BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kesha has no true talent in terms of singing

" Unless the actor in a Broadway show was purposefully trying to sing bad or were not supposed to have a good voice, for example Lucy in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, I severely doubt that. You have to take a look circumstance sometime, but for sake of this debate, I'm talking about what is seen as a good voice straight across the board, not just for a single person in a single style." Are you kidding me? I work in broadway shows! I went to shows all the time as a kid! So many broadway stars sounds awful live because of the lights, the air, the dancing, and because they strain their voices trying to belt when they don't know how. Most people can't agree on if popstars sing well across the board. What she does as an artist does not prove she has a bad voice. " The video shows her singing from her throat and hiding under spoken lyrics." Did you read my last argument? Even experienced teachers can't tell from one performance what a singer is doing wrong. You have no proof that she is hiding under spoken lyrics. Not to mention a lot of pop stars have spoken lyrics so that proves nothing. I know you are new, but your burden of proof has not been fulfilled at all. You haven't adressed many of my points and have only made assertions. " I'm aware. My key point is that across the board, there are more people who are household names that are better singers than her than not." There is no way to know that. What you have heard is radio recordings and live performances which are often pre-recorded. Not to mention there are very few people who are "good singers across the board". Many good teachers disagree heavily on who is and isn't a good singer. It doesn't even matter if others are better, that doesn't mean Kesha isn't a good singer. "Well, an image is important, but you also need to be able to back up that image of what makes you famous with talent. As for the second piece, so do I. I've read a interview with Ke$ha as well and honestly, she seems like a bad influence on, as my radio listeners link in my previous argument provided, the people who are most likely to hear her song on the radio or through other ways of music transfer. That, in my opinion, makes me believe that she is undeserving of fame. (She is not the only one.)" Let's be real here. neither of us know kesha personally and so neither of us can reall decide whether she is deserving of fame. That is irrelevant anyway. I think you are more trying to prove a point than win a debate. It's ok. I made the same mistake my first debate.
Kesha has no true talent in terms of singing

"She has done better than some people I've seen in Broadway shows." Unless the actor in a Broadway show was purposefully trying to sing bad or were not supposed to have a good voice, for example Lucy in You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown, I severely doubt that. You have to take a look circumstance sometime, but for sake of this debate, I'm talking about what is seen as a good voice straight across the board, not just for a single person in a single style. "Ok, this leads me to believe you are not trained. My teacher is a reasonably famous opera singer, Donald George." First teacher: Karen Burns- performed on Broadway and was a Radio City Rockette. Current Teacher: Emma England- performs Off-Broadway and owns a successful performing arts company that is somewhat known throughout the US, Studio 3. *Yes, I know this is irrelevent. "If you cannot fulfill the burden of proof that Kesha is not a good singer then you lose the debate and the win defaults to me." What more proof do you need? I'm not asking this "Ke$ha is not a good singer for the style in which she sings." No. I am saying that for actually singing talent ACROSS THE BOARD it's not good singing for the most part. The video shows her singing from her throat and hiding under spoken lyrics. " Remember, she is not a broadway singer. She isn't supposed to sound like the people we work with." I'm aware. My key point is that across the board, there are more people who are household names that are better singers than her than not. "Also, how do you decide who deserves to get a record or not? Just because someone is maybe a better singer, which is debatable, doesn't make them a better artist or deserving of fame. I know a lot of talented people who are terribly full of themselves and I hope they never get rich because they don't deserve it as a person." Well, an image is important, but you also need to be able to back up that image of what makes you famous with talent. As for the second piece, so do I. I've read a interview with Ke$ha as well and honestly, she seems like a bad influence on, as my radio listeners link in my previous argument provided, the people who are most likely to hear her song on the radio or through other ways of music transfer. That, in my opinion, makes me believe that she is undeserving of fame. (She is not the only one.)
Kesha has no true talent in terms of singing

talent (n) a special natural ability or aptitude If you've never seen Ke$ha sing live don't bother. We have singing greats out there like Alicia Keys, Mariah Carey, Carrie Underwood, Prince, Kelly Clarkson, etc. and then we have the people that teenagers listen to and end up on the top 40 stations. Which category does Ke$ha fall under? The second one. We have people with true talent in whatever they do like the contestants on SYTYCD and American Idol, albeit some of them weren't all that great. Then we have people with an image and a terrible singing voice. What category does Ke$ha fall under? The second one. We, as Americans, allow these image-promoting people to be played on our radio waves while the people with these amazing voices and no real true image sit on the stations with music from our past. Why? Why do we allow this to happen? My theory is that the majority of people who listen to the "popular" stations are teenagers. The majority of teenagers really don't care about lyrics, song meanings, or true artistry. I do. Ke$ha tore up the airwaves with Tik Tok and you know, its an enjoyable song to listen to. I was a HUGE Ke$ha fan for a while. Then, I saw her perform on Saturday Night Live and it all changed. It was almost so bad and so strange that I wanted to turn my television off. It was terrible singing. She is honestly, in my opinion and the majority of the people I know, tone deaf. Then why is Ke$ha famous? Her drunken, party girl image. Latest technology in voice editing has opened new doors for many artists, but this isn't always a good thing. What is allows is for people with no true talent or singing ability to have amazing voices that grace our radio stations. The true test of talent is hearing them sing live. If a singer cannot sing there song when all their voice editing and techno back up music is stripped away from the song, then that person obviously cannot sing and is only famous because of their image. This is not an argument about whether or not Ke$ha music is good. No, this is an argument about whether or not she actually has talent or if she is clogging up the airwaves with voice altered, for lack of a better word, crap. Ke$ha music is catchy, but is not different from most songs on the radio. In turn, this means it is not only music without talent, but music without artistry. We cannot allow for singers and performers like Ke$ha to be called artists if they can't even live up to the definition.
You choose topic, I choose position.

Closing StatementI have shown countless times that resolution is in fact undeniably correct. The definitions of the words "function" and "science" give that the function of matter and energy is to follow the actual laws of physics which are closely related to the 4 fundamental laws of physics which we do know. Whenever something happens that we can't explain, we can only assume that it is still following physics, just not the physics that we currently know to be true. For this reason, the resolution remains true. Thank you for an entertaining debate.
You choose topic, I choose position.

Wittgenstein notes that within science there is one thing of which it can be neither said that it is a metre long or not a metre long. The standard metre made in Platinum and kept in Paris. This is because whatever size it is in relationship to other schemes of measurement its length is what it means to be a metre. If for the sake of argument on the Imperial scale it suddenly expands to 6 feet, then the ratio between the two scales would change but not the fact that a metre is the the length of that stick or rule. The one thing that stick cannot help but be is one metre whatever size it is it is one metre. A least while the temperature of the room is kept at 0"c. It is the rule the standard by which all lengths are judged until about a couple of years ago. Pro's treatement of the universe is similar. The function of the universe is to do whatever it does. So the universe cannot malfunction. But if nothing counts as malfunctioning nothing can count of is functioning. To function at all.
You choose topic, I choose position.

My position: Pro[Reminder to opponent: Don't forget to include your position.]ArgumentNow that I am aware of the approach my opponent is taking, I can make a better argument. Let's define terms to begin. These were found using google.World- the earth, together with all of its countries, peoples, and natural features.Function- an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.What is the function of the world? We use science to understand phenomena that occurs in the universe, including the world. Quantum physics explains how subatomic particles behave which explains how atoms behave which explains how molecules behave which explain how macromolecules behave which explains how cells behave and so on. Everything that happens in both large scale and small scale due to quantum physics (as far as we know). Quantum physics serves as the rules for everything in the universe, including our world. The world's function would be to follow said rules. So far, it does. Again, there are some unexplained phenomena in physics but they will and always have been explained eventually.RebuttalMy opponent has two separate arguments.Argument 1: Math is an entirely man-made abstract idea that has no *physical* presence in the world. It is not part of the world, although math may describe the world in some ways. Although I do believe math also functions perfectly according to its function, it doesn't really matter for this debate.Argument 2: "It is impossible to name every possible function even if we allow these functions to have names of infinite length.Nevertheless disagreeing in output for a given input is sufficient for a claim that a functional object does not perform a given function. When we attribute a function to a thing we make the claim that this and this alone is the function that describes its behaviour, with respect to its input and output domains. So when I say that my computer can do addition I take it to mean that it will give the correct answer to any sum if give it."To sum up this argument, he is saying that a physical object's function can never be perfectly described, and therefore it will never follow its function perfectly. This is a non sequitur. The preceding argument didn't match the conclusion.Thank you and good luck.
You choose topic, I choose position.

My position: Pro I choose pro for this debate. I will be honest, I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this debate. Everything in the universe adheres to the actual laws of physics. We attempt to find what these forces are, and in current physics, we know of four. They are gravity, electromagnatism, weak force, and the strong force. When something occurs that we dont understand in nature, we must improve our knowledge of the universe by changing the laws of physics (as we understand them) so that they conform to what we observe. As we improve our understanding of the laws of physics, it becomes closer and closer to the actual laws of physics, what the universe always follows. Anything that occurs in nature will eventually be explained through physics, given enough time. It is impossible to prove that something in the world doesn't 'function' perfectly, because whatever it does is it's function. Thank you and good luck.
You choose topic, I choose position.

Round 1 [Pro]: Set up DebateRound 1 [Con]: Acceptance and Choose Topic (Definitions if Needed) Round 2 [Pro]: Choose Position and Opening Argument (Definitions if Needed) Round 2 [Con]: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttal and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Closing StatementCharacter limit: 10,000Time to Argue: 72 HoursVoting Period: 10 Days You choose the topic. With the topic, you should include the resolution. It may be anything you wish as long as it is a debate. If it is something like a "rap battle" or "draw contest" please ask me first in the comments if it is okay. No trolling. If you are unsure your topic will fall under this category, please ask me first in the comments. I get to choose my position. Note: Since I am pro without actually knowing what the topic is, you should disregard this unless I am actually pro. For the sake of the voters, please label yourself as pro or con at the very top of every submission.Purpose of this debate: I will likely learn about a new topic. My opponent will have to view that topic from both sides. This won't end up being an unfair debate such as arguing about a truism (i.e. Earth is not flat).
Homeschooling

I will use round 2 to give my opening statement. I will begin my rebuttals in this round as well since there was no restriction set on that, so I assume this is acceptable.First, I will argue why homeschooling is detrimental in a broad sense, and why public schooling makes more sense in response to these problems. Second, I will rebut your points.1. Problems with homeschoolingTime/money: In a public setting, parents need only drop their students off at school or a bus station, or even not do anything and have students walk to school or the station if it is close enough. If a parent decides to homeschool their child, a huge time burden is placed upon the parent because the parent has to teach their child. If a private tutor is involved, then we are talking about a huge monetary investment to substitute for the previous time investment.Education: If it is the state's duty to make sure that its residents are all properly educated, then homeschooling poses a problem. Since parents, unlike schools, are not legally responsible for the education of their children, they could simply keep their children at home and teach them nonsense, or not teach them at all.Social: Homeschooled students are not as equipped in a social environment as students in public schools for obvious reasons. This could pose a problem, because it is my contention that the job industry requires more from the social side of people than the educational side. This means that being able to comfortably cooperate with others is more important in the professions than being perfectly educated.2. RebuttalI agree, it is true that public schools do not account for the vast differences in the learning styles of students. This particularly bugged me about my normal school experience, however, it does help in one very important way. It helps your brain conform to the norms of how education is taught and learned. This can have practical applications in two ways. First, it helps on standardized tests. Knowing how people are supposed to think can have tremendous effects on how you undestand and take a standardized test. Second, it helps your social ability. Again, this leads back to undestanding how others think. While having a standardized mind is not always preferrable, beign able to function in an environment were everyone else has a standardized mind might be more useful than you might think, especially in the workplace. This is something that public schooling does best.
Homeschooling

As I shall go first I will sum up my school experience first here. (I was in public schooling) I didn't adapt to the school environment because they weren't catering to my learning style. I see this being a problem in a lot of public schools because people learn in different ways. These are:Visual Learners: People who learn best from watching other people and seeing information.Auditory/Aural Learners: People who learn best from talking to people and listening to information.Read/Write Learners: People who learn best from reading printed information and writing.Kinaesthetic Learners: People who learn best from doing things and gestures.Looking at these 4 different learning styles and the questionaires I have taken about this subject, I show up as a very strong Kinesthetic learner. I believe this is correct. I learn from doing tasks which brings the problems of public school into perspective. These problems can go either one of two ways. Firstly, the teachers try to include everybody in the class by hopping between different learning styles with intention to make sure everybody learns. This doesn't work because in the end, everyone learns less than they could have if the lessons were focused in their mindset.The second problem is if the teachers try to cater to one learning style rather than switching between them. This way, only a small group of the students learn well in such a class neglecting all the other students which learn better by one of the other three styles. So how does this come into homeschooling you ask? Well, with homeschooling, the teacher (whether it be a relative or private tutor) can focus the tasks in a way which can make that student learn a lot better as there is no other students which require a different learning style. If I was homeschooled and brought up with lessons which were geared to a Kinaesthetic mindset, it would have kept my interest in the subject for longer and I would learn more from that.I took the VARK questionaire http://vark-learn.com..., here's my results:My VARK Results My scores were: Visual 1 Aural 1 Read/Write 0 Kinesthetic 16
Marijuana Legalization

Pro I think marijuana should be legalized. For the purposes of the debate, let's assume laws under legalization would make pot similar to alcohol (21 age limit, no driving under the influence, etc.) 1. Other substances Alcohol impairs you more, yet is legal. Cigarettes offer all of the same health concerns, but offer no significant benefit (high) and most cigarette smokers smoke more than marijuana users on a daily basis. Also, marijuana has been medically proven to be non-habit-forming, unlike cigarettes and alcohol. 2. Tax revenue The government could tax and regulate the marijuana industry, generating state revenue at a time when it is needed. Also, the birth of a high demand industry would foster jobs and economic growth. 3. Criminals With the ever growing popularity of marijuana, middle-class people who are not drug or street savvy are having to deal with dangerous people and frequent the more suspect areas of town to procure their product. Legalization would stop this. Also, legalization takes away a large portion of criminal funds, without the cost of policing. By offering the legal sale of marijuana, the criminal organizations who deal it now are out that revenue. 4. Quality The medical purposes of marijuana (while they may be suspect) would be improved with improved quality. If people are able to grow it freely, it can be privatized professionally and developed at lower cost and higher quality yield. 5. Civil Liberties The political history of marijuana is suspect. Many believe it was outlawed under false pretenses (i'll go into detail if so requested). Also, in a free country, a citizen should be able to indulge/harm themselves in any way they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon or danger the rights of others. While other harder substances may offer this risk, the private consumption of marijuana doesn't. I'm looking forward to hearing from someone on this topic. Thanks in advance.
should prisons be strict

I accept this topic on behalf that prisons should stay the same. I see you're kind of new here, so I won't try that hard.My opponent did not point out what 'strict' meant, so I will readily assume it means much more strict. Such as do one thing wrong, you're in for longer. So that is the definition of strict we will be using for this debate.Amount of people IN jail currently (and cost)For my first argument in this debate, I will turn to the amount of people in prisons and how hard it would be to control all of them. There are about 2.3 million people in U.S.A jails right now. We are spending about 70 billion dollars on keeping the people in there. If we were to be stricter, we would need more material. Material would cost a ton more, as would longer prison sentences. And since our jails are already overcrowding with criminals, keeping them in for longer wouldn't do anything good for our society. As for the material, do people who committed a petty crime such as stealing a lamp need to be treated as a murderer? Because that would be what strict would be: punishment for all. The lesser the crime, the more undeserving they are of a strict punishment.What about the ones falsely accused?As we all know, there are many ways one can be wrongly or undeservingly put in jail. One is a wrong conviction. One can be wrongly convicted of something and be let out a month later when evidence has proven one is innocent. But the innocent person would've had to go under much strictness and tourture which he didn't deserve. Being more strict also means you punish everyone, even if you don't know what they're in for and even if they should be in. Do you really want that?I am only going to type two arguments for now.http://www.naacp.org...
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Its hard to debate when you are only laying the definition of school after my argument, there are many schools. I wonder if you are also including the special education class for children and adults with mental/physical problems. And I also wonder why you exclude military, police, medical and other schools, it is still standard school by context. Assuming you are only referring to the k-senior school, students from kindergarten should still not be allowed to bring phones, they can easily be distracted by this gadget at a very young age, I wonder if you are going to exclude kindergarten from the debate after I said this.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

I accept the challenge, not all students should be allowed to use cellphones at school The topic is vague because it does not specify what or who the students you are reffering to so I assume all individual who go to school are considered students First of all pupils from kindergarten and from special education class are not supposed to use cellphones in school In like fashion, military schools prohibit the use of mobile phone to instill discipline among their students. Lastly, training schools such as paramedics or emt, fly school and many more will not allow you to bring or use mobile phones for logical reasons. I will expound and add more argument after your second round.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

I already stated that "school" in the context of this debate means a k-12th grade school, since that is where general debate revolves around regarding cell phone usage. It woulsd appear that my opponent neglected to read my argument because I already stated that if cell phones are being used innapropriately then the school has every right to implement stricter rules regarding cell phone usage in order to deter innapropriate cell phone use while still keeping the benefits cell phones provide.