BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Beatles are still the best musically in the world.

Thank you kind Sir I would like to react first to your comment that "Musically most of there stuff was eight chords played like pop music." People try to convince me all the time that the music of the Beatles is simple which is simply not true. They were ground-breaking pioneers almost from the beginning, being the first group ever to employ feedback in 1964′s "I Feel Fine." One of their first hits, "A Hard Day"s Night," features an opening chord so revolutionary that people are still trying to figure out. While there are countless contemporary composers capable of music vastly more sophisticated in form and technique, few if any are capable of displaying feeling and fantasy so direct, spontaneous, and original. Talent doesn't necessary mean technical bravado. By the way Paul McCartney is the most revolutionary bass player ever, he was the first to use the bass to create actual melodies that accomplish the song itself, which influenced every bass player living today. The Beatles recorded four of the Top 10 Greatest Albums of All Time, according to Rolling Stone magazine, and three of the Top Five. Their ability to cross over from media and teen idols to musical innovators is one-of-a-kind, their place in popular culture is unrivaled. They were the first to perform, write their own songs, as a result, they helped usher the singer-songwriter movement that popularized the late 1960s. They literally forced other bands to write their own music. They created pop music. They didn"t embellish it or make it better " they created it. It started heavy with Rubber Soul and Revolver and songs like "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Penny Lane", "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" were the fruition and evolution of a new style of music. They were the trigger of a revolution that became pop culture. They created the album concept. Pink Floyd would not even exist if it wasn't for that album how could you even bring them up as bigger influence on music?? Sgt. Pepper was the first gatefold cover LP and the first time an album utilized all of the non-hits as part of the story. Everyone else had filler " the Beatles had albums. Sex pistols were a manufactured group. They were put together by managers. It was a product. Punk was anticipated by pop culture and sold to the masses. On the other hand, no hero in rock or pop culture has ever replaced John Lennon. He pushed the press and the government in directions like never before. Their time shaped The Beatles and they shaped their time. By bringing issues to the people's awareness they changed the meaning of celebrity forever. I better stop now to give you a chance to reply.
The Beatles are still the best musically in the world.

1st off good luck to my opponent The Beatles are still the best musically in the worlds that is not the clearest so I'm going to debate weather or not they are the most influential band in the world or the most talented which I believe neither. 1st the Beatles had sort of a Justin Bieber effect on the sixties some of there music was and is pretty good but they were fondled over by girls which boosted them to the stardom that have. Musically most of there stuff was eight chords played like pop music. If you asked 1000 musicians who there top 10 guitarists, bassists, songwriters, and drummers were I guarantee you the only top ten they might sometimes occupy is songwriter because how catchy there lyrics were but far from the best. To find the best influence on music and culture how bout the king of rock n roll Elvis, or the king of pop Micheal Jackson or the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Zeppelin, not only are these as if not more influential every one is better musicianly, what about Hendrix also, the clash and the sex pistols they led rebellions not 14 year old girls back in the 60s. This is all I can say for now until you make the argument more specific and then I can get into more detail. Rock n Roll
Resolved: Nazism is not a far-left ideology

I would just like to justify your victory of this argument. You stated that you win by proving Naziism is far-right, and I win by proving it is far-left. However, you stated that even if I prove it is left, as long as it is not far-left I lose. I think this is unfair that even if you don't prove that it is far-right you still have a higher chance of winning by default Even if I make an argument that Naziism is more left than right, you will still win by default because it would not be far-left. This argument is highly biased and leaned towards your victory. To start off with the social aspect of the ideology. As the general population knows, National Socialism involves the promoting of racial eugenics, and antisemitism. Racial eugenics isn't assigned to a specific part of the spectrum. It can be easily argued that it is politically right because it is demoting other races of humans, such as the Jews. This is could be argued to be a traditionalist ideology, which is right, but it is left because it is promoting social change. This aspect is more for social change rather than tradition leading me to believe this was a far-left quality of the party, since it was quite extreme. As for economics go, the economic policy of Naziism is based off of Fascism, but fascism was declared Syncretic by the Doctrine of Fascism. "Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views" - (Doctrine of Fascism)(1). The Nazi Party and Nazism were presented by Hitler and other proponents as being neither left-wing nor right-wing but Syncretic" - (Adolf Hitler, paraphrased quotation). The Nazi policy was that the economy was almost completely controlled by the state, which is very left. However, these means of production that were controlled by the state were privately owned. This combines far-left economics with right-wing economics. However, it was explicitly stated(1) in the Doctrine of Fascism that it is Syncretic, meaning it does not fit onto the left or right end of the political spectrum. To conclude my argument, the social policy of the Naziism is far-left because it promotes strong social change by promoting racial eugenics and promoting racial supremacy. The Nazi economic policy is neither left, nor right, but Synretic. It does not fall left or right due to combinations of left and right economics aspects.
Resolved: Nazism is not a far-left ideology

In order to win this round, the Con must prove that Nazism is far-left based on two factors: economic factors and social factors. If the Con fails to fulfill this burden, default Pro. In addition, I only need to disprove one out of the two in order to win the round. If Nazism turns out to be anywhere on the scale from leftist (but not far-left) to far-right, I win the round. The conservative voting block, which consists of the following individuals, may not vote on this debate. Any voting by these individuals will be considered a votebomb.1. 16kadams2. OberHerr3. LordKnukle4. jimtimmyOf course, any one of these individuals is free to accept the debate, but by doing so he agrees that none of his friends may vote on the debate. No new arguments may be presented in the final round; if they are, then the side that presents them automatically loses all seven points. By accepting the debate, Con accepts all of these terms and conditions. Good luck.
US/Mexican Boarder must be closed

First, Let me tell you that both of my parents came here illegally and are now citizens of the United States of America, so I have first hand experience with this topic. Both of my parents work for the state. my mom has a college education. Let me reassure you, the USA border is very secure. 81 percent of the U.S.-Mexico border meets one of the top three levels of "operational control" by U.S. enforcement officials. Illegals come here for a better life. Facing death just to get a better life. They face so many difficulties coming here. You cannot imagine the conditions these people live in. Its sad. Most are uneducated and have very little money. Is it so bad wanting to live in better circumstances? Where do you get your fruits and vegetables, most likely from the store. But how do they get from the fields to the store? Do you think they magically appear in the store? Most field labor is done by immigrants. In fact, most of all manual labor is done by illegal immigrants. $2.6 trillion"The amount of money that would evaporate from U.S. cumulative GDP over 10 years if all undocumented immigrants in the country were deported or "self-deport. http://www.americanprogress.org...
US/Mexican Boarder must be closed

The United States/Mexican boarder needs to be more secure. For the entire country of the United States, almost a third of our population are illegal immigrants. About 66% of all those immigrants are from mexico. The average american family actually funds these illegal immigrants. The state of California pays over 21 BILLION dollars (taxpayer money) to support these families. I really think that we need to start cracking down of these immigrants.
to ban smoking in all public places

While yes, the closure of pubs is unfortunate, it would be wrong not to look at the big picture. In the United States, we have had a public smoking ban in place for a long time, and since then, the incidence of cancer has gone down significantly, both with smokers and non-smokers. This is because less of the general public is inhaling the dangerous secondhand smoke. So yes, it may be an unfair consequence to the numerous pubs in England, but that shouldn't mean we let the general populace suffer for it. Secondhand smoke kills, burdens the health system, and hurts those who do not smoke.
to ban smoking in all public places

If smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs, they will not spend as much time in them, preferring to stay at home where they can smoke with their friends. This will put many pubs out of business. In fact, since the smoking ban was introduced in the UK, many pubs have closed and blamed their loss of business on the smoking ban1. The Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign estimates that the smoking ban in the UK is responsible for 20 pub closures a week2. This is an unfair consequence for the many pub-owners across the world.
to ban smoking in all public places

With that said, let us continue. Yes, smokers have a right too enjoy themselves, but no at the expense of others. Firstly, secondhand smoke is a killer, according to United States Surgeon general, 2.5 million non-smokers died from smoking related diseases in the United States alone, a staggering number. Now, i am not for the complete and utter ban of the practice of smoking altogether, but i am for the ban of smoking in public, as it puts non-smokers in harms way. We don't need any more studies or tests. The general consensus in the medical community is that smoking kills, and second hand smoke is almost as deadly. Now, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the WHO (World Health Organization) have both declared second hand smoke as a known carcinogen already, and in most developed nations, the consensus is already there. Smoking is bad, secondhand smoke is also bad. . http://www.cancer.org... Now on to my next point. Yes, a ban would be difficult to enforce, but I believe it is better to put these systems in place, and try to enforce them, rather than just giving up on the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, that we were to remove a ban on murder, because it still happens despite being illegal, therefore enforcement is pointless, besides killers have the right to enjoy themselves as well. Naturally this would be met by public outcry, and rage. But secondhand smoke is also a killer, and to longer we allow for such dangerous substances in the public, the longer we are condoning the murder of all of those killed by the smoke of smokers. So back to the point, how do we enforce a ban? By making illegal the action. Place fines and jail sentences to found the police, and get the people involved in an anti-smoking campaign. Difficulty while an obstacle, is not all powerful and can be overcomed.
Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior.

Which studies are you referring to? Unfortunately I can't refute them all that well except to ask if these studies also took into account a person's 1) Home life- are the children who turn out violent from a wide variety of backgrounds or are they from predominately poor backgrounds/abusive homes? 2) School life- are the children who turn out violent from a wide variety of school 'niches' or do they tend to be loners (and not by choice)? 3) Psychological problems- are the children who turn out violent/more violent suffering from issues like mild schizophrenia, anger management, social issues, etc?
Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior.

Numerous studies have been done and it has been found that after playing violent video games, listening to violent music and watching violent movies the children involved have become more violent. The books may be the tools they used to find ideas on how to release their violent instincts. (I personally feel books do not do so) Also, you argued that violent people are attracted to violent forms of entertainment. There was a study on this and it was found that the most violent were worst affected by the violent entertainment. This means that the violent become even more violent. So you are right that the violent people are attracted to the violent forms of entertainment but this means they still become more violent.
Violent videogames/movies/books/music do not lead to violent behavior.

Everytime there is a tragedy like a school shooting, everyone looks for the reasons. For example, Columbine or Virginia Tech--a lot of blame was put on the violent media that these kids tended toward as a source for their anger. I believe that violent media is not a source. I think people gravitate towards a certain type of media. If you are a sociopath, you are probably more likely to enjoy hardcore violent action flicks than a romantic comedy. As an analogy: I am a liberal mostly, so when I hear Rush Limbaugh talking, I turn off the radio or change the station. The only reason I would keep it on is to make fun of him or refute him. A person who has it in them to go out and shoot up a mall probably enjoys games where you shoot people, but that does not mean that the video game makes people go out and shoot people or even believe that is right. I think instead, the violent behavior is developed by the situation in which a person' grew up (family life and how those at school treat them) as well as how the media glorifies killers. I do not know the names of the Columbine or Virginia Tech or Nebraska mall victims, etc, but I do know the killers name. Cho Seung Hui sent videos to CNN about how he was a martyr, Robert Hawkins said he would be a celebrity-- and its true. We focus so much on the killers and so little on the victims (except in numbers) that someone who had a rough childhood, has violent tendencies and craves attention is much more likely to go out and kill a bunch of people than a kid with a stable family and school life who plays video games and loud music.
Roadkill is better than Tractors.

Whats swell time meanOk roadkill manIf you are so confident on this subject then why is it that after a day the roadkill has vanishedIs it because the tractors scoop scoopes it up ........... doing your dirty work are weTractors are better Because they can not become roadkill because thry where not living In the first placeThankyouThanyou very much
Roadkill is better than Tractors.

Rubbish? You mean like tractors when compared to roadkill? CHECKMATE SLAM DUNK. Roadkill is good because even a man with nothing can get it. Just slip it off the road and you're in for the time of your life. The bad thing about country folk is that they're not city folk and they don't wait 9 hours for the latest iPhone. Who would be driving the vehicle? When there is only one thing left alive, the driver would leave the vehicle running and then jump in front of it and then become roadkill. As I said, people don't want to continue living anymore now that they can see the swell time that roadkill has. Thank you.
Roadkill is better than Tractors.

What rubbishI have not heard so much rubbish in my life (14 years and a few days)Who wants to by road kill!What good does it do to the road I mean really the current roads are more of a grave yard!!!!What is so bad about country folk .......ME! Tractors are far superior because without them we would all die because their would not be rnough foodYou 'KingDebater"" may say that is a good thing so everyone can commit suicide via road kill .......but who would drive the vehicle
Roadkill is better than Tractors.

Roadkill is better because it teaches us that even when you're dead, you can still be good. Roadkill is like graffiti for the road, and graffiti is pretty. So, roadkill is pretty. So, tractors have no upsides because nobody wants to live anymore anyway. They all want to be roadkill and do something good for the road. Roadkill is also good because it means that a stupid animal has died, and we don't like stupid animals. Too stupid. Plus, at least roadkill doesn't have country folk germs on it, whereas tractor seats do. Thank you.
Humans Do Not Have "Free Will"

RESPONSE What Con has done in his rebuttal is present a straw man. Con states that I have presented my evidence as "scientific proof", which I have not done and do not plan to do. Con was likely referring to the evidence I used to back up my arguments. Evidence and proof are two vastly different things. Whereas proof implies that something is unequivocally true, evidence only serves to back something up. This means that evidence can exist that supports something and yet said thing can still turn out to be untrue. I was not, as Con appears to think, implying that my evidence proves my point of view, merely that it backs it up. Con also states that I am claiming I am "a master of the knowledge of humanity" despite that fact that I have done no such thing. I merely stated my credentials, which serves to show that I am not just throwing facts around; I have proper knowledge on the subject at hand. This argument of Con's is yet another straw man. Con also decides that the human brain is unable to be surpassed, which is simply a rubbish statement. I would encourage Con to do a little more research on this subject and I will link him to some easy to understand Wikipedia pages on the subject after I finish up my response. And now we reach the part where I must admit; I got a little ticked off. Con asserts that my arguments are comparable to those made by flat-earthers, whose ideas are those of insane conspiracy theorists. Con implies that I am somehow "replicating scientific proof" and that I am somehow below him. I take great offense to that statement. I have provided numerous pieces of evidence to support my position and I have presented my arguments in a logical, orderly fashion. I am saddened by Con's words and I hope that he will see reason. Finally, Con resorts to stating, and I quote, "I don't want to argue the obvious against those who can't see it. ". By stating this, Con is refusing to continue the debate and basically admitting defeat. One cannot state that the correct way of thinking is "obvious" when the topic is one of such great complexity. I was expecting great things from Con after I examined his past debates, so I am disappointed that he would end our debate in such a way.
Humans Do Not Have "Free Will"

Round #2 Rebuttal In Round #2, Pro states clearly in the opener that his views are extreme, and are founded in atheism. Con would agree at first glance, that Pro has correctly inferred that even the majority of atheists recognize their own ability to make decisions freely, and their actions therefore merit reward or retribution accordingly. This is an indirect admission that the convoluted process of explaining away rational, conscious behavior as being programmed and unavoidable is goal oriented. Pro again in the last round insists the comparison between the human mind and a computer are comparable. We all know intuitively this is not the case. Of course, the neuroscientist has a vested interest in discounting intuitive knowledge. It stands as a contradiction to the contrived equation of our thoughts and decision making to the process of information by inventions of man. Pro says Con underestimates the power of AI. Con would counter that Pro is simply undermining the power of the human intellect to further his field of endeavor. Being a neuroscientist in no way makes one a master of the knowledge of humanity. It is the height of presumption for man to believe he is capable of producing any object capable of matching or surpassing intelligent thought, joined to a living being. Anyone who can think freely and independently, as most do, is well aware of our freedom of decision making. You could ask someone to propose any course of action to you at random, and you could freely choose either in advance or prior to the course of action being proposed, assent to it or oppose it. The individual making the choice acts independent of the actor, and the actor acts independently of any ‘programming’ the atheist asserts he suffers. We can act against our own best interests; we can imagine what no programmer has put in our heads. We can do things no computer, now or in the future will do. I was under the impression I was engaging in a discussion about free will. I was not aware until after the instigator announced he is sandbagging and now proposes he is correct in his error as he is among the masters of knowledge of how thought works (or doesn’t work). I have worked in the real world. When you get outside the cubicle, you find some of the most intellectually vapid people are the pointy headed intellectuals. I thought I had the stomach for this debate. I do not. I really have no desire to engage in debate with someone who believes he can replicate scientific proof that we have no free will, that we make no choices. It’s just too preposterous for me. This is not the approach I thought Pro was taking. It’s just ridiculous. I can only compare it to debates I have seen proposing the earth is flat. I just can’t engage at that level. I don’t want to argue the obvious against those who can’t see it. Best of luck to Pro. My apologies for having taken this debate. http://www.medicaldaily.com...