BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

Just too let you know I am also a devout RHCP fan. Devout enough that I have listened to all their albums from their first all the way to the pathetic Stadium Arcadium. So where do you get off telling me I don't know John Frusciante. If you knew anything about Flea his best bass lines came without the help of John. But rather with greats like Hillel Slovak and Dave Navarro, maybe you should quit listening to this sold out crap that they sell. Yes sold out, the RHCP are over 25 years old and now they decide to raise ticket prices to over 200 dollars. They put their name on everything(that's selling out). This is completely off topic, so back to the debate. Your argument is that they are both great bassists, and then you say you're not going to debate on that. You decide to debate who is a fucking better actor???? This is bass playing my friend not Hollywood. I realize they both are good, but Claypool is better. Listen to the music, the technique. The one thing this debate has fallen away from is the fact about who is the better bassist. In all of Les's albums he varies his technique, style, way of playing, but throughout it all he still plays expert and top quality music. His style is like no other(that is why Primus is its own genre), his ability matches and tops Flea's. You say you cannot measure ability, but you can. Listen to the music. Out of context I'd like to comment on your quote: " Flea also was accepted at Julliard after high school for trumpet, but he DECLINED so he could pursue a career of sex drugs and punk/funk rock n roll. That shows that Flea is a complete musician, AND that he has confidence and courage in his life." There is no way that makes him a complete muscian. All that shows is how he cowarded away from the problems of real life. Drugs and sex isn't the way to go, declining to go to a great academy for music doesn't make you anyway more comeplete.
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

If we are debating on who is the best overall BASSIST then why bring up about Les Claypool not selling out? That's a music industry thing based upon how many fans go to your shows and how much they're willing to pay, etc etc. But since Flea and Les are both IMPOSSIBLE to compare with their bass playing (because gee, they're just too dam good!) then we HAVE to use these extra little nuances. Flea has NOT sold out. His band is simply more successful than Primus. But Primus and RHCP are two different music styles, so I'm not going to say that their bassist's skill is correlated to their band's success. Neither is the bassist's skill correlated to what bass he plays - that's like saying a painter's skill depends on what brush he uses. But if you have to know, Flea has a custom Modulus bass designed specifically for him. Which leads me to compatibility - Flea still has Les Claypool beat for who he plays with and compatibility. First of all, the RHCP drummer is CHAD fucking SMITH - this dude is nuts. Second of all, Flea has performed in NUMEROUS side projects - over 40 in all, ranging from Jane's Addiction to R.E.M to Alannis Morissette. The list is incredibly diverse and shows how compatible he is with other people. Flea also ACTS in movies. He was in the Big Lebowski. He was one of the germans who said: "Ja! Ve are gunna cut ofv your veiner!" He was in Back to the Future III as well and he is the voice of Donnie in the Wild Thornberries movies. This along with his numerous other musical skills on the trumpet and singing makes him more creative than Les Claypool. Flea also was accepted at Julliard after high school for trumpet, but he DECLINED so he could pursue a career of sex drugs and punk/funk rock n roll. That shows that Flea is a complete musician, AND that he has confidence and courage in his life. Oh, another thing, Larry LaLonde is NOT a better guitarist than John Frusciante. I have not heard all of Larry LaLonde just like you have not heard all of John Frusciante, but he is NOT better than John. And this is an argument for another debate!
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

I'm glad you answered the way you did. The fact that we are debating on is best overall BASSIST!!! I don't care if he can play the trumpet. You say that Claypool isn't lively, he is probably one of the funniest to watch on stage. He dances while playing. You also say the flea sings, Les is the lead singer of his band. Another point I forgot to mentioned is how Claypool never sold-out with any of his bands. He still tours to local venues and tickets are not riduculously priced. Claypool knows the average man and he is the pretty much the bassist for the working man, he proves that all you need is raw talent to perform the best. Also, if you are going to bring nicknames into this debate I might as well talk about Les's basses. He has an arsenal of basses including his most famous 4,5,6 string Rainbow Basses, his Fender Jazz Basses, and his double basses. If we are going to fight about with who he works with the Les still wins. If you played bass or knew anything about bass playing with a great guitarist isn't the most important thing(Larry LaLonde is also a better guitarist than Frusciante), but it's about the drummer you play with. Les has been able two lock in with multiple drummers in his various bands, all those drummers very skillful too. This shows how compatible Les is with other people. It still stands that Les is a greater bassist.
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

Good day challenger. You have offended my sensibilities with your outrageous decree and so I must rush to Flea's defense! Les Claypool and Flea are the best bassists of today, no doubt, but Flea is better than Les. I say it is impossible to rate the men based on their ability or technique, since both of them are perfect and god-like in performance: Flea: http://youtube.com... Les: http://youtube.com... It is impossible to judge them on musical originality too, because they are both something that the musical world has never seen before. You can't say that someone is not original because their riff sounds similar to someone else's because similar sounding riffs in different contexts makes completely different music. More vids to judge on originality: Flea: http://youtube.com... Les: http://youtube.com... They're both the idol for many young bassists, and they're both at the top of the game. So what makes Flea better than Leslie Edward Claypool? For one, Flea's real name is Michael Balzary - Flea is an awesome nickname! Flea can play the trumpet, he can sing, and he can jam out with the most insanely awesome guitarist around: John Frusciante! Trumpet: http://youtube.com... Singing: http://youtube.com... W/ John: http://youtube.com... Flea also is much more lively than Les Claypool on stage. He head-bangs, jumps, moves, ducks, dives, and dodges. http://youtube.com... Les Claypool just kinda stands there. Flea is also one of the funniest men alive: http://youtube.com... I don't know if Les Claypool is.
Overall Les Claypool is a better bassist the Flea.

Good day challenger. Remember that this is for overall best bassist. 1) First off, Les has proven to be a master of many techniques and has incorporated many into his songs. In "Jerry the Racecar Driver" two handed tapping creates one of the most prominent bass lines out of the 90s. Les has proven in many of his songs to be a slapping and popping machine. He even incorporates the rare style of flamenco strikes in "John the Fisherman" and "Too Many Puppies". Flea has used slapping and popping, but that seems to be his only weapon. 2) Originality, Les has time and time again to produce bass lines that are original. Flea in a recent instance has "stolen" a bass line from Jane's Addiction bassist Eric Avery. The song Readymade by RHCP cleary uses the bassline of Mountain Song, a song created almost 20 years previous. 3) Ability, Both men are great musicians, but Les is definently a better bassist. He has proven to play complex basslines and solos with ease. With either Primus, Frog Brigade, or Colonel Claypool's....Brains he has written music that is both original and complex. 4) Les was an innovater for modern bassists. Les is one of the first bassists since Geddy Lee to bring the instrument to the front of the band. Les's basslines provide a melody for the band rather than rythm, he is a fearless player. He even has the ability to sing and pump out groovy basslines. Les Claypool is the idol for many young bassists today and has redefined what the instrument is capable of.
Civil Unions

It is in no way hypocritical to be for Civil Unions and against Gay Marriage. You are making assumptions and accusations that are quite moronic. I am a Conservative because I believe in Economic Freedom and Social Justice. I have no idea why you tied religion into this so randomly. I am a Gay Christian, but supporting recognition for Homosexual couples doesn't mean I am going against my religion. You are approaching this debate as if Gay Rights is the main issue in every party or ideology, but that just isn't true. There are many many Conservatives who support Civil Unions like I do and there are even some who are for Gay Marriage. Stereotyping me as, "you homosexuals" is also quite alarming. You are only debating one Homosexual here and as far as I am concerned, you're getting beat by a homosexual. I have no such intentions of destroying the family or "forcing" any state to accept sodomy of any kind. States can do as they wish and I am quite sure I made that clear in my opening argument. I believe in the Traditional family and I believe it is a great environment to raise children and enhance a society or a community. Just because I want some sort of recognition for my own lifestyle and relationship does not mean I want to tear down everyone else's. Would you use that same argument in terms of slavery? Because African-Americans wanted the same rights as White people, do you also believe that their goal in the end was to destroy the rights of Whites? Your argument is quite absurd and your assumptions show that you have no case here. You cannot simply assume someone is a religion or belongs to a political party and then proceed to attack them based only on your vague assumptions. This is a debate on Civil Unions. It has nothing to do with if you think same sex couples are normal/natural or not. Not too long ago, interracial couples were deemed "unnatural" and quite frankly sir, the only one who needs help here is you. I rest my case and look forward to the voting period. Thank you for this debate. Next time, try to cut down on the personal attacks, especially when you have no knowledge of the individual you choose to attack.
Civil Unions

So a Gay Conservative for Civil Unions, but against Gay Marriage? You seem very hypocritical in your ways. I am assuming you're religious since you are a Conservative and therefore also gay. It seems as though you are supporting something that goes directly against your religion, ideology, and political parties views. You Homosexuals always say you don't want states to be forced to allow your sodomy, but in the long run, all you want to do is destroy the foundation of marriage and the family. I have not forgotten that homosexuals are people, I just believe they need help. It is not natural or normal to pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex and therefore, a couple who chooses to do this deserves no recognition under the law.
Civil Unions

As my opponent pointed out, yes I am a Gay Conservative. I do not have any problem however with Homosexuals (such as myself) receiving some government benefits. Civil Unions are exactly what the Homosexuals need. I do not agree with Gay Marriage because I personally believe Marriage is a sacred ceremony for One Man and One Woman. I do not understand my challengers accusation that I am somehow hypocritical because I believe Gay Couples deserve some recognition. My opponent seems to forget that Homosexuals are people too and they deserve some rights. Let me be clear, I do not believe states should ever be forced to allow Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, or Marriage. I just want every state to be able to decide for themselves what is best for them. I am okay with a state not allowing Civil Unions because that is their choice as an individual state, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with Civil Unions for Homosexual Couples. They do deserve the same basic benefits offered to Heterosexual couples, because they still contribute to society and pay taxes just as straight people/couples do. I personally believe that Civil Unions are good enough, but what can my opponent offer for Homosexual couples? Under the laws, they deserve to be treated equally and fairly as Heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits. The government didn't used to be involved in these kind of Unions, but now that they have injected themselves as much as they have, they must treat it equally. Now, Marriage is one thing. That is a historically religious institution that should be run by the church and not the government, but we are talking about Civil Unions here. ANY couple can enter a Civil Union. It is not just a "gay" Union and was never meant to be a "gay" Union. Since Civil Unions have no historical ties to religion, not allowing Homosexual couples to benefit from them is a direct violation of our 14th Amendment rights. I rest my case and await my opponents rebuttal.
God exists.

First i feel the need to define one term (Dictionary. com) Influence: a person that exerts influence. Through this definition alone we ought to vote CON in this round. Looking at my opponents first premise, that in order to exist it has to have an influence on both the individual and collective level. However this is not true, and i am a clear example of this. I in my short years of living have yet to perform any actions that have truly impacted humanity on the collective level, while i have achieved influence on the individual level I have yet to influence society collectively. Because I exist and do not meet this entire criteria we must disregard it a replace it with something universally true, thus we look to the definition of "exist" on Dictinoary. com: to have life or animation; live. And because there is yet to be evidence supporting God's animation, or living, we ought to vote CON. moving on to their second premise, The statement a great majority of the people instantly negates my opponents entire argument. They say that god must influence on both the individual and collective level, yet looking at the definition of collective (dictionary. com) forming a whole, we can see that God has not influenced Atheists, thereby making this aspect of the second premise false, and yet another reason to vote CON. I agree with the statement that God, or the unrational belief thereof, has had an impact on individuals. However God has not influenced Society on Neither the Political nor Historical level. I will post my reason why here: Political) The only way i can link my opponents statement to Political influence is to infer that he was talking about Conservatives, and other religious groups. However being that these religions are the ones effecting politics not God this argument collapses. And furthermore we can not assume that all motives of these religious sects are direct orders of God, because everyone has their own agenda as well. Historical) When we go back in time we see that GOD has had no effect on history whatsoever. When we look at the first mention of God in a non-ficticious sense we think of the crusades. (I disregard the bible because it is ficticious) However these series of battles however much people may try to disguise it, had ulterior motives such as the gaining of land, and resources, furthermore the title of Holy Wars was just an excuse to execute the actions, not the reason for doing them. When we look at the pilgrimage to America we see that while RELIGION was an aspect of the journey, God did not direct these individuals to leave. When we look at Various estranged instances of murder, and attack committed by individual under the guise that God told them to, we can have know way of knowing if this is merely an excuse or not so we must disregard these occurances. Finally when we look at Terrorist attacks we must use the same logic as we use with the Holy Wars and with the supposed ritual murder occurances. Finally i would like to note the abusive nature of this round my opponent sets it up with such wide parameters to make it extremely hard on me. thank you and i look forward to your response.
God exists.

Hi, this is my first time on this site and I am simply amazed at this community - how you guys can have such formal and polite debates on such serious issues; issues which in another time and place were the spark which caused the flame of entire wars. It really says something about how far we've come as a race. In this debate, we are arguing whether or not God exists. The basic premise is this: ================== 1. The only requirement for something to "exist" is for it to have an influence on humanity, both on the individual and collective levels 2. Because a great majority of people believe in God, God has a strong influence on humanity both for individuals (who believe in God) and for the collective (on the historic/political level) 3. Because #2 is true, and #1 is true, therefore God exists. I'm sure there is much more I can elaborate, but I will leave that for a response to my (worthy) opponent's arguments, as I would like the first post to be as short and straightforward as possible.
Homeschooling is better than public schools

Making friends is not an issue for a person who chose homeschooling. You have more free time so it is obvious that you will spend it with your family and friends. So where do the friends come from? I am sure you have friends from your childhood already, they do not have to be necessarily from school. You have family friends and friends from different clubs or hobbies with whom you share the same interests and ideas. Also your friends can introduce you to the people that they already know. Everyone meets people and get to know each other very fast. People do get socialized with others. Nobody is going to deprive you from having more friends from different activities. You go to places, you meet people outside. We meet people just like everybody else. We all make friends the same way whether you go to a public school, private school or homeschool. Your friend group can expand really fast. There is the whole world there you can explore. It does not have to be a public school. In United States in the 2011"12 school year, 91 percent of homeschooled students had parents who said that a concern about the environment of other schools was an important reason for homeschooling their child. There are about 2.2 million home-educated students in the United States already. The homeschool population continues to grow. The percentage of the marks that homeschooled people got in their exams is more than what public school people have got. It is impressive and at the same time it shows us that homeschooling gives you a great possibility to work hard and show great results. Also one of the most important advantages of being homeschooled is being able to keep contact with your family. For some of you it might seem ridiculous, but the problem is that there are children whose parents do not spend time with them. Children do not get a chance to talk to their parents, because everybody is so busy that they do not have time to sit and listen what their children have done today. I think that this is a very important problem since parents and their children do not have a good connection.
Homeschooling is better than public schools

Sure you have more free time but wouldn't that mean that you wouldn't make new friends? The only people you would interact with are your parents or who ever is teaching you. Also if there was a change in the common core you might not be able to find out and be behind in your studies. It would also help you learn to cooperate with others and how to deal with people who don't cooperate. You would be able to make new friends and learn to socialize with others.
Homeschooling is better than public schools

Homeschooling has many benefits. Over 2.04 million of students are learning at home. Homeschooling has increased for 75% from 1999. Students get more and more interested in homeschooling than in public schools. Having more free time and no strict school hours is one of the benefits. It is a good way how to not get distracted by your friends and be able to concentrate on your education. "Public schools kill your creativity". You do not mix your own opinion with others that helps you to deal with the modern world. Students are assured safety. If you do homeschooling there is no possibility of being bullied. Bullying is a common issue for public schools. You get to focus and less stressed doing homeschooling.
The Resurrection of Jesus

Well, we're doing a little better. Now we don't just have claims all by themselves, we have unsourced quotes from scholars. But not only does my opponent have to show that some scholars believe it, he must give actual evidence proving that these facts are true.1. How do we know that Jesus actually died? Why couldn't he have just been in a coma? This would explain a "resurrection." 2. How do we know what the disciples experienced? What is clear, however, is that the resurrection experiences contained in the last three gospels are inconsistent [1].3. See the first part of number two.Because my opponent simply provided unsourced quotes from scholars, not actual evidence, I am still under no obligation to accept these "facts."Many scholars may accept these claims but we can't just go off of their word, because they don't all agree:Ex. There is debate over whether Jesus was buried or not [1]. If he was not buried, then that would explain an empty tomb.My opponent must provided evidence to back up his claims.Weighing the RH1. Plausibility."A historian cannot rule upon the veracity of supernaturalism. That is left to other fields of knowledge such as philosophy."I will repeat what I said in R2: There was no limitation to only looking at this from a historical perspective. Let us look at this as scientists. Can someone rise from the dead under the laws of nature? No. According to all four definitions of supernatural provided in R2, this event was supernatural. "A historian, acting only as a historian, cannot a priori exclude supernaturalism."Must a historian only act as a historian? No. A large part of being a historian is looking at science. The science says it is not a natural event for a resurrection to occur, therefore it is supernatural. It is as simple as that.As far as the background knowledge is concerned, once again my opponent has provided unsourced quotes, not actual evidence.As scientists we can look at the event and say that it is supernatural. Supernatural events are implausible by nature.2 & 3. I did address these. I said we cannot access these until the initial facts are proven, which has not yet happened. I will say for number three, however, that we are making a stretch by saying that the supernatural occurred.4. Look at number 1.The RH does not pass the criterion, and still more importantly, the facts have not been proven.I do have a burden of proof to argue that either Jesus resurrection is not the best hypothesis or that it plainly did not happen. I stated at the beginning of R2 that "I will be arguing that there is a lack of evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead." That is my case. Unless my opponent can prove that this supernatural event occurred, I contend that there is no reason to believe that it happened.Question:Is a resurrection not a supernatural event?Source:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...