BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

I think we are getting away from the true point of this debate. This debate was intended to conclude whether or not Squidward can play the clarinet well. Not that he could become a famous clarinet player. My opponent says, “The crowd in the audience is pretty irrelevant, considering con stated earlier that when the characters in Bikini Bottom tell Squidward he is bad at the clarinet, they do this all in good fun.” I still believe this is a relevant argument considering the crowd was in a formal situation where they are more likely to give their true opinion of the performance. My opponent and I seem to be at an impasse when it comes to the “Band Wagon” episode. I believe that Squidward taught the band necessary skills. My opponent says it was only SpongeBob who taught the band. Either way, teaching a band does not mean you are musically gifted. It has more to do with charisma which Squidward lacks. Because of this, I don’t believe this episode is relevant in this debate. Pro mentions Squidward’s many success stories that do not involve the clarinet. If you read the transcripts of these episodes, you will see that SpongeBob is more responsible for these successes than Squidward is. Also, this would have only proved that Squidward is capable of becoming famous which is not what this debate is about. Finally, I would like to make a quote from Squidward’s character page on SpongeBob wiki (which is a valid source considering both me and my opponent have used it.) “Squidward has a strong affection for interpretive dance, sculpture, painting, and playing the clarinet, but seems to have almost no talent for any of them whatsoever, although he does play the clarinet beautifully at the end of the "Christmas Who?", and at the end of the "Bubblestand" episode, also in "The Two Faces of Squidward".” This proves that Squidward has played the clarinet well which makes the statement “Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well” False. Vote Con!! :D
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

Last Round and closing statements. I had fun. Con says that because the man (or fish thing haha) representing Squidward is just the opinion of one person (fish) and that it is just one opinion. But think about how you become a famous musician. You need the opinions of others. Especially those who are experts at the subject. The man representing Squidward's favorite clarinet player, although we don't know too much about him, seems to be an expert on what makes a good musician, considering he is managing a very good one. Let's say you are a good painter. You can't tell me if Picasso came up and told you how to improve your paintings that you wouldn't listen to him. A judgement of talent is always based on opinions, and it is conclusive in Squidward's case. Has any fish or creature ever in Spongebob ever came up to Squidward and said: Hey you are really good at Clarinet, or hey you have real talent at playing the clarinet. No. The crowd in the audience is pretty irrelevant, considering con stated earlier that when the characters in Bikini Bottom tell Squidward he is bad at the clarinet, they do this all in good fun. If they are picking on him all in good fun, who is to say that they are clapping out of true loving of his performance? Con states that Squidward taught the band in "Band Geeks" all of the skills needed to perform, yet the whole episode shows just the opposite of this. The episode never shows in Squidward really actually teaching the band anything. Finally con stated that Squidward has "just had some bad luck when opportunities come up. " He had been successful at many things and had gotten big breaks on many things such as the "House Fancy" episode or the episode he turns the Krusty Krab into a 5 star restaurant. Like I said before. He has the drive to succeed. He wants to be famous it is his dream. Opportunities show up all the time. Unfortunately for Squidward, it is not bad luck, it is because he just isn't musically gifted enough. :)
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

I am having a lot of fun with it. My opponent uses the fact that the man representing Squidward’s favorite clarinet player tells him he is bad. But this is the opinion of just one man (fish). If a judgment of talent is based on opinion, then, to be conclusive, it needs to include many opinions that are unanimous. I now draw your attention back to the “Best Day Ever” episode. At the end of Squidward’s concert, there was a roar of applause indicating that he had played well. [1] Because of the large amount of people in the audience, this is a more conclusive judgment of Squidward’s skill than the talent agent's. [1] . http://spongebob.wikia.com... In the “Band Geeks” episode, like my opponent said, SpongeBob was the last one to practice with the band before the performance. However, this does not prove that Squidward did nothing to prepare the band. Over the four days of practice, he taught the band all of the skills needed to perform, but he was not able to get the band to use these skills. This is likely due to his grumpy personality. SpongeBob, on the other hand, is very charismatic and was able to get the band to use the skills. Also, the fact that Squidward is not a very good music teacher does not correlate to his own abilities as a musician. I agree that Squidward has had plenty of opportunities to fulfill his dreams. However, as I said before, a lot of opportunities to become famous does not necessarily mean you will become famous. I believe that Squidward just has some bad luck when these opportunities come up. This is probably due to the fact that, as my opponent said, watching Squidward fail at his dream is part of the fun in the show.
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

First off, con claims that "The characters do not truly believe that Squidward is bad at playing his clarinet. " I do agree that some of the characters do pick on him just because they like to. Yet there was a Spongebob episode that I recall called Squid Wood in which at the end of an episode, a man who represents one of Squidward's favorite clarinet players arrives. Squidward tries to show off his clarinet skills (remember, this is someone who has never met Squidward before) to the man, and the man laughs at his terrible playing with a joke and leaves. . . http://spongebob.wikia.com...(transcript). Con mentioned that "If Spongebob truly thought that Squidward was bad, then why would he go through so much trouble to allow him to continue to play? " Spongebob is a pretty nice character, and he considers Squidward his friend. He is not just going to tell Squidward to give up on his hopes and dreams, this is not how the character Spongebob is. Spongebob will be there to help Squidward achieve his dreams. .. but its too bad Squidward isn't good enough. I've watched Band Geeks many times (it is my favorite episode haha). Squidward says this after the fourth day: "Well this is our last night together before the show. And I know that none of you have improved since we began. " . http://spongebob.wikia.com...(transcript). It was not Squidward that made the band good. After Squidward leaves, Spongebob gets everyone to try their best. If anything it is Spongebob who is musically gifted. Near the end of Band Geeks, Spongebob directs the band. At the Stadium, Squidward doesn't even do anything, he just rocks out. Squidward has had many opportunities to get big breaks. It is some of the fun of the show, watching Squidward not fulfill his dreams while working so hard, and usually Spongebob will come along and do it with ease. It is not due to the lack of opportunities Squidward gets. It is due to the lack
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

My opponent claims that, “Many characters in Bikini Bottom tell Squidward he is bad at the clarinet.” However, I believe this is all in good fun, and the characters do not truly believe that he is bad at playing his clarinet. One character that is mentioned in the previous argument was Spongebob. If Spongebob truly thought that Squidward was bad, then why would he go through so much trouble to allow him to continue to play? In one episode, he risks his life to retrieve a reed from inside Squidward. -http://spongebob.wikia.com... In another episode, when Squidward becomes a giant, Spongebob creates a giant clarinet for him to play. -http://spongebob.wikia.com... Spongebob’s “best day ever” even includes going to one of Squidward’s clarinet recitals. -http://spongebob.wikia.com... To condense my argument, characters do not truly believe that Squidward is bad at playing the clarinet. Pro states, “There was a whole episode showing that Squidward could not lead a band.” This is not entirely true. Over the four days of practice, Squidward was able to mold his band from not having any experience, to playing an amazing show at the Bubble Bowl. -http://spongebob.wikia.com... This episode is actually a great example of how much musical talent Squidward actually has. My opponent says, “If Squidward was musically gifted enough to play the clarinet well, he would have already been a famous clarinet player in Bikini Bottom.” Being musically gifted does not necessarily mean you will become famous. This fact in the real world also applies in cartoons. Squidward can play his clarinet very well, but he hasn’t had his ‘big break’ yet.
Squidward Tentacles just isn't musically gifted enough to play the Clarinet well.

I have been trying to think of ideas for spongebob related debates and thought of this one. This should be fun. Squidward, as we all know, loves to play the clarinet. But we can see throughout the history of Spongebob episodes that he is not very good. There are a few points I would like to make. 1. Many characters in Bikini Bottom tell Squidward he is bad at the clarinet. Spongebob:"It's too dangerous to play the clarinet that badly in the wilderness. Or in another episode a doctor comes knocking on Squidward's door after he had been playing the clarinet and says "I understand you have a dying animal on the premises. " Those are just two characters, and I could name more, but I want to keep this short and sweet. 2. There was a whole episode showing that Squidward could not lead a band. Although he did posses some minor skills in leading the band and playing he did not make the members of the band any better. There was a quote from that episode (Band geeks) that showed that he didn't really know how to make the band better. "People talk loud when they want to act smart right? So if we play loud, people might think we're good. " I realize that the creatures in the band were not the best, but Squidward hardly improved them at all, he even says so himself. 3. Finally and most importantly, if Squidward was musically gifted enough to play the clarinet well, he would have already been a famous clarinet player in Bikini Bottom. Squidward has the drive, he has the desire, it is what he wants to do. What he doesn't have is the musical ability. He does have some minor skills, but he is not musically gifted enough to play the clarinet well. If he was, he would be right up there with Squilliam, being well known and rich.
Art Challenge (2/2)

Ok, thank for you accepting. This is one my last ddo art debates, you should feel honoured ;p Jk.This is my art piece. It is of Jared, Shannan and Tomo from 30 Seconds to Mars.If you wondering, I did this piece on my wall (it shall stay there forever). For size reference, I have blue-tacked a 30cm ruler to the wall.http://www.debate.org...
Gun Control

"Ok. Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed."would you rather a criminal have a gun or a knife?"And also, a fact is that a hunting rifle is very accurate even to 300 yards. THAT IS A FACT."i dont know how that helps your point"Gun control doesn't really reduce crimes. How do I know that? Because there are crimes like the L.A Riots, Oklahoma City Bombing..was there a gun used? NO. ITS BOMBS. Bombs are the ones that doesn't have a point BUT it is very helpful to military use.ONLY FOR WARS."so your logic is: bomb crimes exist. therefore, gun control doesnt reduce crimesthat's like saying X is true. therefore, Y is true. that doesnt logically follow"How about women being stalked?"they should have pepper spray or a taser, or at the most a pistol, not a fully automatic gun"You're safer if you do have guns in your home"as i explained in the other round, its' a poor choice. you're more likely to end up dead or in prison."There are estimated to be between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners who have no desire to kill anyone."Guns WILL fall into the wrong hands the more accessible they are."Anything can be wrongfully used. Guns, cars, hammers, ice-picks, computers, etc"guns are an unnecessary threat. we will be better off without guns"people's brains should be fixed and not guns."i tell you what, the day that everyones brains are fixed, i will favor getting rid of gun control laws.
Gun Control

Ok. Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed. And also, a fact is that a hunting rifle is very accurate even to 300 yards. THAT IS A FACT. Gun control doesn't really reduce crimes. How do I know that? Because there are crimes like the L.A Riots, Oklahoma City Bombing..was tehre a gun used? NO. ITS BOMBS. Bombs are the ones that doesn't have a point BUT it is very helpful to military use.ONLY FOR WARS. But for guns, we have chances to live because of it. How about women being stalked? THEY NEED GUNS. You're safer if you do have guns in your home and are properly trained to handle them safely. You will feel safer. There are estimated to be between 80 and 100 million legal gun owners who have no desire to kill anyone. Tens of thousands of guns are used only for competitive target shooting, informal target shooting, skill competitions and historical reenactments. Anything can be wrongfully used. Guns, cars, hammers, ice-picks, computers, etc. Only the person using the tool or device is responsible for how it's used. And clearly they are given to adults. I dont think the government is that stupid to give a gun to someone mentally ill and has a criminal background. But limiting it to normal people? I dont think its reasonable. Study says that gun ownership is not really one good factor of why homicides happen. It's more of drugs, drinking, family violence etc. that triggers murder. Seriously, people's brains should be fixed and not guns.
Gun Control

"there are many other methods for killing someone...guns don't kill people, people kill people"by that logic, we should let people have tanks and machine guns and nukes."Guns are big help for self defense. "there are other tools for self defense, like pepper spray. guns are a poor choice for these reasons:-they can be used against you.-even if you kill a criminal, you are taking a risk in going to prison yourself, even if you dont deserve it.-if you shoot at a criminal, the bullet could miss and kill an innocent person, or go right through the criminal and still hit an innocent person.-many gun accidents happen.-if you used something like pepper spray instead, you could shoot as soon as there is a viable threat, and if it was a mistake it wouldnt be too bad, but with guns, you must hesitate longer because it is a more serious decision to shoot someone with a gun, which puts you at a greater risk to get killed while you are unsure about whether or not to shoot."its really parental, disciplinary, psychological, and mental issues people should fix. "Legalized guns means a greater chance of guns falling into the hands of kids or mentally ill. theres no 2 ways about it.also, even if we are to allow for handguns, we should still have restrictions. there should be background checks, to make sure they arent known to be a criminal or mentally ill. there should be limits on how many guns and ammunition you can buy in a certain amount of time. there should be limits on how powerful of a gun people can have. and there should be records for every gun sale so police can trace them.
Gun Control

My first debate ever. Ok, so I think that the government, or some officials should stop trying to debate over guns being taken away from citizens. Why? First of all, there are many other methods for killing someone. Like knifing someone. Maybe we should just ban knives! The point is, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns are big help for self defense. The tragedies of Columbine, and other school shoo. tings are the ones where kids under 18 hold the guns. Adults shouldn't be so stupid to leave their firearms just lying around kids, andr not being irresponsible is what government should teach us. As for adults who wants to kill it hurt using guns, it is the person's brain that triggers to kill. It's in our conscience. As for Columbine, I think the parents should have known Eric Harris was hiding ammo and stuff from them. So its really parental, disciplinary, psychological, and mental issues people should fix. Gun control is a big waste of time, and it can waste lives because of lack of self defense.
There are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God

My contention is that there are no compelling arguments or proofs for the existence of God which cannot be convincingly rebutted. I won't provide any arguments in this opening round as my challenger holds the burden of proof and I have nothing to affirm, only negate. A precursor for acceptance of this debate is that you accept the fact of evolution, as I'm nothing but a layman to the subject. Also, I won't be present to debate after around Thursday midday (British time) so this debate will need to be accepted quickly or it will be cancelled. Thanks.
There are no compelling proofs or arguments for the existence of God

None of these rebuttals are original and are all available in some form on the internet, I simply worded them differently for the purposes of my own understanding. Problems with PSR* In actual practice scientists explain the existence of occurrences or things in terms of preceding causes and conditions, temporarily taking the latter things to be brute facts unless or until they, too, can be further explained. But the principle implicit in the PSR sort of search for explanations isn't sufficient to generate the need for an explanation of the universe as a whole in terms of a necessary being. In other words, using PSR to postulate a God-like figure is premature and superfluous as the universe itself cannot yet be explained. (1)* PSR absurdly entails that everything is brought about of necessity. The argument for this can be stated as follows. Consider the conjunction of all contingencies (CC). By the logic of PSR, there is a sufficient reason for CC. Now the sufficient reason for CC is itself either contingent or necessary. But it can’t be contingent, because then it would represent a contingent fact, in which case it would itself be a part of CC. But contingent facts don’t contain within themselves the sufficient reason for why they exist – let alone the sufficient reason for why all contingencies exist. Thus, the sufficient reason for CC must be necessary. But whatever is entailed by a necessary truth is itself necessary, in which case all truths would be necessary truths, and the objects they represent would obtain of necessity. But this is absurd. Therefore, PSR is false. (1)* The following scenario is on the face of it possible: there are just two kinds of beings that exist: contingent-and-dependent beings (e. g. , rocks, trees, planets, galaxies, you and me) and contingent-yet-independent, “free-standing” beings, out of which all contingent-and-dependent beings are made (an example could be matter/energy). If so, then even though there are possible worlds at which the contingent-yet-independent beings 'don’t exist', they are eternal and indestructible at all possible worlds in which they 'do exist'. On this account, then, there are contingent beings that come to be and pass away: the contingent-and-dependent beings such as you and me. But the beings out of which they’re made – i. e the contingent-yet-independent beings - do not; nor can they. This scenario seems possible. But if so, then since PSR entails that such a state of affairs is impossible, then so much the worse for PSR. (1)Sources (1) . http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk...
Abortion and Contraceptives

There would be almost no elective abortions anywhere if every pregnancy in America was planned, and wanted. Over 90% of all elective abortions that have been performed in the US since Roe v Wade happened in cases where the woman either did not use contraceptives, or used them improperly. [1] This well-researched fact requires the conclusion that unwanted and unintended pregnancy represents the only important factor in whether or not abortions occur. Contraception provides this planning ability with a nearly 100% rate of success, when used properly. For the pro-life supporter, contraception should be a strong ally, but often, it is not. The reasons for the widespread rejection of contraceptives among anti-abortion advocates are difficult to explain, especially in light of the common rhetoric that calls abortion an act of “baby killing” that amounts to legal infanticide. The Catholic Church is a leading opponent of abortion rights, and yet also is the world’s only important opponent of contraceptive use. [2] Additionally, there is a plethora of legislators in the United States that have fought against contraceptives on a near pathological level, preventing their access in schools, their distribution from family planning clinics, that have fought against requiring insurance companies to cover them, among other actions. In every case, these same politicians oppose abortion, with many of them using the familiar “abortion is baby killing” rhetoric. It is my contention that, if abortion is “baby killing,” then logically, it must be prevented at all costs. Replacing the horror of infanticide with contraceptives seems like a very common sense matter, and if millions of babies can be saved by the use of, for example condoms, then why do we not see a rush of contraceptive advocacy among the anti-abortion community? These two arguments do not belong together, and cannot be logically reconciled. I have placed them into argument form, to make the logical problem more obvious: P1: Action C prevents more than 90% of Scenario A P2: Scenario A is an act of killing babies P3: Action C is much less intolerable than killing babies P4: Action C must be limited, even if the result is killing babies Clearly, we see a logic problem here. If Action C is “better” than killing babies, and moreover prevents the killing of babies, then how can it be acceptably limited? As it stands, the argument that “abortion is baby killing” cannot be made more convincing by including the anti-contraception elements. In fact, a reasonable person might conclude that the anti-abortion activist who believes that abortion is an act of infanticide opposes contraceptives for reasons that are not intended to be included in the abortion debate directly, if at all. Pregnancy is a prerequisite for abortion. Unwanted, unintended pregnancies are prevented almost entirely by the proper use of contraceptives. It follows that, in order for an abortion to occur, a pregnancy must happen first. In order for that pregnancy to happen, contraception must not have. [1] . http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] . http://www.catholic.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
About Trump and Canada

I no mean. I help. Always I help. I clean floor for man who put money for me. things said and things heard. He have big books and say to man with more of books, why trump win for president? He say trump win cuz he take bomb, bomb is big for bomb, trump make room for more of bombs. He put bomb in ground for Canada. bomb go boom and no more cold for them, and room for more bomb for trump. I help.