BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

Sorry it took so long to reply. I've been busy with my school and music. Plus it was hard to come up with a reply considering you didn't really address my main points so let me try to be more clear. You say I've failed to demonstrate why there should be a ban. As I said before, maybe a ban is too far but drastically lower the singing categories limit would be beneficial. Also the number of shows open to singers is enormous compared to the ONE for other acts. In your first paragraph you are basically saying that I think singers are untalented. Also you state that, "Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows." What unforeseen event would that be? The downfall of talent shows? The loss of spectators? You said yourself that the show is popular regardless. Saying that it will fall, then saying it will be popular regardless don't make much sense together. While on that note, spectators could just easily change the channel to American Idol, (there are rumors that it will return) The X Factor, The Voice, or any other show that is out there just for singers. Now you say I "overstated" the importance of winning talent shows. It is actually very important for some people. Singers, not so much because they can just go to a different show and compete. Other acts don't get this luxury. Sure, they can try to get back into the talent show but when they say your name on the roster twice, you are less likely to get in again to make room for other acts to come through. Now, yes I did say that there would be more amazing talent because there would be more room. if singers were removed, or heck just diminished, we could see more people and more acts. I am NOT saying that singers are untalented or anything, I am just saying that with more room we would see other acts instead. You also mentioned a couple times that it is a talent show and singing is a talent. Yes, it is, but what I'm trying to get at here is that there are many other shows out there for singers and only one for other acts. Let the singers go to those shows, while everyone else stays in the talent shows. Heck, dancers know what to do. Honestly, how often do you see a dancer in a got talent show? I'm not talking about dancing and singing or silhouettes. I'm talking about actual ballroom dancing. They go to Dancing with the Stars for their talent.
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

To summarize Pro's arguments: There are too many singers. They draw away the limelight from other acts they only have talent shows to perform on while singers get a huge selection of shows. However I think pro has failed to demonstrate why this should constitute a ban on singers. Let's start with some facts. Televised competitions, while at some level do provide opportunities for their participants, are primarily there for the the entertainment of viewers. If this were not the case there would hardly be the need for the rigmarole of sorting and editing through footage. It would be far easier to have a private jury package a winning entry off to vegas. Which leads to my first and second points. Firstly, if participants are not the primary motivation for the existence of such talent shows then considerations of non-singer success rates are completely irrelevant given the show is popular regardless. Secondly, singers are a popular sub-category of talent. The continued existence of singing based competition shows is the irrefutable evidence of this. Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows. Thirdly I think pro has overstated the importance of winning talent shows. Case in point, Susan Boyle. Pro has also claimed that there would be more amazing talent on talent shows if singing was removed. Talent does not always equal entertainment or offer sustainability for a televised talent show. Case in point, Mr. Methane Finally my overarching argument that pro mentioned himself is that talent shows are about talent. Singing is a talent. Therefore singing should not be banned from talent shows.
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

America's got Talent (I use this because all the other "talent" shows originated from the one that started in America) has been around now for 10 years. In those years, many acts have come and gone. We've seen magicians, dancers, silhouettes, singers, and much more. Now I don't watch it on a regular basis but I used to at a time. I remember, a lot, when I watched that there were more singers than other acts. Also more singers won at the end than other acts. Out of the 10 season there have been, and the eleventh starting soon, 6 of the winners have been singers. That's 60 percent of all time! Now that may not sound like a lot but you have to consider this small truth. If you enter a competition that you work extremely hard at and you're seen by millions of people, you'd probably want to win of course. But then you realize that you only have a 40% chance of winning because that one other person is just more popular. Now I know that was a bad example but I just wanted to show that other acts, who aren't singers, will only get a 40% chance of winning because of the extremely large population of singers. Also singers get it really easy on AGT. So many times they have received the golden buzzer, meanwhile a magician never has.. NEVER. (or at least I've never seen or read it happen before) Now, I don't despise singers or anything, I just think they should be on a different show. There are so many other shows out there for singers to be on and instead they decide to come and infest AGT and usually win. Ok, maybe they shouldn't completely remove singers, but at least keep their population down to like oh I don't know.. 5 or 6. Like only about a fifth of all the contestants. Now I'm sure that many people are thinking that this is a horrible idea and that the show is literally called AMERICAS GOT TALENT but, this is also the only other show for other acts to show what they can do. I just think that if there were less singers on the show, then there would be more on the other million shows out there ACTUALLY for singers and we would see more amazing talent on AGT. This is my first debate started on this site so I'm not sure if I did everything correctly. Obviously, feel free to share your thoughts.. kinda why I posted this.
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

So it would be more accurate to say that there are little to no ballroom dancers on such shows rather than dancers in general. In which case my reply would be: so what? There are little to no yodelers on such shows. Does this mean singing is an under represented category in talent shows? No it only means the specific subtype is under represented. Dancing has a healthy representation on talent shows. I don't understand your "not completely wrong" line. Either I'm correct in saying that the loss of singers has the potential to disrupt a talent shows success or I'm not. This isn't a sliding scale. In which case there is a probably reason to not ban singers from talent shows. You must have missed the word "given", along with every other word in that sentence then. I count a ventriloquist, a magician, dancer, a dog act and a singer which counts 1 out of 5 but eitherway this would show that the past 5 seasons are not singer dominant. It is true that the earlier seasons have more singer winners but I would argue that this shows that the show has developed to become tougher on singers which negates your point that singers have an easier time. The removal of singers is not a guarantee that there will be more varied acts. The only guarantee is that there won't be any singers. You have as of yet failed to prove in any way that singers get an easier time. "Funner" is purely subjective. I fail to see your point with ballroom dancing. There are already magicians and comedians. The addition of more magicians and comedians is not variation. Your objection to singers on talent shows seem to stem from personal distaste. Removing singers has the potential to cripple such shows. Definite downsides trump personal distastes, therefore singers shouldn't be removed from talent shows
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

I would like to just start out by saying that in my last paragraph that in my last paragraph the only other show I stated was Dancing with the Stars. There are little to no dancers, I'm talking about ballroom dancers, on the "got talent" dhows. You say that the GT shows might might lose viewers if singers were removed, and you're not completely wrong too. It still would be a huge amount. I've been asking some friends and the occasional stranger if they would be fine with singers removed. Most, of course, just said they didn't care but out of the seven that answers only two said they weren't fine with that. I know this is a small scale but it's only 29% of people that would stop watching. It really wouldn't hurt too badly. Als, yes, I reread it and you did say the show is popular regardless. Second paragraph, near the end. I'm not sure if you're saying that I said singers should be removed because viewers can just change the channel? All I was saying there was if viewers wanted to hear and watch singers, all it would take is a click of the remote. "Of course this entire line of debate is rendered null by the fact that of the 5 previous seasons of AGT, only one of the winners has been a singers." I looked at the record and your facts are wrong. Two of the previous five have been singers but out of the 10 seasons, in total, more than half were singers. I'm not sure about BGT simply because I don't watch that. Not being naive, I'm just focusing on AGT since I live in this god awful country. (Different argument for another time) There is a guarantee that we would see more acts. Yes, I mean varied. If people try to enter something but all slots are taken, then suddenly, half of the people that already had a spot leave. The others that were in the que could join. Also, as I reiterated before, if they just significantly reduce singers to a fifth of the contestants the it would be more fair for other acts. Also funner for the audience. Instead of people predicting that a singer will win they can predict something else instead. Now, you're saying that it might be filled with dancers. True, but how many ballroom dancers do you see in GT? Like none. Also, key word "might." That means that it "might" be filled with magicians, comedians, or anything else. Even if it is dancers, they usually do a sillohete act or something else exciting. I just want to say that they should lower the singing category count by a lot. Also they get a really easy time on the show while others don't. If they got a harder time and we're less of them then I would be happier.
Should singers be banned from AGT or BGT or any of the "Got talent" shows

Ignoring the redefinition of the debate, the number of shows open to other acts is not just one. Which you yourself have pointed out in the last paragraph. My statement "Removing singers from talent shows could have an unforeseen effect on the success of such shows." was in regard to the fact that as you've rightly pointed out, there are a lot of well known singing-based talent shows. Equally there are few well known talent shows. Therefore singing is a successful component of reality talent tv shows and it's removal in GT shows could result in a loss for viewership as one example. Regardless if you're claiming that I said that the show would be popular regardless, you should probably have a reread. Spectators could easily just change the channel yes and in a naive sense the removal of singers wouldn't make a difference. On the other-hand that only works if you equivalate the shows. In reality the shows have different formats and the networks need viewership. Of course this isn't a reason why singers should be banned. Your claim "Sure, they can try to get back into the talent show but when they say your name on the roster twice, you are less likely to get in again to make room for other acts to come through." is conjecture. To add to that, it's only relevant if winning is the only relevant outcome which clearly it is not. Of course this entire line of debate is rendered null by the fact that of the 5 previous seasons of AGT, only one of the winners has been a singer. Of the 5 previous seasons of BGT, only two of the winners were singers. There is no guarruntee that removing singers would allow you to see more acts. On the assumption you've used "more" to mean "varied", the void left by the departed singers may as well be used up by dancers, in which case the problem goes back to square one. Not only that but the removal of singers in itself would make the show less varied. Let's be honest here though. Is there a single argument for why singers should be removed from except from personal dissatisfaction with the format of the show?
the united states should be a democracy

A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule) this is why the united states should not be a democracy, it should stay a republic. A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice. Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. my first argument against democracy is the founding fathers did not want it. but why did the founding fathers want a republic and not a democracy? well James Madison showed this pretty well in the Federalist Papers No. 10 "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." my second argument is it hurts minorities "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson. in a democracy mob rules and doesn't care about individual rights but in the united states people care very much about rights "it's my right" but in a democracy the group rights are the thing that matters And my final argument is that of a government that lasts "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams democracies don't last, we need a government that lasts one that can last for centras one that can survive and not die out so that the united states can live on. does our government need fixing yes, but should we become a democracy no, because our founding fathers didn't want it men who gave their lives so we could live like we do, it hurts minorities, and finally it doesn"t last there is a reason we are not a democracy and this is just a few reasons why.
The Death Penalty

First off, you make a good point stating that murderers do not have a regard for human life. But does the government, in that case, if we are continuously sending people for the death penalty? It's hypocrisy, like I mentioned earlier. Also, if citizens weren't afraid of the law, way more crime rates would be occurring than what is happening in today's society. You're undermining the American Justice System that has been in place for hundreds of years. These people committing the crimes are not afraid of the law, or it's consequences, which is why they endure in such behavior to begin with. Implementing the death penalty will only cause even more turmoil in our justice system. Scaring Americans isn't a good way to make sure our society stays safe. Fear can ruin a society, as is what's happened throughout most of history. Think of the emotional stresses that are placed on the victims family members and friends if you sentence them to the death penalty. Fighting fire with fire only creates a bigger fire, and with that statement, I still believe that nationally legalizing the death penalty in America has more cons than pros.
The Death Penalty

You have done nothing but prove my point that these individuals have a total disregard for human life. If they would prefer death over jail, then they truly do not see the value in life. Jail, whether you agree or not, can give these people things that they did not get at home, or living on the streets; it gives them stability, routine and guidance. The death penalty is something that has worked for us in the past and could continue to today. We life in a fearless society in which criminals are not afraid of the law. Our youth have too many chances to fail in modern society, and they need to see that there are serious and fatal consequences to their future actions. They could use a little fear in their lives; as could all Americans. The bottom line, is that jailing isn't doing enough; we need something bigger and with more impact. Death can be a serious threat to those who have not committed crimes and are afraid, and can also be something that those who do not value life have had coming to them. Killing someone is a crime that can not be taken lightly; murderers should not be lumped in the same category as those who commit white collar crimes, nor should they suffer in the same way. The bottom line is that the death penalty should be nationally legalized in the United States of America.
The Death Penalty

Actually, we are just finding out about the high occurrence of false testimonies, so who are you to say that our scientific and technological advancements are up to speed with such highly complicated cases? Criminals have every right to be punished. No one committing a crime should be let off easy. Killing these people is letting them off easy. Jail time is not the easy way out. You make it seem like jail is a haven for criminals in poverty. Jail requires that you share a cell with a stranger, you must do recreational work outside for long hours, you get meals which consist mainly of bread and water, and you're basically wasting away behind bars. It's slow torture. What better way to punish someone then letting them waste away their life, slowly and painfully, behind bars? In fact, most criminals would actually prefer the death penalty over jail. This just goes to prove that the death penalty isn't a true way to kill off criminals and thieves. In all honestly, justice is being served either way the government decides to punish these people. Jail just seems to more humane, and practical, thing to do.
The Death Penalty

Yes, it is true that there have been cases in our nations past where people have been wrongfully accused of a crime. However the chance of that happening is extremely low, especially today in a world of such technical and scientific achievements. The vast majority of people in jail, deserve to be punished. There is a reason that someone who commits a misdemeanor pays a ticket, or spends a day or two in jail. Everyone can agree that murderers and thieves, should be punished more severely. The death penalty is something that our country needs. The overpopulation of jails in this country is becoming progressively worse. Most of these criminals come from low-income neighborhoods and in many cases, poverty. Jail is often a huge step up in the world. It can provide them with amenities that they do not experience daily. Some of these people have no food to eat at home, and are now provided with steady meals, shelter, television, recreation and the opportunity to socialize. As taxpayers, it is not our duty to pay for these murderers to sit back and relax. It is our duty, as a nation, to serve justice. Why spend money sustaining the lives of these criminals who have no regard for human life? We are better off ridding our prisons, and our world of these individuals.
The Death Penalty

To say that these people have issues beyond repair is just an assumption. There is no evidence that this is the case. To base a statement off an assumption just draws a weak conclusion. Also, the death penalty is a serious punishment. With all the psychological circumstances surrounding eye witness testimonies, false testimonies, and misled jury decisions, sometimes we are not sending the right person to jail. There were a couple cases a few years ago where we found multiple people being punished for crimes they did not commit, and this was just jail time. Imagine killing someone for a crime that they were suspected of committing but weren't the actual criminal? Cases like this arise more often than they should. And to answer your previous question "Why not an eye for an eye?", there is a very good reason. We as a nation would look unfavorable to others if we are trying to portray this message of killing people who kill people to show that killing is wrong. It's hypocritical and undermines the whole purpose of the death penalty anyway.
The Death Penalty

I find it ironic that you think an eye for an eye would not work when it is actually just what we need. Why not an eye for an eye? We learn from the time we are toddlers that we treat others as we would want to be treated. If someone treats someone else poorly, or goes so far as to even murder them, they should receive the same kind of treatment. I agree many of these people are mentally disturbed and that needs to be addressed. They are not mentally challenged and unable to care for themselves, they are exactly what you said - DISTURBED. They have issues that are beyond repair; issues that no matter how much counseling or therapy they receive, they will not pull through. When someone is a murdered, they can not just be simply cured of having homicidal tendencies. Yes its complicated to decipher which crimes would be worth of the death penalty, but just because it would require a little extra work, doesn't mean that we should not follow through with it. To achieve something great, you need to put time and effort into it. It is not our duty to define 'said morals'. We could put forth a ballot and by votes, determine which crimes would warrant the death penalty.
The Death Penalty

Death, of course, is something you can count on. But authorities do not have the right to bring an end to someone's life, whether they are a criminal or not. Killing someone does not guarantee that crime rates in America would decrease. We as a nation have moved past this whole "eye for an eye" punishment, because it didn't work in the past and it most likely won't work today. First off, many people who commit these crimes have serious psychological problems. How are you going to kill someone for being mentally disturbed? What they need is help, not an execution. Second, people sometimes have situations where they committed a crime in an act of defense. Such a case can be stated if a son killed his father in defense that the father was abusing him, or trying to kill him. Sending the son for the death penalty would be wrong in this case. If America were to adopt the death penalty nationally, we would have to implement a series of cases that would be acceptable for using the death penalty, and even then, how do we define those morals? It's complicated. Also, I wouldn't doubt our prisons. If anything, we can establish more prisons and prison guards to help protect the grounds from criminals escaping. Death is not always the answer, it's just the easy way out.