BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

We shall now summarize. When you stated, "In other words, any given composition would be more easily playable by a skilled violinist than by an equally skilled thereminist," I disagreed, because you cannot compare the skill level between a violinist or a therminist, for they are very different instruments. And I do not think thee will be a lot of hard music for the theremin, for it is not capable of playing most music, due to it's short note range and variable playing styles. While on the violin, there is always room to experiment, to play harder music. I think the violin's complexity is it's weakness, and the theremin's incomplexity and broad range of creativity and style is it's weakness. I certainly do agree that the theremin is hard, but the violin is harder. There is harder music for it. There is more varying styles and notes for it. There is ability to be very musical and creative, and very stale and plain. Both are required at times. There is need to play notes at high ranges and high speeds. 2, 3, 4, notes at a time. Trills, mordents, ornaments, very technical stuff. Pianissimmo or loud as hell sound. Plucking the strings, tapping the violin, tuning the violin with your bare years, when you cannot get a tuner, or have no need for one. To play the violin, you'll need to get a violin right? Well violins aren'tcheap, and once you get really good, and need a big upgrade, violins cost way more than theremins. All in all, the theremin is hard. But, the violin is harder. Thanks to my debator for providing a good debate, and please vote pro! Thanks
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

Perhaps it's because the theremin is a newer invention than the violin that the violin has more techniques and playing styles, but I think in time people will write music that takes full advantage of the theremin's capabilities. That being said, the theremin does allow for varied playing techniques, including vibrato or even staccato, which is incredibly difficult due to the way the duration of notes is controlled. Furthermore, musicians such as Clara Rockmore and Carolina Eyck have demonstrated a great deal of artistry and skill on the theremin. I think the theremin and violin are comparable, both being best suited for melodic notes. Theoretically, any melody playable on the violin ought to be playable on the theremin, and in light of this, the fact that music written explicitly for the violin is more difficult seems to be evidence that the violin is an easier instrument to play. In other words, any given composition would be more easily playable by a skilled violinist than by an equally skilled thereminist.
Violin is the Hardest Instrument to Play and Learn

It does sound like na instrument that is hard to grasp, but just like the theremin, the violin requires coordination to, and often it's hard because we play up to speeds of 32nd notes. Also like i said, violin has different technique methods, many playing styles, and is generally very complex. While the thermin does sound like a very complex instrument, to me, it seems more like an electronic device, not an instrument. But that is not important. On the theremin, there doesn't seem to be a type of stroke, or way to play notes differently, except pitch wise. I do think the theremin is a very intresting, genius, and cool invention, but I think it is not as complex and diffucult to grasp as the technique and musicality required to play violin. Maybe it is because you do not play violin that you do not think it is the upmost difficult.
Challenge me

Ok, I see your argument. The government could easily tax prostitution, but people would try and find an underlying reason for it. The government is very hard to trust these days. People would not understand fast enough why it was being taxed and think it was corrupt. Of course plenty of politicians would use it in a corrupt way. Religious people would still get mad and Religion is something that must be handled delicately. People will be checked for diseases weekly or monthly? Sounds like a huge hassle doesn't it? Not to mention that there will be high prices on each check-up. So how does that boost the economy if we are paying medical bills every week or month? Also there are not cures for all S.T.D.s so in finding out someone has one, that will make them less desirable to sleep with. So that person will make less money and not be able to pay her taxes. There are also plenty of other sexual occupations such as a Dominatrix or Stripper. They may not always give a sexual release but it is still a good way to explore your sexual urges safely and still get plenty of satisfaction from the experience. Also neither of the are illegal so there is no risk of going to jail. So why legalize prostitution when there are plenty of other ways to control your sexual urges? I would like to add something that I wanted to put in round two Support: The people who support the legalization of prostitution are mostly perverts. There is nothing wrong with perversion, but pervy-ness can turn into sickness and that sickness can ruin peoples lives
Challenge me

I accept your challenge, Prostitution should stay illegal in the U.S. I'll start with this since I am new to the site and don't know how to begin these. Disease: It's an elementary topic I know, but please think about it. Over 12 million people in the U.S. a year get an S.T.D.. Imagine if Prostitution were legal. The number would certainly go up. Of course many of those S.T.D.s already come from prostitution, but if it was legal the spineless blue-balls nerds would all hire prostitutes and then most likely get a disease. Of course you may practice safe sex, but that is never 100 percent and most people would not be willing to make the sacrifice of making sex feel less good if they are having intercourse with a prostitute they don't even know. Then of course when the man gets a disease, he will find it harder to find a mate and have children. Which means he will only sleep with more prostitutes and have even more diseases. I think that is a good argument. Next topic. Public Reaction: If prostitution is made legal the Christian society will surely cause an uproar on society. They will be very mad (or at least pretend to be mad since most Christians do not follow their beliefs and judge others) and go on strike. Now of course we can handle it, but why should we even allow it to happen in the first place? Christians aren't the only ones who will react negatively. People who are not that smart will immediately cause an uproar without thinking twice about it. It is just something that we should not mess with, if a bad reaction starts it will be very hard to resolve so why start the mess in the first place. Women: Most women will be appalled that prostitution is legal because they will say it exploits them in a negative way. Then one will over react and say it infringes on their rights which we both know is not true. It does not matter though because they will start preaching that women have no rights even when they have plenty. I know it sounds like I'm getting off topic here so I will leave it at that. Anyway to save Americans from getting diseases and from pointless uproars by women and religious societies, prostitution should stay illegal.
Challenge me

The resolution we shall be using will be is the following: "Prostitution should be legalised in the United States of America". I will be Pro on this topic. Seeing as my opponent has not yet posted an argument I too will reserve mine until the second round, but I will use this round to establish some definitions. I suggest my reserving the third round for rebuttal. I reserve the right to use my previous opening argument from other debates. == Definitions == Prostitution - The act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money. [1] Money - A commodity or asset, such as gold, an officially issued currency, coin, or paper note, that can be legally exchanged for something equivalent, such as goods or services. [2] Legalised - To make legal [3] [1] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] = . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] = . http://dictionary.reference.com...
US Citizens Should Be Required To Carry Guns Vs US Citizens Should Not Be Allowed Guns

I will be arguing that law abiding citizens should be REQUIRED to carry guns on them in public and would make the United States safer against gun related crimes. My opponent will be arguing that law abiding citizens should not be allowed to carry guns at all, that guns should be illegal for law abiding citizens to have in the United States, and that making guns illegal for law abiding citizens in the United States will make the US safer. I believe that if law abiding US citizens were required to have guns on them in public, the crime rate in the US would go down but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In order for my opponent to win, I have to be convinced that making guns illegal for law abiding United States citizens would make the United States safer instead of my way of thinking and I have to tell my opponent that I'm convinced in the final round. I'm going to be honest on whether or not my opponent convinced me as well as I sincerely want to see my opponent's perspective. My opponent will also have the burden of proof and will have to refute my points as well as make points of their own. I will start: 1) Some criminals are not likely to give up their guns just because it's illegal. 2) Some criminals can get guns from the black market. 3) Switzerland's crime rate is lower compared to the United States. There are more law abiding citizens in Switzerland who carry guns compared to law abiding citizens in the United States that carry guns. Sources: http://www.nationmaster.com... http://www.nationalreview.com... https://nypost.com... http://www.politifact.com...
Women are treated the same as men

My gynecologist wants to know what on Earth you are talking about. The pro teams are not going to let any fifteen-year-old play anyway. Olympics does it depend on the sport? Skating pairs will be a whole lot different. There will be mixed and unmixed or else just unmixed and nobody wants that. Next they will want skating triplets etc. Gymnastics will let everyone compete on everything. Men on the balance beam and uneven bars and women on the rings, horse and parallel bars. Not just if they want to. They have to. All the records will be held by men except horse hockey. The men's synchronized swimming and ribbon dancing will be especially entertaining. But women's wrestling and weight lifting will still be the most popular.
Women are treated the same as men

Well we can't change the whole world so let's stat with DDO. Do women participate proportionately, being about one-third of the total membership? Why are women one-third of the total membership? It appears to me that, and correct me if I am wrong, that the cause of women participating or not participating in debates on debate.org, at least with the admittedly sleazy crowd I hang around with, is not due to their being or not being treated the same as men, and if I am not wrong then to what is it due?
Capitalism is Superior to Socialism

EQUITY IS INIQUITY Just as the Supreme Court is allowed to go beyond Guilty and Innocent and question the validity of the law in question itself, I challenge the common assumption that Socialism is any kind of alternative to Capitalism. Both amount to absentee ownership, just like feudal landlords hand. If you own a man's work, you own that man, whether you be the government or a stockholder. So this loaded question should be disarmed by proposing equal ownership by all employees and no one else, with unequal salaries. Finance will be by bank loans, not equity. Knowing that their dividends depend on getting the best people in the most important positions, employee-owners will not vote for too high salaries for their own little group. Socialism is a fraud; it has always been a way for the sons of Capitalists to take over democratic movements and turn them into oligarchic tyranny. So from that perspective, Capitalism is better, just like being chronically sick is better than having a fatal disease. Besides sole ownership by employees, inheritance and all other birth privileges must be abolished, since that is the source of the misleading and dishonest alternative of Socialism.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Finally!! Apologies to you for implying any insult. It was meant to get a real response from you, and it seems to have worked, no less! Glad to see you're taking the issue seriously enough to go back and review the debate. You're still short though, look some more. To address your comment on "whiny, victim, opinions and experience.." - Well I understand you want to trade insults, fair enough, however since when has anybody lost the right to express opinion and relate experience.? These are not baseless and are reflections of government attitude. How is it baseless to express personal experience of the result of this attitude? The facts remain, for which you are yet to give rebuttal, in my previous rounds. As far as your concern for "others" who may think of you as amateur in the way you hold council, let me relieve you of the worry. I am not concerned with the insults, as a smoker you grow immune to all the insults, there are lots. It hardens you. With you it's just you and me having a debate. I don't expect people to make a difference to it, but if somebody reads this and decides to think more about it, then my job is done. Now the other thing, your "facts". I imagine you are fielding them from somewhere (Please don't tell me WHO), however if I was to waste my time pasting links, you would find quite a different result, depending on the source. I also have firefighter mates who all say the same thing, old electric wiring, HV, and lightening are the biggest cause. The guys out here say campers are the worst. (Maybe they were smokers...)How do the authorities get these figures you're giving me? They count the butts after a fire, must be. When I said I refuse to quit on the basis of the government strong-arming; well it is tantamount to a hunger-strike in prison when you do not agree with the decision handed down on moral grounds. Right or wrong, it's all about right or wrong. I'm sure you'd argue that that's a war situation and doesn't apply, but..cigarettes are free in the armed forces, mate. As far as growing tobacco!!? You must be clueless, the government spends more on arial surveillance for tobacco than for weed. The penalty is actually worse! If we start comparing prices for tobacco and weed, we will come to understand why this carry-on is ludicrous. Which brings us back to taxes. "Please check your attitude. This debate is not an attack on you or your habit, its an exploration into the nature of the tax presented to the public to vote on." Quote. The nature of the tax? Please elaborate. And while you're at it please explain how the public can vote on this...it's either an election issue or a tax cow, surely. I really don't think it's the former...
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

I've summarized the information in my arguments but also provided the links for others to check for themselves just in case they suspect I'm spouting baseless contradictory statements like some sort of amateur. For someone who wanted a serious debate, you might want to stop acting the part of some whiny victim. Many of your arguments and rebuttals so far are based solely on your opinions and experiences, which, hold no weight as they lack any substance. Put a little more effort into your arguments, good sir. And just so you know lightning accounts for less than 10% of wildfires. The other 90% are caused by people, which includes cigarettes. You can't dismiss this. You can try to minimize the contribution of smokers to the billions of dollars of damages but the fact remains that smokers contribute. Just because you're irate over having to pay more than your living costs for cigarettes isn't an excuse to act like a child by resorting to insults either. I am not an idiot. And your comment that smokers don't insist on smoking. You are your own rebuttal. To quote you, "I refuse to quit. Even if government were thoughtful enough to offer rehab, I will refuse. Because what they have done is bullying, whether smokers are right or wrong, Big Brother is putting the boot in and getting paid. It's not for me thanks. I will quit on my own terms, when I'm ready and when I know it's final." You refuse to quit and suggest you can do it when you are good and ready. I wouldn't consider it a stretch to conclude there are others out there just like you; able to quit when they are ready, but refuse out of some misplaced sense of pride. You say the cost is too high and there's nothing you can do. Have you tried growing your own tobacco to alleviate the cost? It is legal in many states and those who do it report that the cost is very minimal. Pennies to the dollar. Maybe the cigarette tax is more like a lazy simpleton tax. Please check your attitude. This debate is not an attack on you or your habit, its an exploration into the nature of the tax presented to the public to vote on.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

This is the same old argument which is why I've thrown down the gauntlet on it. I was hoping for somebody to spar with that doesn't keep pasting links as a form of debate. You have not addressed any of my issues and you're wasting my time. It's also easy to blame smokers for fires, and blah blah, do more research on it and you'll find that Ergon and lightening are way ahead of your "facts". Let's not forget bush campers out from the city. They are completely clueless when it comes to killing a campfire properly. It's a tax grab,period! Smokers don't insist on smoking, you idiot. Why, at this price?!! They are addicted to one of the most evil handcuffs in all the world of drugs. The only offer of help with it in this society is an expensive regime of patches, o so many variations, none of which work. If they did, all smokers would be quit by now. It takes about a month, cold turkey. To be sure you're clear enough not to be tempted back on it, and that can happen on any bad day at work! It needs a rehab, lock up situation same as cocaine or any other nasty on the market. This is what needs to happen. Don't bother replying if you're just going to continue with pasting.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Another issue not to be overlooked is the damage to property and the environment caused by smoking. Forest fires caused by discarded cigarettes can cost billions of dollars annually. https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu... Where does the money come from to combat these fires? Not from the individual smoker, so it makes sense to hoist taxes on the product responsible for such destruction. Cigarettes are also responsible for 20% of all fire deaths. Who should pay the bills to fight these fires and risk the lives of firefighters to save people from the fires created by careless smokers? Just a tax grab? No those taxes contribute to fixing a variety of messes caused by the people who insist on smoking cigarettes.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Well so much for this debate, I was expecting more than the usual half competent "You smoke so you wear it" response. I suppose it's so much easier to quote generic numbers and paste links. WHO (don't get me started on them) obviously have all the answers in Gospel and should be taken seriously. I'm sure they'd have a lot more fuzzy facts about all kinds of substance abuse, including alcohol, many of which are illegal but still readily available to any member of our 'clean-as-a-whistle' public. These are not taxed to the hilt and yet cause a lot more damage to the health system AND economy (seems this is important to the problem) than smoking ever did. I'm not even going to go into the social effects of alcohol abuse, which is legal. I'm not here to swap fuzzy numbers with you. I would like for a doctor to step forward and tell me honestly that he/she has ever signed off a death certificate stating second hand smoke was the exact cause of death. Most evidence has shown that it has never been the single cause of a death. At the most it would have been a complication in an existing terminal disease. (Which was obviously caused by 2nd hand smoke...) As far as health care costs go, you can be sure there is no loss in it. Any business, insurer or provider, is in it for a profit. If there was no profit to be made, there would be no interest. Premiums for a smoker aren't there to make them quit. Neither are taxes and I resent that you actually expect me or anybody to believe that hype. This behavior by the government is no less than a tax grab, in any other business form it would be labelled extortion and taken to task. The primary reason given by the government was to make smoking less or even plain unaffordable, and to pay for all the associated costs of negative advertising - yet selling,buying and using tobacco is still legal. Why? Simple. There is no tax on illegal goods.
Smoking law-it's just a tax grab

Your argument is irrelevant because the taxes you pay aren"t for your healthcare. If anything they exist to cover expenses and damages incurred to others because smoking Doesn"t only affect the smoker. According a report by WHO at http://www.who.int... Tobacco kills more than 7 million people a year. More than 6 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 890 000 are the result of non- smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Is your health care plan covering ALL those that Who might be affected by your decision to smoke? NO. We think we need to pay taxes on tobacco. Because there are so many bad effects caused by smoking. Here are some examples. WHO"s report: http://www.who.int... killing more than 7 million people a year. More than 6 million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while around 890 000 are the result of non- smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Tobacco users who die prematurely deprive their families of income, raise the cost of health care and hinder economic development. This is the major problem of cigarettes, and there are many others There are many ways to solve the problems caused by smoking paying taxes on cigarette is a pretty good way to potentially fund these solutions. Furthermore, If the government puts high taxes on cigarettes, This could discourage people from smoking and lessen the amount of smokers This will lead to fewer second-hand smokers, and less health problems will be caused.