BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The string instrument instrument family is better than the other instrument families.

Now, I am just going to focus on the musical aspect. According to many, the violin has the one most beautiful and recognisable sounds within the orchestral instrument range. I am not being naive, I also believe that instruments such as the oboe, flute and bassoon have wonderful sounds. It is just that I will always favour the string family. learning an instrument of the string family is said to be very rewarding e.g. it allows you to develop a greater musical ear, the violin is highly valued in education. Some of the greatest musicians and composers of our time and before our time such as Mozart (classical), Dvorak(Romantic), Itzhak Perlman, Hilary Hahn. Like percussion instruments, it is easy to play another instrument in the string family if you already play one. I understand that the glockenspiel, marimba and xylophone are rather similar in how they are played. The main instrument I play is the violin and because of this I have found easier because of the violin to play the viola and cello etc. This is because, all the instruments in the violin family except the Double bass, are tuned in 5ths, meaning that changing from instruments is relatively easy.In terms of performing music, the string family is considered the 'back bone' of the orchestra, especially the cello. It is most often the 1st violin who plays the melody with the rest of the family to support this. Yes, I will admit that the violin section doesn't always play the melody, but it is quite common for them.
The string instrument instrument family is better than the other instrument families.

I am a percussionist myself, and will be mainly using that along with the small amounts of knowledge I have on woodwinds and brass to counter my opponent's arguments. I believe that it is fit to use the same 3 categories my opponent used in his first argument. 1. Music While it is true that an instrument from the string family is diverse, an tuned instrument from the percussion family, such as a piano or bells, is even more diverse, with most modern pianos reaching 7 octaves, and a minor third. Learning the piano is especially handy, as when you learn the piano, you also know the music theory behind bells and timpani, and can learn these without much trouble. In the string family, you must relearn fingerings and bow angles for each note and chord, making learning a new instrument tedious, where tuned percussion stacks upon itself for each new instrument. 2. Art The making of any instrument is considered an art. The opposition states that the making of a string instrument requires precision. While this may be true, it is also true that the making of every instrument requires precision, not just the string family. 3. History While the violins may have been the earliest instrument used for music, drums are the earliest instrument period. Before man could carve a violin and tune one, the could stretch a hide over a hollow bowl. While these were not used exclusively for music, because music was not important at the time, drums were used for things like sacred rituals and war. Again, I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I look forward to the next two rounds. All my sources are not citable, and I apologize for this fact. My sources for information are my personal experience and history classes
The string instrument instrument family is better than the other instrument families.

I play musical instruments in both the string and woodwind family, so I would find this argument less biased towards one family. Anyway... I am pro for this because of the following reasons: 1)Music: The violin family of the string family is often seen as the simplest looking instruments to play. This may be the case, but in reality, the violin, viola and cello etc is capable of playing up to 4 octaves. The string family instruments can be applied to a whole range of genres such as classical, bluegrass, blues, jazz, even dubstep. Apart from having to change positions while play a string instrument, the violin, cello etc is the easiest instrument to play. 2)Art:The making of a violin is considered an art in which it requires thorough precision. Like art, every violin is different in one way or another. Even creating a varnish for an instrument is considered a skill. 3)History:String instruments are said to have been the earliest known instruments to be used for music. Italy is said to be the birthplace of these magnificent instruments in which some of the finest violins, harps cellos etc were made there. Some of these violins can be worth up to £20,000,000 and are considered a national treasure.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Covenys recent behavior would be a net detriment on ForDebating.Com (his new website)

Some context on the resolution. Normally I would define terms, but it's kind of hard given the format of this debate. I am not going to define terms, but define the debate itself. This debate is centered around Coveny's behavior as of late, and his responses to some members in his recent posts. Coveny is making a new website and will moderate this new site as moderator and owner. I am going to lay out why he would be a bad moderator on this or any debate site. This is focused specifically on his new site, but it also framed around why this behavior would be bad on any debate site. This is not just in terms of moderation but his role of being a figurehead on any site, specifically his new one. I will be arguing that Covenys behavior is a bad thing for any site where he would act as a figurehead in any capacityCoveny will be arguing the opposite The winner will be chosen in terms of net utility To make this simple I am going to share the Burden of Proof with CovenyThe format is as followsHe will start in Round 1 and Pass in Round 3. He will begin by laying out a case for why he would make a good figurehead and I will lay out my case for why he would make a bad figurehead. Rules1) No semantics2) No Trolling3) No K's 4) No new arguments can be presented in the final round5) Debaters Etiquette will not be counted in terms of voting (Meaning we can be as rude as we want. I'm chill with that and I think he's a blithering moron at points. So forgive me if I sound condescending, but I don't want that counted against me) This debate is an opt in voting debate. Meaning all RFDS will be moderated based on a high standard of voting criteria. (Well maybe not high but above the norm). There must be a valid RFD that meets the standards of current voting moderation for the vote to count. Best of luckI look forward to the free win
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

"Let me remind you that this argument is for you people to stop obsessing about Solarman and don't make stupid topics like "Solarman should be banned from debate.org". No matter how good of a debater he is, that's still a stupid topic, and he has no life for bringing it up. Aren't we supposed to debate issues instead of using personal attacks in order to gain some wins added to your record? (Because we all know if you go up against Solarman, chances are you will win)" No. This argument is not for any purpose except discussing opposing viewpoints and examining arguments. The fact that this debate serves an alternate purpose for you does not make your argument any less fallacious. No topic is stupid as long as it expresses opposing views and the debate is argued well. This applies to the majority of the links you gave. One of the debates is "stupid" in that both Pro and Con agree with each other, and that is the only criterion I need to see in order to judge it to be a bad and useless debate. Whether or not it deals with a stupid topic (in your opinion) is irrelevant. "I am telling those people that I think they should stop. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying those debates should be canceled. I'm saying they're silly. Grow up." Exactly. What are the grounds? There are debates about Yugioh vs Magic and debates about crab people against lobster people. There's a debate about who would win if Goku and Superman had a death match. The topic of a debate doesn't matter here. On this site, debate is about the presentation of the argument, not the position. I ask you again, do you have any justification for your proposal that solarman should not be the topic of any more debates?
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

Thank you for taking this debate. Let me remind you that this argument is for you people to stop obsessing about Solarman and don't make stupid topics like "Solarman should be banned from debate.org". No matter how good of a debater he is, that's still a stupid topic, and he has no life for bringing it up. Aren't we supposed to debate issues instead of using personal attacks in order to gain some wins added to your record? (Because we all know if you go up against Solarman, chances are you will win) "On what grounds are you supporting your position that topics should no longer be made about Solarman?" I am telling those people that I think they should stop. It's ridiculous. I'm not saying those debates should be canceled. I'm saying they're silly. Grow up.
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

First of all, you said it best yourself. Free speech. On what grounds are you supporting your position that topics should no longer be made about Solarman? Please note that these are probably also challenges made directly TO Solarman and not open challenges. More importantly, I don't think any of those attacks you made on Darth Grievous are warranted are relevant. I would advise you to stop. Darth Grievous made a debate and expressed an opinion. Remember that in this site, we do not vote based on position, we vote based on the quality of the argument. Did you even bother to read the debate? Darth Grievous' responses were well written and coherent whereas Solarman's responses were disjointed and bordered on obscene rambling. The votes were heavily skewed in Darth Grievous' favor because he is a good debater. Not because he rigged the debate.
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

The following debates are incredibly stupid: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... You people have no life. Solarman is incredibly infamous on this webstie, he has won 2 debates out of 55, and certain low lifes have nothing to do but to take advantage of that. I see that Solarman man has what many people would call "racist" attitude towards muslims. However, dumb debate topics such as "Solarman should be removed from debate.org" are worthless, unnecessary and a waste of time. And oh my lord, over 35 people actually voted to have Solarman removed from this website. That is ludicrous! In Darth_Grievous_42's argument he states Solarman called some people, I quote: I quote: shmucks, Stalinist's, liberals (derogatorily), fools, morons, evil, dummies... Is this reason for a debate? How about this Darth_Grievous_42, I am oficially calling you an idiot for inciting such a debate. You either rigged it to get all those votes, or debate.org members are so angry at Solarman that they stopped thinking straight and voted against him on everything. It's called free speech you idiots! I don't care how detestable Solarman can be, you have no life trying to debate something like "Solarman1969 refuses to debate me because he knows he can't win". Do you seriously believes Solarman cares about "winning"? What's cute is now you're gonna hate me like you hate Solarman for calling you a bunch of idiots. And my opponent is going to get 40 votes like that Darth_Grievous_42 idiot. So I won't even wish him/her good luck. He/she doesn't need it.
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

"What are you trying to say about those debates? I actually think those are interesting topics if debated correctly." What I'm trying to say is that these debates are not necessarily serious ones. The results don't mean anything, they don't represent a serious issue. Same with the solarman debates. And that's fine. "The difference is the reason why people make these Solarman debates is to add wins to their score. They are not productive at all and certainly not entertaining." That's still your opinion. Solarman need not participate in those debates, nor anyone else. If someone does participate, then obviously both people think that they have a chance at winning. Whether or not they are entertaining is a matter of opinion. Whether or not they are productive is meaningless, as I have shown from those debates I used as examples: they are not productive at all. "I started this debate to see how people vote and to see if they too think it's stupid to debate about somebody over and over again instead of debating real important controversial issues." Real important controversial issues? Such as MTG v Yugioh or Goku v Superman? My point is that a topic for debate need not be anything except an opinion. The fact that *you* don't like it or find something wrong with it is negligible. "This is not lets-talk-about-solarman.com, this is debate.org and I will now debate that you people should stop wasting your time with these Solarman debates. Including this one. But hopefully this one will be the sacrifice for all the ones coming to not come." And in debate, we present arguments for opinion. You still have not provided an objective reason for not arguing about solarman. These are a few out of the dozens of debates going on right now, so your "lets-talk-about-solarman.com" example is pure exaggeration. "Thanks for the debate, you didn't manage to change my mind on anything. Let's hope this wasn't a waste of time and other people realize how stupid it is to pay so much attention to solarman and debating him because it's a free win." I honestly don't care whether or not I managed to change your mind because it's clear you are debating on raw bias. Position does not matter in debate, only the strength of the argument presented and you have not provided a single argument for your point. As I said before, by what authority and by what reasoning are you saying that we should no longer make debates about solarman? As long as differing opinions exist and the arguments are presented, what does it matter? Most of the solarman debates aren't spam, they're just extraordinarily one-sided. The instigators of those debates present good arguments. And that is what we look for. Remember, position doesn't matter. The strength of the arguments do.
May this be the last topic with "Solarman1969" on it.

< > < > What are you trying to say about those debates? I actually think those are interesting topics if debated correctly. The difference is the reason why people make these Solarman debates is to add wins to their score. They are not productive at all and certainly not entertaining. I started this debate to see how people vote and to see if they too think it's stupid to debate about somebody over and over again instead of debating real important controversial issues. This is not lets-talk-about-solarman.com, this is debate.org and I will now debate that you people should stop wasting your time with these Solarman debates. Including this one. But hopefully this one will be the sacrifice for all the ones coming to not come. Thanks for the debate, you didn't manage to change my mind on anything. Let's hope this wasn't a waste of time and other people realize how stupid it is to pay so much attention to solarman and debating him because it's a free win.
Abolishing currency (money) will ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime

I was really hoping someone who believed in the resolution was going to take this debate. Instead, I have apparently received someone who is echoing my own claims. PRO states that there isn't much logic here, yet seems to not only agree with me, but also briefly touched on one argument I was reserving for another round. I seriously question why he chose to accept the debate. If PRO does not put forth an argument that supports the resolution, I scarcely see how that would not constitute a forfeiture.
Abolishing currency (money) will ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime

=== ABSTRACT === A proposition inferred by several members of DDO is that abolishing current forms of currency will either ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime. I disagree that money is the root cause of human greed, and believe that eliminating currency will not stop human greed. Concurrent to this position, I feel that such a proposition attempts to naively and artificially remove an internal struggle (greed of the human heart) through external means. Money is essentially an abstraction that we have arbitrarily assigned a universal, or near universal, monetary value to. By eliminating currency, I believe that humans will intrinsically resort to other forms of currencies in the absence of currently accepted forms of money. For instance, many native American tribes used goods as currency in which to trade. Natural items, such as seashells, the hides of animals, and/or ornately crafted objects were often used as a form of currency. By eliminating an universally accepted form of currency, people will simply revert back to more archaic forms of payment. === RULES & CLARIFICATIONS === Disclaimer: By accepting the debate, you infer total acceptance of the rules set forth. Any deviation from the rules will result in a forfeiture of the debate. 1. All DDO members may accept this debate, however, it is optimal that the accepting challenger actually believe in the PRO position. 2. Excessive use of semantics is strictly forbidden, however, what constitutes as "excessive semantics" will be at the discretion of the voters, although any debater may feel free to point out the alleged overuse of semantics. 3. Any round can be used to present any argument applicable to the debate. (For instance, some debaters posit that using the Final Round to present an argument that cannot be rebutted against is disingenuous. I do not ascribe to this philosophy). 4. The debater accepting the challenge may NOT vote on their own debate. I am barring myself the ability to vote for this debate as well. Voting either for or against yourself will result in automatic forfeiture. 5. Have fun, and give the audience a good show!
Abolishing currency (money) will ameliorate or eliminate greed and crime

PRO asserts that I am posting an argument I do not believe in. He is mistaken, not that it matters if I did take a devil's advocate position. Some on this site have alleged that if we were to get rid of commonly accepted forms of currency, crime and greed would be reduced or eliminated altogether. I am taking the CON position because I do not believe this proposition to be true and then give supporting details to further explain why. Lastly, PRO states that my writing style gives him the impression that I am anti-social; the guy people try to avoid talking to at parties. How he's deduced so much from my writing is anyone's guess, but a few things are certain. 1. PRO introduces irrelevancies in to the "debate. " 2. PRO uses ad hominem for no apparent reason. 3. PRO made no substantive argument.
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

It doesn't matter! Sure, the South had several reasons to secede, many of them not related to slavery at all. However, the connotation that the flag carried during and after the civil war for blacks was and is obviously offensive. The South, among other things sure, carried the banner for slavery after the North tried to get rid of it. Additionally, the South was the hottest region for anti-Black sentiment after the war. Organizations like the KKK and other racists groups used the confederate flag to represent this racist sentiment and the 'heritage' which was largely founded in anti-black sentiment. What the flag actually represented is not as important as what it means to people. Sure, the Confederacy didn't slap "We hate Blacks" under the flag. But, the connotation that it carried as the flag of the slave-holding states and afterward as a region of intense struggle for blacks is apparent. The flag represents one of the worst periods of struggle for blacks. So, in a state with a large black population especially, the flag shouldn't be on or as the state flag.
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

"Slavery is a major part of the 'spirit of the South'". This is nonesense. the "South" as you so put it is a vague term. No Southerner in the United States, if very few, actually sympathize with the concept of slavery. rtaher they look at the Stars and Bars as a symbol of pride, standing for oneself and it is imporant that histrocially you examine things from two points of view. The South can also be seen as a force of democracy, local power, annd the North as a force of evil invaders that refused to let go of their economic interests in the South. The North was not a bunch of abolsihnest crusaders- many didnt care for Negoroes at all and at least at the time the main issue was that holding the country together. The meaning of the symbol of one of slavery is a propagandic misconsception developed after reconstruction. We can allow lies like this to dictate the values of an enligtened people of the current time. Thus, the flag should remain as is.
The flag of Mississippi, which contains a mini-Confederate flag, should be altered.

The key here is symbolism. Yes, Americans favored slavery during the revolution. But, the North became the symbol for freedom during the civil war. The south and its flag were the symbol of opression and racism during and after the civil war. No, slavery was not the only issue, but it was a major one and the one that applies to this debate. The flag stood as a symbol of opression in the south for almost two centuries and is still used by racists as a symbol today. The heritage that you wish to represent is largely composed of enslavement and intolerance. Slavery is a major part of the 'spirit of the South'. Even as we as a country attempted to abolish the practice, a new movement began that was largely defined by the embracing of slavery. This movement is sybolized by the stars and bars. To sum, the stars and bars are uniquely recognized as a symbol of slavery. This symbol shouldn't be the symbol of a government today. The heritage people are trying to remember is largely one of intolerance and currently illegal practice.