BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fender makes the best guitars

various guitar idols who have used. .. [guitar of pro/con choice), and innovative design. )I'm also just curious as to why you agreed on those terms and then didn't touch on them and went straight to sound and intonation. ___My opponent has insisted that "Sound and and intonation (The ability to truly tune) make for the best guitar. " This clearly is off of scope we first agreed to put our attention too. Having said that, my oppoent has said that over engineering of a guitar necesarily means the manufacturer must sacrifice quality for quanity. Why MUST that mean sacrifice? It doesn't. Fallacy of Description of Confusing Cause and Effect:#1 A and B regularly occur together. #2 Therefore A is the cause of B. You said:"Famous people playing Fenders. An audience can not tell the difference from a $25,000 hand crafted guitar made to look like a Fender and a $2000 off the shelf Fender guitar. They are ignorant. Only a skilled musician can tell the difference. Touring musicians use throw away guitars like Fender and Gibson and all of the other popular guitars on the market. Ya a $2600 factory made Fender guitar is a throw away guitar. They are good enough to fool the masses but in no way hold a candle to a hand made guitar in a one on one environment. You could use a guitar sold by Sears for $89.00 that looks like a Fender and people would believe it's some wonderfully built hand made guitar if a famous person is holding it. And if they Autograph it, it could sell for more than Fenders most high end guitar. "And that proves? Nothing. Fallacy of Description of Appeal to Ridicule. #1 X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). #2 Therefore claim C is false. When you agreed from the first round that famed guitarists could be used as evidence of the 'best guitar' don't then label it as not being evidence, thus you have boxed yourself in. .. You can't say I'm committing a fallacy of appeal to popularity or thesuch like because you have already deemed that logic fine in the first round. ___I have shown that Fender, especially with the Stratocaster and Telecaster, produced guitar designs that are still copied today by almost every guitar manufacturer. As well as creating the tremelo system (which every known music genre that includes a guitar that I know of), which was such an innovative piece of harware for guitars in general, it redefined music in a new way for generations spanding clear to the present. I have shown that through Fender's remarkable hardware, honorable and respectable history (ex. various guitar idols who have used their guitars), and innovative design they are the best guitars.
Fender makes the best guitars

The resolution is quite clear "Fender makes the best Guitars" My opponent can't dictate to me how I prove they are not. Fender Guitars may be popular, Fender may sell alot of guitars, Fender may have alot of pictures and videos of famous people holding and playing their guitars, so what. That has not one iota to do with it's quality. The first Fender guitars were hand made , not anymore. Fender compromised quality for quantity. Mr. Fender sold out his name and reputation. He would no longer be considered a luthier, but rather a mass producer of sub to mid grade guitars for the ignorant masses. Over engineering a guitar is the worst possible scenario when constructing a guitar. It is by de facto purposely built incorrectly to serve some other characteristic and thereby compromising sound quality and intonation making it substandard to a guitar built to adhere to the two most important qualities in it's construction, sound and intonation. Famous people playing Fenders. An audience can not tell the difference from a $25,000 hand crafted guitar made to look like a Fender and a $2000 off the shelf Fender guitar. They are ignorant. Only a skilled musician can tell the difference. Touring musicians use throw away guitars like Fender and Gibson and all of the other popular guitars on the market. Ya a $2600 factory made Fender guitar is a throw away guitar. They are good enough to fool the masses but in no way hold a candle to a hand made guitar in a one on one environment. You could use a guitar sold by Sears for $89.00 that looks like a Fender and people would believe it's some wonderfully built hand made guitar if a famous person is holding it. And if they Autograph it, it could sell for more than Fenders most high end guitar. $2600.00 dollars for a factory made Fender guitar is well tantamount to the saying "There's one born every minute" It takes an average 8 hours to make a low end Fender guitar to 20 hours to make a high end Fender guitar. Half that time is waiting for paint to dry. Fender might have as little as $75.00 into a guitar it sells for $500.00 retail . A hand made guitar takes 300 to 500 hours to make and range in price from $6000 to well over $100,000. My opponent is clearly fond of Fender guitars and is wowed by photos of famous people holding Fender guitars but by no stretch of the imagination is Fender the "best guitar", not by a long shot. In response to who's who and who plays what kind of guitar, I would contend that Paul Reed Smith (PSR) guitars (also mass produced) are used by more musicians than Fender and are far superior in their construction. Her is a list of famous people who use (PRS) guitars. http://www.prsguitars.com... A factory tour http://www.prsguitars.com... The history of PRS http://www.prsguitars.com... A much smaller operation and more attention to detail and oodles more "hand" craftsmanship. Fender is not the best guitar made.
the drinking age should be lowered to 16

Hello bilsands myself Debate0ts Ur on topic that, The drinking age limit must be made minimise. Well then, I m opposite of these concern of yours. Age limit for drink and drive r differ from country to a country. For USA it's bit high rather then others. Well USA has a very sense of his people that, They can't hold alcoholic drink at small ages. Accourding to a statistic numbers adults or teens have accidents r farly due to their drunk and drive condition. Far for Russia and other countries the age limit is less and gov. Also approves it. It's only due to weather condition these contries r topically cold, These drinks keep them warm makes there blood easy to flow. And alocoholic drink mostly suit these region humans due to their environment condition. But in USA it's totally opposite people excess drink alcohol because (****what ever their celebration is) One for all the over alcohol even more harmful in mild climate region just as in USA. That's very good gov. Put age limit
Wet Grass Is Evidence Of Rain

ResolutionWet grass is evidence of rain.ProHas 30,000 characters and the burden of proof to demonstrate that wet grass is evidence of rain and refute Con.ConHas only 20,000 characters to refute Pro.*There are no rounds, just 3 sets of 10,000 characters, so there are no round rules...use your characters as you choose to meet your burden of proof.Pro WinsIf we accept the resolution.Con WinsIf we reject the resolution.Definitions*Can be changed in comments section if both Pro and Con agree.*By posting your first argument, you agree to the given definitions.wet - covered or saturated with water or another liquid.grass - vegetation consisting of typically short plants with long narrow leaves cultivated on lawnsevidence - facts that indicate a particular proposition is likely truerain - moisture condensed from the atmosphere that falls visibly in separate dropsMay the best argument win.
Adverse affects of Social Media on Teens

Although social media has been linked to negative effects on teens (although some are not malicious), it has also been a extension of connectivity and cognitive development. In Social Media, referred to as SNS or Social Networking Sites, teens are given a deep pool of information and tools that help them in life. Games and messaging help hand-eye coordination and fast-paced decision making, which in turn helps them in the brutal decisions later in life, although when a teen is addicted to gaming, it may cause them to be sleep deprived or may cause harmful dis functionality of their joints (e.g. Arthritis). But most usage of gaming is for passing time or making friends in the community. On the topic of friendship, SNS creates an unlimited web of fast pace messaging and sharing that gives teen the power to develop friendships around the world with a click of a button, or a tap of the screen. With this fast web or networking, teens relatively can discuss problems in their life or can have a fun reaction to a post. With posting, SNS give a function of posting called "likes" or "dislikes", which reward teens based on peer review. Posting photos or videos gives others entry into their lifestyle and their habits, and give others the power to reward or punish teens on those posts. When a teen views a photo that they have posted as being liked, teens sees that as good and continue to post more of those pictures and continue a habit or trend. When a picture gets "likes", it increases the dopamine (hormone associated with good feelings) that the body puts out of the poster. This is a dangerous tool that can be harmful, if a teen sees that a photo of them doing something bad (e.g. smoking, or performing informal or rude tasks) it may cause a community to do the same or may persuade the teen that posted the photo originally to continue that trend. When a teen is "glued" to their phone or pc, it may cause harmful affects on the body or stag nit their brain development. Cause in the precious phase of adolescents, the brain is going through the final parts of development, and in this phase, the brain is susceptible to incoming information, affecting their plasticity to situations. SNS is a glass cannon that may cause good relationships with others, or bring downfalls to the ones we love. In the end, it is up to teens how they use this and we must be respectful to their decisions on it.
The United States Federal Government should not continue to encourage patriotism in schools.

This is a terrible shame. Here I thought I was going to have a great debate about this resolution, but instead my opponent forfeits his round. Well right now, my arguments still stand, and for those of you voters who don't know what they are, read the first round on the pro side. I, of course, am going to allow my opponent a chance to present his argument in the last round. Now as for the voters. The people who will be voting on this issue should look at the following details in this debate: 1. The pro has presented highly adequate sourcing and evidence to support my case. 2. EVERYTHING the con has said has been entirely opinionated and has not produce a single bit of evidence to support his case. 3. Every argument that the con has made has been successfully refuted by the pro (see round two) with ample sourcing from history books talking about the Nazi party and Communism itself along with the Communist governments. 4. Half of my opponents arguments (paragraphs 3-6) can't and don't apply since my opponent completely misunderstood my second argument in the first round. 5. The opponent shouldn't even get voted on because of his forfeit in his second round. The opponent had ample time to at least say something to support his argument. I understand if my opponent was busy but still, this presents an unfair advantage to the con since he can make his argument and I will not be able to refute anything that he says in the third round. 6. The pro has stayed within the resolutional boundaries in every way so that makes pro's arguments completely topical and should be voted. 7. Finally, my opponent has failed to present an argument saying why patriotism should be encouraged by the USFG in schools. I would like to thank everybody who has taken the time to read this case. I would like to thank the people who will be voting on this issue. I would also like to thank my opponent for arguing against me in this debate. I will be presenting this argument again after the voting period of this debate starts, that way I can get a new opponent with possibly different arguments.
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Well if you are not a big fan of the regular news shown on TV i think Steven can be a great alternative. As i said his facts are not wrong and is therefore a reliable source, i actually believe that by making some new more satirical you can reach a broader audience and maybe even get people interested in the events. We also saw that Steven can bring the news to people in a more serious manner under the Orlando events, which make me believe that by reaching a lot off Americans, combined with having his facts straight, combined with him also being serious, Stevens show can lead to more people getting informed about events and maybe even spark their curiosity towards the news story.
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do believe it is pretty obvious to notice when Colbert is exaggerating jokes or facts, although my argument wasn't him twisting bias on his audience, my argument was his satire will turn people off to understanding the importance of events. American education quality for the youth, compared to the rest of the developed world is significantly low [1]. As well as having been proven when Americans participate in politics, they let persuasion and entertainment get in the way of allowing them to make fact-based judgments. I won't be calling names, I'll just be leaving it at that. I haven't directly stated whether Colbert is trustworthy, I stated his 'news' as unreliable. As in, you shouldn't rely on him to be the source of your information for global, local, and national events. Sources: [1] https://www.studentsfirst.org...
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Well as shown in the video i think he IS a reliable source of information, since he don't lie about information unless it is something highly unlikely for the sake of a joke like (Donald Trump goes bankrupt because he paid too much for the wall) or something like that, it was only an example. When he is breaking down the news he dont tell lies and he has proves off that by showing us the article or some actual facts that said event happened. To be honest i think the youth is well educated and don't just blindly believe anything especially when it is something so highly unlikely like my example. Furthermore Steven makes it pretty clear when he makes an actual joke by again making it unlikely to happen, and yes it's true it is satire but i think it is more of a mix of news and satire while also having room to explain serious moments like the one in Orlando with sincere respect for the victims. By saying it is not a reliable news source you are saying that colbert cant be trusted when telling us anything new related which i believe is a lie, since he has proof for the stuff he is telling us. And finally i truly believe that the youth can separate news from satire at least most off them can.
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Just in case your argument wanders off, the topic of this debate is whether or not Colbert is a reliable source of information. Your statements seemed to point at whether people should watch him or not. Starting off, when I said 'youths', I didn't refer to children, I meant (Just like my source stated) persons between age 18-25. Stephen Colbert makes satire, and it gives people a good chuckle or two, yes, although, some people considered his program to be an actual and reliable source of information. With your statement that he makes satire, it is a de facto agreement that his show is a comedy and not a news source. Sometimes, the news isn't supposed to be entertaining. People may get the wrong idea and underestimate the severity or importance of an event because they got the news from him, first. I'm not arguing whether he's funny or not (Personally, I don't think so), my debate is whether he's a reliable source of information. People are affected and influenced by parent's internet and other things, yes, although my argument doesn't exactly focus on outside variables, it's just on Colbert. My only concern is that people take his show too seriously, which I believe through him, people won't understand the importance of news and world events since he downplays it. I know that he takes pauses to address serious events like the Orlando shooting but I know he's made satire on the Syrian civil war and to anyone that works in or knows about geopolitical studies or the geopolitical arena, it is one of the biggest events on Earth, right now. I hope I made my argument clear and look forward to my opponent to point out flaws in my argument or any other points he'd like to made.
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Hi looking forward to debate this subject with you I don't think Steven Colbert uses facts that are down right wrong unless it's a part of some kind of joke, when that is said I don't think you should watch Steven Colbert if you want a neutral host because he is very colored by his opinions. A good thing about Steven Colbert though is that he can deliver the news to a broader audience because he is making the news more entertaining which I can only see as a good thing since we want to keep people informed, in the video in the bottom he even uses articles to support that what he is saying is not untrue but its true. After he broad the news he then proceed to make some satire off it which I think is one of the reasons he has such a huge audience both online and live. Your claim about it affecting children doesn't really make sense to me since the children could be influenced by many other sources than Steven, like their parents, the Internet etc. and even if they were led to believe everything even when he makes a joke they could not influence the world anyway since they are too young to vote and therefore change how the country is being run. video:
Stephen Colbert is Not a Reliable Source of Information

Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements Before I begin, let me point out my flaw, I have only watched one Stephen Colbert episode and I didn't watch all of it. By reliable source of information, the criteria is information that with minimal amounts of bias attempts to distribute truth of world, local, and national events for the public to analyze and be informed of. My argument is that Stephen Colbert is not a reliable source of information to many people in the United States. The majority of the audience that watches his show is young and impressionable [1] who, at their age, don't have the educational capacity to think for themselves and therefore rely on Colbert. I will admit that Stephen Colbert, for the most part, refrains from bias although his show is virtually composed of cynicism and satire on international, national, and domestic politics. Many young persons believe his show to be an actual and reliable source of news although the only product in demographics that his show is producing are a cynical group of people that criticize government and government policies without further argument foundations and nothing more than a base of a satirical shoe they watched on TV. I also admit that Colbert makes references only an educated few could respond to, but again, the topic of debate is that while many people regard his show as an accurate form of distribution of information and news, I believe it to be an inaccurate source of news. (Sources for Demographics) [1] https://courses.commarts.wisc.edu...
Abortion

You know what George Washington said. He said to god that if our country looks away from god then if would start going down hill. And guess what... IT IS!!! Like the national debt, corruption, and ABORTIONS!!! Lets be honest killing a human being is wrong and even if its early term it's still wrong. Hey I'm not saying that every birth is successful because nothing in this world is perfect. So ya ,some of gods children die and thats not part of gods plan. It's just because of our imperfect world and bad things happen. Even if it isn't a law, guess what... ITS STILL WRONG!!!
Abortion

Con is bringing in God. However, there is no proof whatsoever that God exists or gives people a purpose. What about all the individuals that this supposedly "God" character creates who die in the womb? Was that just "part of God's plan"? And may I direct you to the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So we can't use God as a reason to ban abortion. That's unconstitutional.
is physical appearence important part of ur identity

Physical appearance is an important part of one's identity for a variety of reasons. First of all, physical appearance is the first and most lasting impression other's get of you. People will make different assumptions about you based on how you're dressed. Because of this, people will often try to tailor their personal appearance to fit what they want others to think they are like. For example, someone who dresses very formally probably wants other's to think that they are richer, or more high class. So therefore personal appearance reflects what we want to be like, making it an important part of one's identity. Secondly, Physical appearance is the first, and often most important, impression others get of you. Thishas been proven time and time again in many studies and experiments. So your physical appearance will dictate what others think of you, which then becomes a part of your identity. For example, say a guy is wearing a nose ring, dyed black hair, and girly jeans. From this one could naturally, (and often correctly), infer that they like certain types of music, have a certain outlook on life, and act in certain ways. These inferances then form part of what that person believes you to be like, or what they beleive your identity to be. Finally, physical appearance can often exhibit many personal qualities of a person. For example, someone who is dirty and smelly will probably also be lazy. Someone who is very well groomed and uses alot of hair gel etc., will probably be very concerned with their appearance. So, to sum it up. Physical appearance affects one s identity in 3 main ways. First of all, it shows what people think of themselves. Second of all, it affects others views of you, and your identity. Finally, it can reveal many of your personal qualities. As to your arguments, they are unsupported. First of all, one's work shows nothing about them. A cook at McDonalds could be an art student, they could be a slacker who will work their for the rest of their life, they could be a senior whose pension doesn't support them. In short, it has no effect on one's identity. As far as one's name goes, this too has no effect on one's identity. You can call yourself whatever you like, but you will still be the same person. Say someone is called Richard by some people and is given the nickname dick by another. They are still the exact same person and have the exact same identity. One's name is entirely suprficial and irrelevant. Im out of spac
Homework Should be Banned, or at Least Made Optional

Homework is not a necessary evil; it is just evil. If homework is going to exist, there should at least be restrictions placed upon it, such as optionality (you only have to do it if you wish, such as when you need extra practice on a subject), different types of homework (not everyone learns the same way, and certain homework is difficult for certain students), and limits on the amounts of days it can be given/amounts of it that can be given (for example, homework can only be given Monday through Wednesday, and each teacher can assign no more than half an hour of it).