BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

My apologies, I completely forgot to provide links to my sources. I usually wait until the bottom of my side of the debate but this time it slipped my mind. I'll post the links to my previous round at the bottom of the page, along with the links to my sources in this round. As you made only rebuttals that round, I will have only contentions in this round. Contentions: 1. Research continually shows that playing an instrument increases your brain functions. Maybe not by a lot, but it does increase it. "New research suggests that regularly playing an instrument changes the shape and power of the brain and may be used in therapy to improve cognitive skills. These parts of the brain that control motor skills, hearing, storing audio information and memory become larger and more active when a person learns how to play an instrument and can apparently improve day to day actions such as being alert, planning and emotional perception. Lutz J"ncke, a psychologist at the University of Zurich, said: "Learning to play a musical instrument has definite benefits and can increase IQ by seven points, in both children and adults. Mr J"ncke also said that music can also make it easier to learn foreign languages and become more perceptive in interpreting the emotions of others. " 2. Learning an instrument increases your coordination. By reading musical notes on a page, your brain subconsciously convert that note into specific motor patterns while also adding breathing rhythm to the mix. 3. Improves your reading and comprehensive skills. "Children exposed to a multi-year programme of music tuition involving training in increasingly complex rhythmic, tonal, and practical skills display superior cognitive performance in reading skills compared with their non-musically trained peers, according to a study published in the journal Psychology of Music." 4. Just listening to music can improve your intelligence. "When Gordon Shaw and Frances Rauscher published the results of their study on the relationship between music and spatial task performance in 1993, the "Mozart effect" became a popular term. It referred to the study"s findings that ten minutes of listening to Mozart can boost one"s spatial-temporal intelligence." Conclusion: You say that being able to play an instrument is a result of genius. However, many studies have proven otherwise. Some studies even show that just listening to certain types of music increase certain brain functions. Round 2 sources: https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://journals.plos.org... http://www.nature.com... https://www.psychologytoday.com... Round 3 sources: http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://brainconnection.brainhq.com...
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

Burden of proof, as aforesaid, is on my opponent, so I only need to refute his points in order to win the debate. It seems as though my opponent's argument is broken down into two points, followed by a summary of the points. The first point seems to be "studies have corroborated my position. " The second point seems to be "Albert Einstein was very intelligent and played the violin. " Addressing the first point, I'd be interested if my opponent could post links to the studies that he mentioned. No links were posted, but allusions were made, so if he could provide access to the studies I might be able to properly discuss and/or refute their findings. as for studies in general, I was able to find plenty that gave the exact opposite conclusion that my opponent's alleged studies did. I'll post links to a few of them at the bottom of this section of the debate, but one good example was a study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto, which found no correlation between musical ability and intelligence in children. (1) Addressing the second point, I don't find it relevant. Albert Einstein was one man. He is not representative of the population as a whole, and for every genius that could play a musical instrument, I can find you one or more that didn't. His violin skills are not a cause of genius. If anything, they are an effect of genius. This leads to something that I think is important. You're looking at smart people who play musical instruments well and saying "they must be smarter because of the instruments. " Actually, you have it backwards. They're good at music because they're smarter, not the other way around. The examples, as promised: 1- . http://www.zmescience.com... 2- . http://healthland.time.com... 3- . https://www.bostonglobe.com... 4- . http://www.boston.com... 5- . http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
Playing an instrument increases your intelligence

And yes, by "play" I too do not mean "make random sounds with it. " Executive Function Definition: A high-level cognitive processes that enable people to quickly process and retain information, regulate their behaviors, make good choices, solve problems, plan and adjust to changing mental demands. Many studies have been done on this specific topic. For example, Boston's Children Hospital has found that through musical training, adult's and kid's EF(Executive Function) has improved. To prove this isn't a coincidence, neuroscientists used MRI brain imaging to find the connection between musical training and EF improvement. A study was done where multiple adults and kids that played an instrument and that didn't play an instrument were tested. The ones that do play instruments showed better results on cognitive flexibility, working memory, and verbal fluency. An interesting case of this "musical intelligence booster" is Albert Einstein. Many believe him to be the most intelligent man that ever lived. There have been numerous studies on why his brain was so much smarter and more capable than the average brain. From the age of 6, Einstein played violin. Often, when he couldn't solve a problem, he would play the violin and the answer would come to him as he lost himself in his music. Now that proves nothing. However, after Einstein died, scientists dissected his brain and found that his cerebral cortex is uniquely developed. And a big part of why he is so smart is because of the way his cerebral cortex was developed. And the reason his cerebral cortex is the way it is is because he played violin. In closing, playing an instrument has been shown to improve the ability to integrate sensory information from hearing, touch, and sight. Also, brain circuits involved in musical improvisation are shaped by systematic training, leading to less reliance on working memory and more extensive connectivity within the brain. As you learn an instrument, MRIs show that your cerebrum develops which improves your EF.
ticket scalping should be illegal

Thank you for posting your last argument. My opponent has ignored my second argument, named "cheating the system". In a debate, you can not just pick and choice what you want to responded to. My Opponent has also stated that tickets don't come at a cheaper price if you buy them in bulk. It is a well known fact that that is not true. There are deals like buy 100 get 10 free. Or buy 500 get ten percent off. You can not just say that there is no discount. Once again, when I used the example of meth because in your argument you said that if something is yours then it is legally yours to sell. I proved that wrong by showing that just because you have meth, it is not legally yours to sell. That example proves your argument wrong. Lastly, I would like to thank my opponent for catching my spelling mistake. I meant to say means, not mans. I would also like to point out yours, you said My opinion on why I think it should be legal is because the ticket is yours that you can sell LIE selling a toy or some other item. I think you meant to say like.
ticket scalping should be illegal

Ticket companies do not sell tickets at a discounted price if you buy them in bundles. You have to buy the amount of tickets they want at full price. Although most people buy the tickets in bulk, they still have to pay full price for them without any discounts. I thought that by businesses, you meant a whole company like "big time" ticket scalping. Those I meant were terminated. People who sell the tickets individually usually have certain limitations based on the state's laws. To object your third argument, there is a reason meth and other drugs (prescription or not) are illegal to sell or distribute. It is because it can harm other innocent people without the buyer knowing it. My opinion on why I think it should be legal is because the ticket is yours that you can sell lie selling a toy or some other item. There is a reason on why selling drugs are illegal. It is because it goes past the limit and is far too extreme and like I stated in the paragraph right before, it causes death and serious injury to not only the user of the drug but other innocent people as well. That is the argument that we have been debating about the whole time. Lastly, I would like to inform the audience that my opponent is using the word man instead of mean in his arguments. Please clarify if you are using that word on purpose Thank you for debating.
ticket scalping should be illegal

Thank you for posting your next argument. 1. "Most ticket scalpers resell tickets at the day right before the concert when all the tickets that the companies are selling are sold out which does not affect/harm the companies at all." The reason it harms the companies is they do not get as much money as they would get selling at individual prices. Usually, companies sell tickets at a discounted price. Scalpers usually buy there tickets in bulk. 2. Business: An occupation, profession, or trade. You say that most scalping businesses are terminated before they can form. That is wrong, the minute someone sells a ticket is the minute the business starts. This also causes lots of damage to the company. 3. It is illegal in some places, that is what I am using. Point three extended The reason I used the subject meth was to prove a point. 'why should there be a limit to your freedom of what you want to do with your own item' I could also make meth and sell it, but just because its mine to sell does not man it should be legalized. I will use another example, if a doctor give you prescription drugs, would it be okay to sell it? since it is legally yours? No. So far you have only made attacks on my argument but have not said a valid point on why it should be legal. I look forward to your next argument.
ticket scalping should be illegal

Most ticket scalpers resell tickets at the day right before the concert when all the tickets that the companies are selling are sold out which does not affect/harm the companies at all. Also, according to pro's evidence most scalping businesses are terminated before they can form. Although it is illegal for the scalpers to form a whole business but it isn't illegal to sell them individually. And for pro's third point, he/she gave me a point because I am supporting the act of scalping tickets to stay legal so according to my opponent and like he said on his third arguement, "if scalping is made illegal, then that means* more people are getting scammed. " Meth is irrelevant to this topic because meth is a drug and can hurt other people. However, ticket reselling will actually benefit the seller and the buyer. Citation: (1). . http://www.associatedcontent.com...... (2. ) . http://en.wikipedia.org......
ticket scalping should be illegal

Thank you for posting this debate. My first argument will be brief. I will list the reasons why ticket scalping should be illegal. 1. Bulk. Lots of people will buy the tickets in bulk, then will sell them for a much higher price. This cause major losses for the company selling the tickets. 2. Cheating the system. Most of the ticket scalping enterprises are run by people who scalp tickets for a living They make a lot of cash from their ticket scalping businesses, and often these practices are illegal on other levels. For instance, the largest ticket scalping busts have involved people who have friends at the box office. 3. Cheat the people. What lots of scalpers like to do is produce fake tickets. If scalping is made illegal, then that mans more people getting scammed. My opponent says, "Why should there be a limit to your freedom of what you want to do with your own item?" One could say the same thing about meth. There has to be point where we must stop. I look forward to my opponents next argument. Sources: (1). http://www.associatedcontent.com... (2.) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Call of Duty be band

For a start it is not "band" it is banned. Now, you said it's really good for people who want to be in the army... I don't know if you understand how much that undermines all of the soldiers out risking their lives right now. By merely suggesting that actual conflict is in anyway similar to call of duty you prove your ignorance towards what conflict really consists of. That is not to say I do as I am no soldier, but I can tell you now it's a fair amount more than anyone suggesting Call Of Duty helps those preparing or wanting to join the armed forces. Call of Duty encourages the idea of conflict being some easy going stroll in the park. The reason so many people disprove of such games is because of the impact it has on younger generations, yourself being a prime example. Now that's not to say it should be BANNED ( Not band) but shouldn't be taken as a literal representation of true conflict.
Britain should refuse to take her former colonies back

The British Empire was the largest empire that ever existed covering, at its peak, around a third of the globe [1]. For hundreds of years, the British Government invested heavily in backward nations on every continent: building modern cities with electricity, sanitation, schools and hospitals and constructing roads and railways to link them - thus vastly improving the day-to-day lives of the local savages. However, once this infrastructure was in place, the ungrateful natives of certain colonies threw their British benefactors' generosity back in their faces and declared independence. In fairness, some of them made a decent fist of things. For example, by adopting the legal system, language and the culture of enterprise and innovation that their former British masters kindly bequeathed them, the United States of America went on to do quite well. Other former colonies didn't fare so well though. For instance, under British rule, Zimbabwe was known as ‘the breadbasket of Africa', but since independence it has become ‘the basket case of Africa'. And some other former colonies, such as Ireland, have had mixed success. Like the Americans, the Irish adopted much that the British donated them, including the English language and legal system, but they failed to emulate the Americans by exploiting the full potential of these munificent gifts. Realising this, senior Irish politicians such as Fine Gael TD Michael Ring are now ready to beg the Queen to take Ireland back into the British fold and last week, speaking in the Irish Parliament, Mr Ring said: "Now look at the mess we're in and look at the mess this country is in. Next year the Queen is talking about coming to Ireland for a state visit. Maybe we should say to the Queen when she comes 'you know, we have our own independence now, we'll hand you back the country and we'll apologise for the mess that we're after making of it.' Because at least when they were running the country they didn't put it into the mess and the hock that we are in now." [2] But Mr. Ring should not simply assume that the British would take them back. The British gave the Irish and other primitive peoples around the world the chance to better themselves but they blew it by insisting on running their countries themselves. With this in mind, if former British colonies such as Zimbabwe, the United States of America or Ireland were to make formal requests to rejoin the British Empire. I duly affirm that Her Majesty should politely refuse by saying: "One is frightfully sorry, but you have made your bed and now you have to lie in it." Thank you. [1] http://www.britishempire.co.uk... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
12 hour shifts are better than only 8 hours. and the earth is flat.and i like converse.debate me.

You said... (i enjoy my job, and enjoy being very productive, and when my employer throws extra work my way, I accept it thankfully...) Since you enjoy being very productive then maybe you should complete your work in the 8 hour shift instead of making it drag out into a 12 hour shift...by not getting all your work done within 8 hrs you are only costing your employer more money... You said... (these picture that you speak of are photoshopped...I have a very reliable source telling me that the earth is, in fact, flat...) Can you please give me that source this statement means nothing to me...and should be considered pointless... You said... (i will repeat my previous statement that converse it better because of the high top which provides ankle support. I've got very brittle ankles and appreciate the high top.. and Vans are made by children in china also... Im winning....) All I'm going to say in response to this is who the F#@! said anything about Vans? OH and I am clearly the victor here my little friend...
12 hour shifts are better than only 8 hours. and the earth is flat.and i like converse.debate me.

ooohh. someone thinks that they are the smartest! well, i enjoy my job, and enjoy being very productive, and when my employer throws extra work my way, I accept it thankfully... these picture that you speak of are photoshopped...I have a very reliable source telling me that the earth is, in fact, flat... i will repeat my previous statement that converse it better because of the high top which provides ankle support. I've got very brittle ankles and appreciate the high top.. and Vans are made by children in china also... Im winning....
12 hour shifts are better than only 8 hours. and the earth is flat.and i like converse.debate me.

12 hour shifts are not better than 8 hour shifts because you get less time off work. I would rather have more time outside of work then more time at work regardless of which was more productive because I could care less about the success of my employer it just does not matter...plus you are more likely to become burned out and tired during a 12 hour shift than a 8 hour shift. As far as the earth being flat we know it is not because of pictures that have been taken of the earth from space http://images.google.com... also converse is not the best shoe it actually is the worst shoe in the world...consdidering they are made by slaves in china... beat that george
Forks are better than spoons.

In conclusion, my opponent has done nothing to refute my points, and has only provided his own. In the end, forks are superior due to their stabbing ability, which the spoon lacks. While the spoon may have some advantages, the disadvantages far outweigh them. As from the evidence provided, it is clear who the winner of this debate is. Forks. I would like to sincerely thank you for debating me.
Forks are better than spoons.

Couple of things. 1: Yes, forks are superior to spoons when eating a salad. 2: Drinking soup out of the bowl may cause spillage, and using a straw, would result in it being clogged, depending on the type of soup. 3: While I can't deny the deliciousness of pancakes, I can say a good bowl of cereal is better for the bones.
Forks are better than spoons.

In your argument, you mentioned grapefruit spoon's ability to both scoop and stab. This, however, is not nearly as useful as a utility compared to a fork. With only one sharp edge, stabbing is not as easy as compared to a fork's three or four prongs. Even with the pointed edge on this spoon, salad is near impossible to eat! In regards to your second contention, while forks may not be able to eat cereal, they are far better for eating pancakes, which are better than cereal anyways. As for soup, just drink it, silly.
Forks are better than spoons.

I find spoons to be superior to forks, though a specific type of spoon, which would be the grapefruit spoon. With this type of spoon, you could consume both solids and liquids, with the end of the spoon being a bit edgy, sharp enough to cut through most edible foods. The fork doesn't allow the eating of soup and in most types, cereal as well. (Though a spork rules above both.)
Forks are better than spoons.

What a topic. I will be arguing that forks are in fact better than spoons, and Con will be arguing that spoons are the superior to forks. Sporks are not to be mentioned in this argument. Forks are the best possible utensil. Forks have the ability to stab, which allows for far more eating potential, far more potential than spoons will ever have. Forks with this ability are able to eat things like steak, pizza, or spaghetti. With a spoon, these foods are near impossible to eat. Now, some may argue that spoons are superior in that they have a scooping ability, but the fork also has this. Eating ice cream is more than possible with a fork and this argument is now invalid. More examples of the fork's scooping ability would be macaroni cheese and mashed potatoes. My last contention is fondue. Some might say that fondue is a plus one for spoons, but fondue forks exist. Sorry buddy!
On Balance Bluesteel is the best bachelor on DDO

I choose progdem, and (for now) will be doing this debate by myself. Now, onto my arguments.MysteryOne clear advantage prog has over bluesteel is his aura of mysteriousness. Unlike bluesteel, who regularly shows off his face in hangouts, prog's was only visible in one hangout for a few seconds, with only two or three catching a glimpse of it. All witnesses have spoken only positive of it, which gives a sense of excitement leading up to any event with him, and satisfaction when said event takes place.HonestyProg is a guy who says what's on his mind, and no matter how extreme or wrong his opinions may seem, he always tells what he honestly thinks. Now, who would you rather trust? The honest progressive democratic atheist man, or the lying progressive republican white Christian engaged Scientologist woman whose favorite activities are, "Reading the Bible, ultimate frisbee, picketing the funerals of dead soldiers, baking cookies"[1].InnocenceNot only is bluesteel sexually active, but into some pretty weird stuff [2, 3]. Prog is known for being abstinent, which is great not only for him, but future potential life partners, as virgins are almost always expressed as the most desirable potential partners [4].1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.debate.org...4. Blade-of-truth
On Balance Bluesteel is the best bachelor on DDO

This is pretty simple and a fun troll/serious debate Resolution - On balance bluesteel is the best bachelor on DDO This is a semi team debate, as myself and aaron will both work on this together. Whoever takes it is allowed to pick one person to debate this with if they so chose. They will start this in round 1 and declare the person of their choice (they must pick a person), and define why that person is a better bachelor than bluesteel In the last round they shall type simply "no round as agreed upon", failure to type anything other than this will result in a full 7 point drop of the debate. Lets have fun