BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The majority of Rap and the entirety of Death Metal is not music. Pro=True, Con=False.

Rap has rhythm, melody and lyrically it is superior to all other forms of music BECAUSE it prefers to speak as opposed to sing showing how LYRICALLY valued it is, not melodically as much. Just because the swearing and topics of the majority of rap happen to offend you and your Jewish view on life is not at all warrant for termign it non musical. Try going to a ghetto and seeing people chant it, dance to it, that sh*t keeps them going in such a poor state, reminds them of the few joys they have wihtout money; sex, drugs and the dream of getting rich. You have no at all disputed this point which I have made about it only being termed 'not music' by you because it happens to offend your personal view on life.Death Metal is rage. If you are not an angry person you can't really appreciate it but how dare you disregard it at music? All death metal drummers, guitarists and singers have to train YEARS to even begin being that fast and brutal, it hurts physically to be that lous, fast ont he strings or hard on the drums it's why metal players are always muscular. Thanks and goodnight using subjective taste to tear apart other's subjective taste is like fighting fire with fire.http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...;
The majority of Rap and the entirety of Death Metal is not music. Pro=True, Con=False.

Even rappers themselves admit rap has gone down the drain. The idea that it is a musical form, may have indeed been true, at one point in time. Also, I assume my opponent did not read the title where I have clearly stated "The majority of Rap", so I will not be changing the debate topic to "I think all rap is not music" as he evidently believes. My round is finished, I leave it to my opponent to counter my statement and explain how the majority of rap and the entirety of Death Metal is not music. I have made my case as to how I see it, he must now answer how I am false, preferably with actual facts, and not simple insults or attributing it to me just not enjoying the music. The floor is his.
The majority of Rap and the entirety of Death Metal is not music. Pro=True, Con=False.

I love rap. I don't mind metal, I love it when angry.Why is it not music? Let's observe your justification...1. ProfanityWell f*ck you f*ckin w*nker. Swear words help emphasise points. They are just words and music is all about freedom of expression.BY THE WAY, YOU LIKE LIL WAYNE YET HATE OTHER RAPPERS?! YOU LIKE LIL F*CKING WAYNE?! THE SLOWMO HOMO?! HAHAHAHAH listen to some Eminem, Tupac and Hopsin you tw@t.2. Excuse me but much of rap is deep. What is shallow about sex? Seriously it is one of the most fundamental thing sin life. almost all music is about emotion and what is number one? Love... between a man and a woman and what is that to do with? Heterosexual lust. It's just sugarcoated in all other than rap. If anythign this generic pop sh*t that is replacing rap is bullsh*t I'd rather listen to the most horny shallow Snoop Dogg rap than bloody dubstep!3. Just because you think it's garbage is grounds to hate it? Self-centred idiot who doens't understand that in art, it is in eye of the beholder (or ear in this case).4. Your attack on metal is that it is screaming but this is the nature o metal music, so what? You don't like it? YOUR PROBLEM NOT METAL's! IDIOT!Time to explain why I love both.Rap is amazing. It is my favourite form of vocal music. IT is about expressing and rhyming and is so hard to do that very few can. With very few females in the genre who (like Nicki Minaj) happen to talk about dirty things too. The only difference is this: When men do it, it's wrong. Idiot. Just think what you're saying. EVERYONE IS DIRTY MINDED (unless asexual) what is so wrong with being open about it ART AND MUSIC ARE ALL ABOUt FREEDOM OF F*CKING EXPRESSION!Metal is also amazing because it expresses rae in its purest form. :)Dude revise what art is and comebackyou judgemental mainstream lilwayne loving piece of sh*t.oh dear I swore look at me I MUST BE HATED! OH MY LORDY LORD! haha f*cking pu55y.Revise the purepose of art and reply to this b*tch.Now for a freestyle:You be stupid,I don't think cupid,Will hit you boy, you ugly,Evne if you have money and held up a sign saying "f*ck me"No chick, would toch that d*ck,When they see that tiny piece of sh*t,They be puking it makes them sick.Whatever man jsut shut up. You are entitled to hate stuff but how dare you diss rap and metal?! IDIOT!http://www.youtube.com...;http://www.youtube.com...;
The majority of Rap and the entirety of Death Metal is not music. Pro=True, Con=False.

Rap is a... interesting brand of music, if you can call it that. It supposedly is a branch of hip-hop, but original rap was very innocent. Nowadays, you're more likely to vomit listening to it. The sheer amount of profanity and the degradation of women is an absolute atrocity. I'm not saying it's all bad, I happen to like a few Rap songs: Mr. Lonely by Akon Don't Matter by Akon Mr. Postman by Lil Wayne So Sick by Ne-Yo These songs I enjoy because there is extremely little (if any) profanity in them, and they teach, with the exception of Mr. Postman, life lessons. There is no "bitches", no "hoes", no "nigga/nigger", no "bust a cap", nothing in these songs but lax music and deep issues. Teach kids how to cope with difficult situations. Life, love, things like this. But 95% on my experience and the experience of others, it is the most disgusting garbage being said extremely quickly, this is essentially trying to be the "toughest", the "most gangster", when really, it just makes these individuals seem like the biggest tools. Death Metal. Where to begin. Well, let me just say my biggest issue. Death Metal is always, literally, always in where a "singer" screams as loud as human(or inhuman)ly possible and somehow this passes as a music. We don't call white noise music, so the same thing with Death Metal, we do? Not to mention, Death Metal is violent in every song I have ever heard, every artist is acting satanic, chaotic, and overall unpleasant. To me, this is a very heated argument, not a music form.
It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

It effects the nation as a whole. if effects me personally because I don't believe in gay marriage and now I will be forced to par-take in their decisions which is against my own religion especially if i own a business. the decision is economically destructive because now it opens the pathway for other groups to say they have to have their equal share. for example incest, polygamy, will be outside groups that now demand their equal rights. nature drew the line that we are suppose to follow and we are straying away from it. which is making a nation which our founding fathers wanted to be moral, unmoral. equal rights isn't an argument in this case because you are trying to change the definition that is set in stone as nature has intended. i understand the point of view of allowing gay marriage to happen. i understand they feel like second class citizens, so do many other groups or ideas people have and if you want to scream equal rights, then you have to speak for equal rights for everyone which include perverse acts that are illegal. that's why i am against this decision and know that this decision is destructive for maybe not this country but the institution of marriage which i am trying to protect. as a democrat bill Clinton signed into law the defense of marriage act which opened a floodgate of lawsuits and so will this if there's people like me that feel this strongly about this issue, it probably won't go away
It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

You are not being forced to believe in anything - you can still stick to your homophobic views. But it does not effect you whatsoever - them being married does not make you gay, it doesn't make you any less a part of your religion then you are. It has none of your concern unless you are gay yourself. It not unconstitutional to make this legal because it would be unconstitutional to deny some people the same right that others have - it is called equality, and America wants us all to be equal. You must have not read my statement - it does not cost you money for marriages. The parents and couples pay for that themselves. MORE MARRIAGES EQUALS MORE PROFIT that is just common sense and I do not need any statistics to back it up either - because it is a true statement. And since about 5-10% of the population is LGBT - There is a lot more heterosexual couples who are asking for benefits from the government. Because there is nine times more straight people than gay people.
It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

being forced to believe in something and openly allow something that I feel strongly about does effect me? and it is rude to say otherwise. having gay marriage legalized does effect businesses and people in everyday life. if you are against gay marriage because of you're religion should you have to legally support the gay couple in their decision to marry? even though it stands completely against you're Religion? No, it's unconstitutional you stated that gay marriage was good for the economy, that's a completely false statement. There's no definition of marriage anymore. the millions of gay couples that want to get married now don't have to pay as much in taxes and could actually receive benefits from the government which means I (the taxpayer) now am supporting millions of gay couples that receive tax breaks for being married, it'll cost the government millions of dollars and will not help the economy in revenue as a state or a country. it might help wedding businesses that support gay marriage but that's it. The fact is that gay marriage isn't good for this country and will lead this country down a very wrong path.
It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

As I have said before, some religions are against the practice of same-sex marriage but others do not. And marriage is suppost to support all religions equally - and the only way to do that is to allow two people who love each other (whether a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple) the right to marry who they love. If you are against it because of the religion you follow - then too bad. IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY. It does not make you unable to be married to someone of a different gender, it does not make you gay yourself, it does not make your religion open to gays, it just makes marriage fair for everyone. And to take that away would not be a good name for the country that we live in - considering our country primarily focuses on equality.
It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

This is a founding argument that has a lot of emotion behind it because each side is dead set against it. I want to first off point out that I am against gay marriage personally, now that does not mean I can demand everyone that I know to believe like me, but I shouldn't not fight for what I believe. some call it hate speech to be against gay marriage and I don't see much hate in my own life to gay people I have friends, family member's that are gay and I still love them, doesn't mean I agree with them on life decisions it means I still respect them as people. now that that's said is it a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in America ? I think you have to ask yourself what is marriage? marriage is and has always been between one man and one wife to make fertile children. it's against the moral and religious rights of other people to serve or marry a gay couple. it's not discrimination if you're trying to change the nature of Marriage if we can both agree that marriage was established as between one man and one women before or in the past. then we can draw the conclusion that if you change that to fit the need of an outside group, or any group then it is discrimination to say that me and this rock are not allowed to get married even though we love each other right? you would have to fit that status quota to fit everyone and everything from humans to rocks. no matter what in conclusion this is bad for the united states and economically destructive. it'll open the floodgates for a lot of other issues which should be interesting to listen to.
Socialism is dwarfed by Capitalism

Capitalism vs. Socialism has been an interesting political argument for some time now, ever since the Old Left (In America) established they favored communism, America's economy has been the tactical battlefield of Socialism and Communism. To establish my argument, I would like to briefly cover the modern economical history of China: "After World War II, the communists under MAO Zedong established an autocratic socialist system that, while ensuring China's sovereignty, imposed strict controls over everyday life and cost the lives of tens of millions of people. After 1978, MAO's successor DENG Xiaoping and other leaders focused on market-oriented economic development and by 2000 output had quadrupled. For much of the population, living standards have improved dramatically." [1] As the CIA Factbook adequately explains, under the communist regime, a socialist economy was enacted that literally CRIPPLED the economy. It took the free-market philosophy of capitalism to save China's economy and bring it to what it is today. Another excellent example of Socialism's failure is Cuba. "In this once spectacular tropical city, three buildings collapse from neglect every single day. There has been little infrastructure investment in 50 years and the average worker earns $20 a month. By almost any economic measure, socialism under Fidel Castro has been an abject failure." [2] The author goes further to state: "There are jobs for everyone; unemployment stands at less than 2%. But wages are so low that little gets done. Cuba"s productivity per person ranks among the lowest 3% in the world. A popular refrain heard throughout this city: "Fidel pretends to pay us and we pretend to work." The only jobs that matter are those where you can pilfer goods from the workplace or which give you access to tourist money. Tour guides and artists who sell to visitors command enviable incomes. Butchers earn more than doctors." [3] So you can see that the government regulated Socialist economy is a total failure in Cuba. Although there is low unemployment, the people are paid so little that it doesn't matter. Because of this, there is low productivity. Because of the evidence above, I would hardly call socialism a success story, would you? [1] https://www.cia.gov... [2] http://business.time.com... [3] Ibid
Socialism is dwarfed by Capitalism

Before we begin the debate, I would like to establish a few definitions: Socialism:Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. [1] Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. [2] [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.

1. Something had to be done about a 70% tax rate. Nobody today believes that is fair. 2. The Soviet economy couldn't operate because they had to spend so much more money on defense. We can debate how much he affected the Soviet downfall, but I do not believe it is debatable as to whether or not he had any effect at all. 3. Most of point three was my argument. No one could know that we would be attacked by the mujahideen. 4. I do not believe it is right to say that someone is corrupt without evidence. We have been doing this dance for 5 rounds now. DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A "RICH FRIEND" REAGAN DID FAVORS FOR??? If not, concede the point. 5. AIDS wasn't discovered by the CDC until June 5, 1981. The term wasn't coined until 1982. What do you expect Reagan to do? Do you expect that the first time the CDC brings it up he say, "start putting billions of dollars in research to a disease that we know nothing about." You cannot expect the government to pump money into research the second they discover a disease. Also, this is only 6 months into his Presidency. He wasn't expecting such a revelation. To combat the point you will try to make, it is not the government's responsibility to do research to prevent diseases. 6. The air traffic controllers violated the terms of their contract. It was the responsible thing to do. He gave them a 48 hour warning as well. 7. 30% raise in household income is not enough. Can you cite a specific source (that is reliable such as a government statistic) that shows that the created jobs were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet. 8. I spoke about it in round 3. You didn't respond. Please show me a reliable source that shows that the immigration reform had a adverse effect on the country. DO NOT SHOW ME AN ARTICLE OR A FORUM OR A BLOG. PLEASE SHOW ME AN ACCURATE SOURCE SUCH AS A GOVERNMENT STATISTIC. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.

1. I never said tax increases were bad. Reagan resorted to tax increases when his first-term tax cuts wrecked the federal budget. Reagan only destroyed the hole he dug. He didn"t create a mountain. 2. You"re repeating yourself. The Soviet Union did not fall because Reagan destroyed them. The Soviet economy just couldn"t operate anymore, and Reagan had nothing to do with this. If Kennedy was in office in the 1980s, the Soviet Union would have fallen then too. 3. There you go again with the "The source doesn"t agree with me, so I will call it biased" nonsense. If you can"t formulate a rebuttal, just say so. If my opponent had read my argument, while yes, Islamic fundamentalism was inevitable, US involvement in that proxy war hastened, and worsened the consequences. 4. My opponent is just tilting at windmills here. All presidents have resorted to corrupt tactics, including Reagan. 5. You continue to ignore my entire argument here. "Between June 1981 and May 1982 the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS and $9 million on Legionnaire's Disease. At that point more than 1,000 of the 2,000 reported AIDS cases resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire's Disease."1 Care to explain this? 6. Note that that link is in the works cited list in my round one argument. 7. In addition to destroying the air traffic controllers industry that now faces furloughs every so often because of that move. 8. Yet again, the jobs that were created were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet. The middle and lower class had their wages nearly frozen as the top earners saw dramatic increases in salary. Also, my opponent"s latter statement makes no sense.2 9. I was the last one to talk about immigration reform. You conceded that argument too. Works Cited: 1 http://www.actupny.org... 2 http://www.examiner.com...
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.

1. What is wrong with certain tax increases? Usually, anti-Reagan people say he cut too much. I think Republicans need to learn that it is okay to raise taxes in certain situations. 2. When it comes to the Soviet Union, the fact is, is that they overtook us militarily in the 1970's and when Reagan took office, he overtook them. Reagan exploited their weak economy by making them increase their military spending. Then they collapsed. 3. Tell me one person in 1985 who claimed that if the United States continued to fund afghan militants, than we would be attacked. It is absurd to say that Reagan should have known. About Kumar, look at my link. He isn't very objective. Also, you just lost this point based on his quote. Islamic fundamentalism was inevitable. It is his wrong opinion that the US is at fault. 4. You pointed out that Reagan had rich friends that he did favors for. Can you name one???? 5. It is not the government's job to combat diseases. You can say how horrible it is, but it is the private sector's job to do this. EXAMPLE: POLIO. 6. Robert Sobel, the person who wrote the article you copy and pasted, works for the Orlando Liberal Examiner. http://www.examiner.com... 7. The air traffic controllers broke their contract. This is the Wikipedia text: "In summer 1981 PATCO, the union of federal air traffic controllers went on strike, violating a federal law prohibiting government unions from striking.[118] Declaring the situation an emergency as described in the 1947 Taft"Hartley Act, Reagan stated that if the air traffic controllers "do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated".[119] They did not return and on August 5, Reagan fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers who had ignored his order, and used supervisors and military controllers to handle the nation's commercial air traffic until new controllers could be hired and trained.[120] As a leading reference work on public administration concluded, "The firing of PATCO employees not only demonstrated a clear resolve by the president to take control of the bureaucracy, but it also sent a clear message to the private sector that unions no longer needed to be feared."" 8. Sorry about the unemployment, I didn't see it. It is frozen when household income rises by 30%. It has gone down 5 % since Obama has taken office. The fact is Reagan put people back to work. 9. Immigration reform has been conceded by my opponent. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.susmitkumar.net... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ronald Reagan was the best president in the 20th Century.

First of all, good job on copying someone else's work. You should be proud of yourself on hard you worked on this argument. Secondly, Ronald Reagan did cut and raise taxes by changing the tax code. He cut the outrageous tax rate of 70% to 28%. However, his tax hikes cut deductions, not increase rates. It is wrong to say he raised taxes that only apply to the middle class. His tax cuts stimulated business and served as a model to future presidents. Clinton raised the top tax rate to 40%, Bush brought it down to 35%, and Obama has kept it there. Thirdly, Reagan did substantially raise the national debt. However, he did so to fight a war, the Cold War. Because of Reagan's drastic increase in defense spending, the United States won the Cold War. Also, a president cannot be perfect. Fourth, who are Reagan's "rich friends" Fifth, Iran/Contra was not done by Reagan. It was done by people in his administration. Perhaps he should have known, but at least he didn't try to cover it up like Nixon or Clinton. Sixth, Reagan's funding of the Mujahedeen in the 1980's was a continuation of Carter's policies. Also, he did not give billions of dollars. It was substantially less than that. Ronald Reagan had no way of knowing that the Mujahadeen was going to attack the United States. No reasonable person would expect him to. He, and his predecessor, thought it was right to fight against Soviet aggression and for a country's right to sovereignty. Seventh, what do you expect Reagan should have done to fight aids? Do you want him to put an apron and find the cure? Eighth, the unemployment rate in 1988 was 5.5%. Ninth, Reagan's bipartisan immigration reform gave amnesty to immigrants in the country before 1982. But it also made it illegal to hire illegal immigrants. Tenth, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers who broke their contract. They signed a contract that prohibited the right to collectively bargain. They broke their contract, Reagan warned them he would act, and then he did. He actually had the balls to stand up to a big corrupt entity, unlike any of his predecessors or his successors. Sources: http://dailycaller.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...