It does not however conclude, as the link my opponent shared, that the US is not a democracy. Summary: The USA is structured by definition as a republic. This republic is a type of democracy known as a representative democracy. Studies have been done which show the US democracy inefficient or perhaps corrupt. However, still a democracy. The resolution is affirmed. The U. S. is, by definition, a democracy. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (A) . http://www.diffen.com... (3) . http://www.washingtontimes.com...
The USA is a Democracy

The USA was never meant to be a democracy but a republic. A democracy is rule by omnipotent majority, and a republic is meant to limit the power of the majority to protect minority rights [A]. Even though the USA is supposed to be a democratic republic, a recent Princeton study found that the USA is actually more of an oligarchy, because politicians value special interest groups over their constituents [B]. [A] http://www.diffen.com... [B] http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Belief in God is irrational

I thank RBaker for this re-debate. Everything will remain the same as before. As of 2012, believing in the existence of the Christian God is irrational. I ask that he: not use the ontological argument again not concede midway through Burden of proof: I think we should both take it on. I would argue it rests more heavily on the one making the unscientific, unfalsifiable claim for the existence of God. If I believed that a flying teapot orbited the earth, I could hardly expect that the burden should be on others to disprove it. The floor is yours RBaker.
Belief in God is irrational

After the debate you just won with this same title with an opponent who shared your same worldview, I thought you might be willing to egage an opponent who actually opposed your position and therefore would argue consistent to his worldview (ie an actual believer in the existent Christian triune God.) I'm sure the audience would be more interested. I thought that I would extend the rounds by one so that we had more room to define our positions, state our ulimate standards for truth etc. The last round as a closing statement - no further cross-ex.
Dog fights can protect the owner from danger

I'm having a little trouble understanding what you're trying to say, But I'm going to assume you mean something like "dogs can gain fighting skills from dog fighting that they can use to protect their owners". If you mean something else, Please tell me and I will correct myself. A dog will not get better at fighting from participating in dog fights (it may become stronger and tougher, Though). This is why you don't see pugs in the ring fighting giant, Fearsome dogs. Dog fighting dogs are bred, Not crafted. There's also the fact that dog fighting can be fatal, Even for the winning dog. Dogs can be seriously injured or even killed, And I'm sure we can all agree that even a slightly injured dog will have trouble fighting off someone that's a threat to their owner. As I said, Dog fighting dogs are bred. It wouldn't be at all necessary to risk your dog's health fighting if it was bred to be deadly in the first place. If anything, You're wasting a potentially great defense dog by letting it fight and get hurt by just as dangerous animals.
Free Will

I will attempt to argue against the idea of free will. Free will is a crucial component to many ideologies, religions and beliefs. I am not suggesting people cannot be responsible or that certain things in the universe are not chaotic in nature. There is a BIG difference between saying something is uncaused versus it is caused by this thing that is a will and that the will we are speaking of is free. I am not suggesting that certain actions are not more autonomous (caused more by factors within the body) than not (coercion or forced action) First I will try and suggest that a will itself, as something separate and independent of the physical world yet is able to stimulate the physical word 'magically' (hey if it isn't science based and not God caused why not call it what it is = supernatural or magic (magic is shorter) ) is absurd. To suggest a will controls my body's action one has to be ready to answer the following questions: What part of my body (or what part of my brain?) is the will attached? How does it know which body to attach itself? How does it know which actions, desires, thoughts, behaviors cells, molecules, atoms, etc. to control? Can we gain and lose it? (if so how?) How does this not fall victim to occham's razor? Or argumentum ad absurdum? How do the wills keep from sharing a body or having a body without a will? Then the idea of a "free" anything has to avoid just being considered "magical." This "thing" that exists is exempt from all other rules of the universe. How can one know that this thing (which is undetectable) is exempt from the rules of the universe other than we hope what we see (people's actions and my actions) are uncaused therefore a product of free will? Since then the burden of proof lies on a the person suggesting a new or extra entity exists, and there are a great deal of absurd consequences to accept if a person adopts the position of free will, I'm going to go and say it doesn't exist. But then again I am wrong about a lot of stuff and you only get better by being proved wrong so thank you for anyone willing to teach me some things on this topic
The Earth Isn't Flat

I wish to extend my gratitude to Trey383 for his timely response. First of all, I believe I should dispel a misconception that Trey383 seems to have about my position in this debate. He implies that I don't adhere to "Globe Earth Theory," and proceeds to label me as a "flat-Earther." If I am understanding him correctly, he thinks I believe the Earth is not round. This is not the case. But in fact, the shape of the Earth is entirely irrelevant to the present debate. As I established in Round 1, we are debating whether or not the physical plane of existence is characterized by animation and vigor. The fact that the Earth is round has no bearing on this, and I humbly request that Trey383 either justify bringing up this non-sequitur and connect it to the debate, or drop the matter entirely and address the issue at hand. At Trey383's request, I will now attempt to re-summarize my argument as it stands in the hope of a successful clarification. My argument proceeds thusly: 1. Trey383 asserts that the physical plane of existence is characterized by animation and vigor. 2. I have demonstrated it to be true that the vast majority of the physical plane contains only inert nothingness. 3. Because most of the physical plane is nothingness, it is not accurate to claim it is characterized by animation and vigor. I invite Trey383 at this time to put forward a counterargument and justify his claim regarding the nature of the physical universe.
The Earth Isn't Flat

Damn, that is a depressing viewpoint saying, from what I understand, the majority of the universe isn't "full of movement and activity" or "intensity of action or effect" which is true and I agree to which is pointless to argue against since less than 0.1% of the universe is actually occupied by "celestial bodies" But you're assuming I don't agree with that. I don't understand where you are going with this, so please continue your argument. (The facts in your 3 paragraphs are of the Globe Earth theory stating the Earth, the sun and the moon are farther away than believed in the flat earth theory, please explain your stance on those facts as well. Do you, as a flat-Earther believe that the sun and the moon are actually that far away) please excuse the grammar and typing errors it's past midnite here
The Ethics of Star Trek: The Temporal Prime Directive

Okay, so, let's raise two points in response to Pro: 1. Chakotay and Kim violated their responsibility to Starfleet. When they joined Starfleet, they were aware their actions may lead to the deaths of crewmates, but by joining Starfleet and/or by agreeing to operate under its rules, they agreed to obey Starfleet rules and precepts even if those standards led to undesirable consequences. 2. By altering the timeline, they may have led to more net harms. We don't know which iteration of the timeline would be better, which is why we don't mess with the timeline. But, by saving the crew, they may have altered the timeline such that others died. Given that there is a significant risk, they should not have risked tampering with it.
The Ethics of Star Trek: The Temporal Prime Directive

Pro did not post first, contrary to the rules. Vice any penalty, I would ask that he be allowed to post his arguments next round. We will be following this altered structure for the debate:StructureR2. Pro's Constructive CaseR3. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesI welcome my opponent to the site, and I wish him/her luck!
The Ethics of Star Trek: The Temporal Prime Directive

PrefaceI will be doing a 12-debate series on the "Ethics of Star Trek." I will consider the AI debate I did with Wylted as the first installment of this series. While I know that Star Trek topics may seems like "fluff" or frivolous topics, I think that they actually have a lot of deep, philosophical issues at their heart that deserve exploration. I certainly think that the AI debate revolved around an issue that had gravitas.My hope for this debate and for this series is that I will be able to have some fun delving into my inner nerd and my inner trekkie, while still having some lively and informative discussions. In this debate, particularly, I hope to explore the ethical validity of the temporal prime directive through a specific example. On a side note, you must have completed at least one debate before you can accept this challenge.Full TopicThe actions Ensign Kim and Cmdr. Chakotay took to save the Voyager Crew were ethical, despite violating the Temporal Prime Directive.TermsEthical - conforming to accepted standards of moral conductTemporal Prime Directive - the directive set out by Star Fleet that the timeline must be maintained, and efforts at altering the timeline are prohibited [1]ContextThe resolution refers to events chronicled in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Timeless." After a failed attempt to return to Earth from a distant part of the Galaxy, the whole crew of Voyager dies, except from Ensign Kim and Cmdr. Chakotay, who successfully return to Earth. Years later, they attempt to alter the timeline by sending signals back in time, warning the Voyager crew of the impending danger. [2]Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. Pro accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Pro must post their case in Round One8. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and CrystallizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes, Pro waivesThanks......to whomever accepts. I look forward to a great (and nerdy) debate![1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...[2] http://en.memory-alpha.org...(episode)
Farts are amazing. Chanceh my mind

Hu the acronym or someone from North Western China? I would have thought that at 108 years of age you were to old to be hooking up. But hey! You go for it old timer. Your place or mine? But keep the farting to a minimum. It's a real passion killer. And I'm sure that the Chinese are just as flatulent as you and the Queen of England. Tonight my husband and I will be mostly breaking wind. It's all the grouse and sprouts you know.
Gamers who squiz up clues on queue are cheaters!

After all the developers put these bloody challenges in the game to extend your playing time not for you to speed scapa through it. Looking up clues is cheating. Spending 50 quid on a game should be reason enough not to cheat on games. By looking up things you are being a wanker who says that he will rather cheat than figure out the solutions on yer own, And this brings me to your final point, Doing things yer self is way better than having a walkthrough, So why bother looking up walkthroughs in the first place and cheating if you could solve it yer self? The gamer who looks up clues because they are impatient and have their knickers in a bunch or have ADHD and can't invest an extra hour to figure it out on yer own is a bloody cheater and a wally!
Gamers who squiz up clues on queue are cheaters!

Video gamers who squiz up clues on-line are bloody wankers and wallies. Guessing people find hints online for a quest. Some quests can be difficult to complete or does not provide enough information to get it done yourself. Maybe the directions are bad or it is a treasure hunt that requires a long time to find clues instead I would rather find where the treasure is rather then spend my time finding rocks that look different. Why waste 50 quid on a video game, When a walkthrough, Bloody doesn't cost yer nothing, If you are going to just cheat and look up clues anyways. There is a difference between watching a video game and playing it. By playing it yourself you can decide how long or quick you want to aknowledge what is going on. If you watch a walkthrough most likely they will gloss over items that you may find interesting. Just get yer self a walkthrough, Read it all and save yer self wedge. The feeling of doing something yourself is better then finding a walkthrough to help you.
Gamers who squiz up clues on queue are cheaters!

Video gamers who squiz up clues on-line are bloody wankers and wallies. Why waste 50 quid on a video game, When a walkthrough, Bloody doesn't cost yer nothing, If you are going to just cheat and look up clues anyways. Just get yer self a walkthrough, Read it all and save yer self wedge. Bloody bullocks
I'm drunk, should I be arrested? Oh, I'm 19

The contention is flawed horribly, as detail varies the response to the issue.If my opponent was/is publically intoxicated in Victoria, Australia, then the Summary Offences Act 1966[1] says he should be. Also, in the UK, if you are drunk in a public place, the 1872 liqour acct[2] states he should also be arrested. On top of this, I have reasonable suspicion that, while drunk, my opponent was committing the act of trolling, which is punishable with the banhammer if a first offence, or being laughed at in a public place, if trolling from said person is residential.Also, the contention that he is instead "awesome" is mutually inclusive; he could be sober and still not awesome (being drunk and awesome from this guy is just... no, he isn't awesome). Also, stealing my image is fraud, and punishable by me calling you a phoney! A BIG FAT PHONY!http://www.youtube.com...http://www.austlii.edu.au... http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk...