BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black Sabbath is that band that gave birth to the rock and roll sub-genre 'heavy metal'

While Black Sabbath and the musicians that have played with them previously make up a large majority of the pioneers of heavy metal, to credit Black Sabbath as the group that created and birthed heavy metal would require someone to be oblivious to the musical timeline in general. Anyway, enough mudslinging, let's go into the actual debate. I will not deny that Black Sabbath deserves a tremendous quantity of credit for their contributions to heavy metal and music in general, as to do so would be factually incorrect. But they did not birth heavy metal itself, as it was slow evolution from basic roots, and other bands also played substantial roles into creating the genre. Essentially, I will attempt to show that other bands and influences were so influential that to say Black Sabbath birthed heavy metal would be overstatement. First, we come to the timeline in events. According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the three main pioneers of heavy metal were Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple. Already, it is seen that the initial start up of the genre is credited to three different bands. Some sources go even further, adding Metallica, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Steppenwolf, The Kinks and even the Beatles and the Rolling Stones as the first "true" heavy metal band. While most of these suggestions aren't wildly supported, as Metallica and Iron Maiden came long after most of the generally recognized founders of heavy metal, it does show that the entire subgenre itself is a result of being coalesced, not the result of one band birthing it. We also come to music itself. Music is almost always based off of an earlier concept that has just been mildly changed, kind of like evolution. And like evolution, pinpointing exactly where one link ends and another begins isn't always easy, especially as the city where Black Sabbath originates, Birmingham, was a breeding ground for subgenres of rock, of which the most famous is heavy metal. Finally, we come to the timeline. Several songs credited as the first heavy metal song ever was released before Black Sabbath's debut album, and the band itself, came to me. One of the first examples of this is "You Really Got Me Now" by the Kinks, which was released in 1964, four years before Black Sabbath was founded. Others claim The Beatles with songs such as "Helter Skelter" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" as the first songs that birthed heavy metal, and they were released 1968 and 1969, the same year that Black Sabbath was founded for the former and a year before their first album in regards to the later. For another example, one can look at Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple, the other two of the three bands credited largely with the creation of heavy metal. While founded in similar times, each one released their debut album before Black Sabbath did.
Black Sabbath is that band that gave birth to the rock and roll sub-genre 'heavy metal'

Black Sabbath is usually credited with birthing the music Black Sabbath, that is something a lot of us can agree upon. Black Sabbath is given credit for it. This debate is about whether or not they are rightfully credited. What is heavy metal? To me, it's like blues that is distorted. But what is the meaning? According to Wikipedia, the term means the following: "Heavy metal is traditionally characterized by loud distorted guitars, emphatic rhythms, dense bass-and-drum sound, and vigorous vocals. Metal subgenres variously emphasize, alter, or omit one or more of these attributes. New York Times critic Jon Pareles writes, "In the taxonomy of popular music, heavy metal is a major subspecies of hard-rock"the breed with less syncopation, less blues, more showmanship and more brute force."[6] The typical band lineup includes a drummer, a bassist, a rhythm guitarist, a lead guitarist, and a singer, who may or may not be an instrumentalist. Keyboard instruments are sometimes used to enhance the fullness of the sound". Although Black Sabbath did not have a rhythm guitarist, which it's at that point I stop agreeing with the quote. Black Sabbath was the first band to put out any deep, dark, scary sounding music. While other bands existed at the time, with similar music, Black Sabbath was the first one to do so, even though they do not take the credit for it even to this day.
Abortion should remain legal

Thank you for presenting your arguments, i'd like to save my rebuttals for next round, so instead i'll raise some key points using my time. My first argument is a fairly common one, and is less of an argument and more of an additional discussion, when do we start considering potential offspring as human? Is masturbation genocide? When a woman ovulates and does not procreate, is it murder for not doing all she could to protect the potential offspring? Surely we need to agree that there is a moment in which we should start declaring the potential offspring to be human. My second argument is just a question: Do exceptions exist? My questions hopes to envelope rape victims, people who are not able to take care of the potential child, ectopic pregnancies (see source 1 and 2) and potential offspring that are guaranteed to be born with disabilities and deformities that would significantly reduce their quality of life. My third argument is that there is a black market for everything. If i were to travel to the dark web, I would very easily be able to find drugs, guns, hackers for hire, illegal pornography and other content. I have been on the deep web and have found, but not purchased, the first three from the list. So while making it illegal would definitely reduce the number of abortions, those who do seek them out would find themselves undertaking those operations in much less safe circumstances which may increase their risk for a botched abortion and infections. My fourth and final argument is whether or not it would be considered a sort of mercy killing if the potential offspring were to be born to under-prepared parents, or parents that do not want a child. You could argue that they could go through a fostering system, but my fifth source states that children in care were at a higher risk to mental health problems such as self-harm and eating disorders. In fact, about a third of the sample group had referred themselves for mental health problems. Your argument was fine, con. You did well. Over to you, con, I hope you enjoyed my points! Sources: http://www.cracked.com... http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.who.int... http://www.who.int... http://apt.rcpsych.org...
Abortion should remain legal

I will be taking the "con/against" position of this debate, I do not believe abortion should remain legal. My opponent, Elias_is_the_llama, will be taking the pro position. The first round is for acceptance only. The second round will be for opening arguments from both sides. The third round and onward will be used for rebuttals of the previous round. Legal - permitted by lawAbortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy*definitions retrieved from a bing searchGood luck to my opponent! I look forward to debating him again!
Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

to sum up con has given proof of those who have ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry 1) I have given proof that the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value-thus those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous- I have proven my claim 2} con has not given proof that the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value thus con has not demonstrated his con position which is Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry DONT look ridiculous Thus I must win
Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

The debate is simple now I claim those who have ridiculed dean poetry look ridiculous because the NLA regards deans poetry to be of cultural value Con himself has given evidence to show those who have ridiculed Deans poetry As con has taken the con position because he argues that those who ridiculed deans poetry do not look ridiculous All con has to do is prove the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value If con canot give evidence as to why the NLA is wrong in regarding deans poetry to be of cultural value then I must win the debate
Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous

Those who ridiculed colin leslie dean poetry now look ridiculous The National Library of Australia has selected colin leslie dean via Gamahucher Press for preservation http://pandora.nla.gov.au... colin leslie deans work is considered by the National Library of Australia to be of cultural value note the guidelines says http://pandora.nla.gov.au... "In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection" "recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge" be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia " "4.1 Australian content 4.1.1 To be selected for national preservation, a significant proportion of a work should be about Australia (7); or be on a subject of social, political, cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia and be written by an Australian author; or be written by an Australian (8) of recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge. 4.1.2 It may be located on either an Australian or an overseas server. Australian authorship or editorship alone is insufficient grounds for national preservation. In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection
Who should be the next POTUS?? Trump(Pro)....Clinton(Con)

Hello all! I am I favor of Mr. Donald J. Trump becoming the President of the United States. I believe that Hillary Clinton is a lying corrupt criminal. I will argue for Mr. Trump and Con will argue for Clinton. Thank You, and I hope this will be good debate. Please no trolling or rude behavior. Citations should be used if can. Good Luck to Con! The format of this debate is as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: Arguments....NO REBUTTALS Round 3: Rebuttals and Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusion
There is no Proof of God

I am really sorry if I wasn't specific but NOW you know what I am looking for. You still refuse to debate with me. You can either argue against me or leave because nothing you have said I can debate against because it is TRUE. We can talk ALL day on the definition of a god or we can actually go with the topic. I WASN'T specific enough but now I am. I will make another debate on this topic and I will try to be more specific. You now know what I am looking for so please either support your side or leave.
There is no Proof of God

My opponent asserts that: 'In the comments I mentioned I wanted proof for either Christian, Muslim, or Jewish god.'However, when I accepted this debate that comment was not extant. The only thing I had to go off of was this assertion made by my opponent:'I realize that this isn't only about Christianity but I used Adam and Eve only as an example.'Thus my God can be deemed as anything which falls into the definition of God as I have defined above. Pro has been unable to refute my claim that the Laws of Physics can be considered a God, thus all I need to do is provide evidence. I have already done this, but I've decided to provide another evidence - gravity.Gravity is one of the Laws of Physics. It is [1]the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward thecenter of the earth. There is proof of its existence as, when you throw an apple, eventually it will come to land on the ground.I think I have proved two things in this debate. The first being that the definition of 'God' is too vague for it to have any real meaning, and the other being that my opponent should be more specific in setting out his debates.Sources:[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
There is no Proof of God

Stop trying to be such a smarty pants. In the comments I mentioned I wanted proof for either Christian, Muslim, or Jewish god. You are just wasting my time with things I already know. If you stop supporting my side maybe I will have a proper debate. If you are trying to actually argue that the Laws of Nature and the Big Bang then you are in the wrong place because I am all for those. I know I wasn't specific enough in my comments but you knew what I meant and you are just trying to be annoying.
There is no Proof of God

Ok, I change my argument.My argument is no longer the Big Bang, but instead is the Laws of Physics. The Laws of Physics fulfill the criteria of dictating the natural universe and causing the Big Bang, therefore creating it. Thus the Laws of Physics can be referred to as the God's of the universe. They created it and therefore everything in it is their creation. There are no objective morals but that's fine the Laws of Physics can still have moral authority because we were created as a result of the Laws of Physics creating the universe and thus our grasp on morality is due to the Laws of Physics. Thus the Laws of Physics are the God's of the universe and their existence can be proved by the Big Bang, which you agreed happened.
There is no Proof of God

Sorry, the reason there was no rebuttal because I am on your side. The Big Bang is real whether religious or not. You did not give me the argument I asked. The Big Bang is in no conscience control over nature nor is it a being, it was an event. You argued against me but on my side. I am not the one breaking rules here. Sorry I posted that though. I put a comment on what I meant to say. There is no edit button on the thing so the only way to reply was to wait for yours.
There is no Proof of God

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for giving me the opportunity to debate on this topic with him.Arguments:The Argument:Pro believes that I am unable to provide any proof of the existence of God. Thus all I need to do to win this debate is to offer up any sort of proof of the existence of a God, as Pro did not specify which God. In fact, Pro openly states that 'I realize that this isn't only about Christianity' thus inferring that there is no limit on which 'Gods' can be chosen in my providing of proof for their existence. Thus, allow me to provide some definitions:God: [1] 'in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.'In certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.Proof: [2]'Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.'The Gods:We have seen some of the requirements that need to be met for something to be given the status of God. These are:1. Have power over nature.2. Be the creator or/and ruler of the universe.3. Be the source of moral authority.The fact is that, due to the vague definitions of what a 'God' actually is, anything can be deemed to be a God. Thus, the God of my choosing, the existence for which I shall offer proof for, is the Big Bang. It created everything and, thus, must be the creator of the Universe and, as moral authority would not exist without humans to create it, and as humans were only allowed to evolve by conditions created by the Big Bang, the Big Bang must be the source or all moral authority. The Big Bang was a natural phenomenon, which created everything, thus it had power over nature.Argument for the existence the Big Bang:'[3]The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.' Sources:[1]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[2]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;[3]http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk...
There is no Proof of God

After much research and debates I have come to the conclusion that god, or at least our idea of it, is false. I recently had another debate about this and I would rather have a new opponent for some fresher views. There are many fallacies that some may call proof when in reality it proves nothing. I will give you some examples of false proof. "We are here and the world is too complicated to have happened by chance," it probably did just happen on chance, it maybe wasn't chance but that doesn't prove that your religious book (whatever it may be) is 100% true. "You cannot disprove it therefore you have no proof against it and I am right" That is actually called an "Argument from Ignorance" and is a fallacy in logic and is by definition, bad evidence. Keep in mind that the theist holds the Burden of Proof so don't start on about how I have no proof that science or something. This discussion is about religion. Keep it that way. "Humans are created flawed beings, we don't understand him, he will always be a mystery." I wish not to be rude but to me that sounds like a lame excuse to use when you are trapped with no more things to say. If god created human which are flawed then god is flawed. He gave you free choice so some choose to be bad? So god can feel love? Any being that needs love is flawed. He put Adam and Eve right next to the apple. That must be a mistake and therefore god is flawed. If god is not flawed explain that. I realize that this isn't only about Christianity but I used Adam and Eve only as an example. "The big bang, where did that come from? huh?" Keep this also in mind when you respond: I am an atheist, the lack of belief in a god. I think the big bang is a little over the top to and I lean on science only because nothing is more logical, not because it is the certain truth. There are more examples but I can point them out once you try to defend your side. I really hope we can have a good mature debate and I can't wait to see what person chooses to debate.
Republicans are better than Democrats

1. Pro did not go rebut a single thing I said. 2. Pro said: "Republicans like smaller government," twice, even after I had stated that they do not, they differ in what area of government they prefer bigger. 3. My opponent has been comparing people, rather than their parties. 3. This conclusion that Republicans are better is just a matter of opinion. 4. I don't even think that Pro even read by argument by how he responded in round three, as I never said that Democrats like bigger government, but rather they like more government in different areas, as I have already explained. 5. He misspelled maybe. ("Maybye") Vote Con!!
Republicans are better than Democrats

Rebuttals: Obama has spent more money than Bush 1. It's about different people, not the parties. You could ten republicans in a room, five like Obama, five like Bush, in their spending. You're comparing people and personalities vs. parties. 2. I believe the parties are about the same: no matter what they want you to think, they both want big government. Republicans don't believe in overly generous welfare programs 1. But Republicans still do, don't they? So what's the difference of the extent of it? Republicans are more religious 1. Perhaps, but they are twice as likely to believe in satanic worship, which is their higher power. My opponent is assuming that their higher power is God, when their worship could be evil, which would definitely not lead to behave as well as people who do not believe in a higher power. http://www.christianpost.com... But if you want to go that way and call Obama a big spender: Republican Reagan increased government spending by 69% and military spending by 92%. Democrat Bill Clinton increased government spending by 32% and military spending by 4%. Republican George W. Bush boosted government spending by 68% and government spending by 126%. So you see, the only real difference in parties in what they spend in. Democrats ten to less on spending and more on government and less on government, and republican is vice versa. Both parties have done their damage on the U.S., so you really can't pinpoint one party or one person, as all people from the opposing parties can't be exactly the same. http://www.mcclatchydc.com... As Ron-Paul said: "We don't have a good democratic process," Paul said. "What happens if you come to the conclusion, as millions of Americans have, these parties aren't different, they're all the same. The monetary policy stays the same. The welfare system stays the same. The foreign policy stays the same. They get pretty disgusted. There is but one party." From the Presidents over the years, we can see he is right. http://articles.baltimoresun.com... So to sum things up, my positions is that the parties are pretty much the same.
Republicans are better than Democrats

First to argue in favor of Republicans being better than democrats, I will demonstrate the difference between the current president (Democrat) and the previous president (Republican) regarding spending. Then I will argue in the context of welfare, taxes, and religion.1. Obama has spent an extraordinary amount more than Bush hasBush Fiscal Years 2000 to 2008 Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total$ billion 2000 9951.5 1789.22 a -236.24 a 2001 10286.2 1863.19 a -128.24 a 2002 10642.3 2011.15 a 157.75 a 2003 11142.1 2160.12 a 377.59 a 2004 11867.8 2293.01 a 412.73 a 2005 12638.4 2472.20 a 318.34 a 2006 13398.9 2655.44 a 248.19 a 2007 14077.6 2728.94 a 160.94 a 2008 14441.4 2982.55 a 458.55 a Obama Year GDP-US$ billion Total Spending-fed$ billion Federal Deficit-total$ billion 2009 14601.4 3517.7 a 1412.7 a 2. Republicans don't believe in overly generous welfare programsA} Getting a job will set someone up for a career in life, and teach them disciplineB} Not getting a job and collecting welfare checks will teach you laziness, and how to be dependant. 3. Economic ideas regarding taxes Democrat Republican Favor minimum wages and progressive taxation i.e. higher tax rates for higher income brackets. Believe taxes shouldn't be increased for anyone (including the wealthy) and that wages should reflect free market. 4. Republicans are more religious1) Those who believe in a higher power are more likely to hehave 2) People who do not believe in a higher power and believe they will await judgement and will most likely not behave as well a Christian. 5. Sourceshttp://www.diffen.com...;
abortionist tiller should have been shot, prolife folks should agree

The conclusion is simple: there are good legal processes in place to deal with situations like what you're proposing. You have provided no moral justification for allowing vigilante justice, and in fact we know that vigilante justice is not the answer (which is why it, too, is illegal). I was hoping that you would spend more time and effort attempting provide an actual moral justification for your position. Instead, you just re-stated it. You have provided no real justification for the actions of Tiller's murderer, nor reasons to believe that his behavior was better than available legal alternatives. You have not met your burden of proof in this debate.