BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
van halen metal

Well, please realize this, I did not confuse the genre of music with elements, I was perserving the contextuality of the resolution. If you are unable to adhere to the resolution that you created, that is a problem of yours; if you wanted to shape this debate in a way you wanted you should have made it 'Resolve: the group Van Halen is a metal band'. Your resolution was very ambiguous which prevented me from making any argument with fear that you would switch the grounds of the debate; thus you become a moving target. Your argument for the zeitgeist of metal is void because the evolution of definitions should be the predominant over the past definitions. Under that mentality the Swastica would be nothing but a sign for the Indian culture; you must look at the evolutionary process of music to realize that Van Halen is no longer metal (if it ever was) and is now more or less rock n' roll. One day other bands will question what our definition of the genre 'metal' is, once that day comes we must realize that this 'revolutionary' band will not be the definition of Genre. You cannot adhere everything to past definitions or we are bound to never have any true progress. You have to vote Con for both the contextuality of the debate and because I showed that the AFF failed to adhere truly to the definition of 'metal' (in all forms of it =P). I have shown that even if at one time Van Halen was metal, the evolutionary process of music has now decided it is rock n' roll. It is necessary to allow this process to continue if you want any progress in the realm of music.
van halen metal

You're bringing up some good points but infact i think that this topic will never be resolved because different people have different opinions. I was just on a blog of a bunch of metalheads and they too were debating about this same topic (although they were not stupid enough to confuse the metal -genre with the metal - elements...but that's besides the point). They too couldn't agree if van halen was a metal band or a hard rock band. My final point....by the definition of what metal was 30 years ago (when the band started) they were definately metal but as time went on and other bands suck as metallica..iron maiden...slayer and other much harder bands started to release singles and albums people could see the obvious difference in style between the two types of bands but u cant exclude them from the genre just because metal evolved into a much harder style! Because if we do that...maybe just maybe someday another set of revolutionary and start playing in a new fashion and we start questioning the metalness (yur word :p) of bands such as iron maiden...metallica ect. I know u think that now i m just being offensive because the likes of iron maiden and metallica are they bands that define metal today (just like van halen..acdc...kiss...black sabbath ect did in the 70s).......no one knows....
van halen metal

You said that my second and third arguments are idiotic, but they are necessary for a contextual debate; you conceded the arguments which I said would be clear grounds for losing the debate. Therefore you must vote CON on these arguments alone. 1) The argument I gave concerning the attire that Van Halen wore pertained to the validity of the debate so that their 'metalness' (Not a word, I know) could be fully tested. Because Van Halen failed to adhere to the full definition they are not Metal; just another rock band. I would also like to emphasize that you should not focus on other bands and whether or not they are metal because it is irrelevant to the debate at hand. 2) I will start of by stating that the qualifications from your source are severely lacking; although i will also point out several other definitions of 'heavy metal' found on the page that your band still fails to adhere to. An Anglo-American style of rock, characterized by loud, sustained ‘power chords' played on the electric guitar and a persistent beat that may be aggressively fast or intentionally ponderous. Lyrics (concerning sex, rebellion and violence) are delivered in an extreme, screeching and barking style between guitar chords. Exponents include Jimi Hendrix, The Who and Led Zeppelin. Your own definition stated that metal must be deafening ("highly amplified") and contain "dark lyrics"; I would like to go ahead an state that the songs Jump or Jamie's Crying contain neither attributes. I would like to say this, and make it very clear; WE ARE NOT ARGUING IF KISS NOR ANY BAND (Other than Van Halen) IS METAL OR NOT.
van halen metal

dude!!!!!! seriously...your last two arguments are simply idiotic!! and about your first argument.... point 1: the type of clothes the band wears to a concert doesnt make the band metal or not!! for example...iron maiden and metallica dont wear bizarre costumes at their costumes...but u cant say that they re not metal!!! point 2: if u re going to use definition to enphasise your arguments!!! i ll use them to =P Type of rock music marked by highly amplified, distorted "power chords" on electric guitar, a hard beat, thumping bass, and often dark lyrics. It evolved in Britain and the U.S. in the late 1960s from the heavy, blues-oriented music of Steppenwolf, Jimi Hendrix, and others. In the 1970s the genre was defined by the music of bands such as Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Kiss, AC/DC, and Aerosmith. After a period of decline, a new generation of bands such as Def Leppard, Iron Maiden, Mï¿½tley Crï¿½e, and Van Halen revived heavy metal in the 1980s, along with the careers of many of its pioneers, including Ozzy Osbourne of Black Sabbath. (check.....http://www.answers.com...) MY POINT!!! --- not all metal has to be deafening!!! kiss are considered to be metal (glam metal) and MOST songs of van halen are harder than kiss's. so you cant say that kiss are metal and van halen aren't (bdw...i also love kiss) KISS - heaven's on fire...http://www.youtube.com... ( considered to be glam metal) VAN HALEN - http://www.youtube.com...
van halen metal

I have three separate series of arguments, if either series is conceded CON wins; I will also like to tell you that because of the irrelevancy of sentences (more like phrases =P ) 3-5 I will exclude them from the debate. ------------------------------------------------------------- Argument 1, Van Halen is not Metal Rock: Definition of Metal Rock: aggressive and heavily amplified rock music, commonly performed by groups that wear spectacular or bizarre costumes. (1) Definition of Rock (music): a style of popular music that derives in part from blues and folk music and is marked by a heavily accented beat and a simple, repetitive phrase structure. (2) Definition of Agressive: characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing (3) Music by Van Halen to be listened to as a judge of the debate; they must comply with the above definitions. http://www.youtube.com... ----- Jump by Van Halen http://www.youtube.com... ----- Jamie's Crying by Van Halen Van Halen fails to adhere to the definition of both aggressive and 'groups that wear spectacular or bizarre costumes'; if you take note of both their aesthetics and type of music it shows that although Van Halen is rock (not good rock at that) it is most definitely not metal. Van Halen's songs often resemble blues, such as it is in the definition of Rock 'n' Roll. -------------------------------------------------------------- Argument 2, Van Halen is not Metal (as stated in the Topic of the debate): Definition of Metal: any of a class of elementary substances, as gold, silver, or copper, all of which are crystalline when solid and many of which are characterized by opacity, ductility, conductivity, and a unique luster when freshly fractured. (2) Because Van Halen is a musical group made up of human beings, they cannot be 'metal' as defined in the above source, thus you have to vote CON. ------------------------------------------------------------- Argument 3, "Van Halen Metal" is non-existent: Because there is no such thing as "Van Halen Metal" and I have advocated the side of Con, I should win on the fact that I am disagreeing to something that does not exist (I have taken a stance disagreeing with it's reality in this argument). ------------------------------------------------------------- Citations (If you end up using any references, please cite them): (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2)http://dictionary.reference.com...'n'%20roll (3) http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) http://dictionary.reference.com...
van halen metal

some people may not include van halen as a metal band but they definatley are!!!! at the time that van halen started the band that was METAL!!! how come do people think of kiss as a metal band but not van halen?!?!?! van halen have a number of glam metal albums which include : van halen 1, van halen 2, 1984, F.U.C.K and 5150!!! and besides...they have inarguabbly one of the most influencial guitarists ever!! EVH!!
thw eliminates number grading system

My opponent has failed to present any arguments or rebuttals, which leaves me with nothing further to expand on. It is my hope that the audience will see that my opponent failed to carry out his Burden of Proof as instigator by failing to present any rebuttals or arguments that show why the numerical voting system should be eliminated. I have successfully presented arguments which remain unchallenged, and have also provided rebuttals to any and all claims made by my opponent. Cheap personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims do not, nor ever, belong in a debate. My position that the numbers grading system should not be eliminated is, as I have shown, the proper position in the context of this debate - and remains standing unchallenged by my opponent. In regards to the statements made by my opponent in R3, I wish to let the audience determine who had the weaker argument as well as the responsibility to determine who made claims without presenting evidence to validate those claims. I have included several sources to validate the claims I make, and trust plays no role in this debate. You can choose not to trust me, but this doesn't change the fact that my claims are backed up with sources for verification purposes. I have no need nor desire to lie about the facts and information I present to the audience and am confident that the audience will be able to determine who's arguments are weaker and lack sources.I wish to thank the audience for their time and look forward to any and all challenges from my opponent in the future. Thank you.
thw eliminates number grading system

The resolution is clear: This House would eliminate number grading system. I accept this debate and will present arguments as the position of Con. For clarification purposes, I will first present some definitions:Number: a numeral or group of numerals. [1] Grading System: 1. To arrange in a series or according to a scale. 2. a. To determine the quality of (academic work, for example); evaluate: grading the book reports. b. To give a grade to (a student, for example). [2]Quality: how good or bad something is. [3][1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...Due to their being no specification as to if this round is for acceptance only or not, I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and refrain from presenting my arguments until the next round. However, my opponent did make an opening statement which I will address briefly before expanding on it as a full argument later on. According to my opponent, the "Number grading system didn't showing a quality. " On the contrary, number grading systems are specifically practiced for the very purpose of reflecting the quality of the work done by students throughout their careers as students. A common argument heard is that the grades reflected are not accurate or are even unfair. When putting the subjective nature of grading aside, they are still reflecting the perceived quality of the work done by the student.
In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported.

Ok, firstly, I'd like to apologize for missing my round. I thought I had more time than I did. Now onto rebuttals. My opponent essentially used his round two as a soapbox to preach his anti-immigration beliefs, but didn't really provide rebuttals of his own. He cites a long drawn out article on illegal immigration that comes from the most disgusting, right-wing, hardcore Republican I've ever seen. Here's a quote. "Should we roll out the red carpet and allow millions upon millions of thieves, rapists, gang members and drug dealers to come waltzing into this country any time they would like?" This evidence assumes that all immigrants, legal or no, are criminals. This is asinine beyond all belief. His evidence is extremely biased, and must be disregarded. Additionally, my opponent only seems to dicuss illegal Mexicans, as though they were the only ones entering the country illegally. Not only is my opponent being biased and racially profiling immigrants, he's also being incredibly close minded. Now, I'll just strengthen my case. Firstly, not all immigrants are criminals, as my opponent wishes you to believe. A lot of them are merely trying to create a better quality of life for themselves than what they currently reside in. http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org... In some cases, they are refugees, whose lifes are actually being threatened. http://www.npr.org... My opponent wishes to send hardworking, innocent people back to squalor, or life threatening situations, when they are willing to work hard, for minimum wage, or perhaps no wage, simply because it's better than what they already had. Vote aff, because I'm helping innocent people get by in a world that hates them and doesn't want them. Also, i see it fit to remind voters that my opponent ignored my c2 on how expensive deportation is.
In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported.

Ok, let's dive right in. C1: Economic Benefits I'm providing a link that goes far more in depth, so i'll just summarize the article. It mentions that were illegal immigrants to be deported, prices of agriculture would increase dramatically. It also mentions that they've contributed $3 billion to the Social Security Fund. Additionally, a letter signed to former U.S President Bush that was signed by 500 economists(5 of them being Nobel Laureates), stated that vastly more Americans benefit from illegal immigrant workers than the ones that don't. Ultimately, the most important thing to remember is that as long as there are illegal immigrants, there are lower consumer prices, and more money in the Social Security fund. http://thehill.com... C2: The Cost Of Deportation Is Extravagant And Not Worth It The link below discusses the cost of deporting a single immigrant. The cost to deport a SINGLE immigrant, comes out to $23,480. Imagine how much it would cost to deport all of them. The answer is too damn much. At that point, it would be easier for an illegal immigrant to take the citizenship test, and become an official citizen. http://www.businessinsider.com... That's my argument. The debate is now opened up for the Aff.
In the US, illegal immigrants should not be deported.

My opponent is trying to remove the 'illegal' out of 'illegal immigrant.' Legal immigrants can benefit this country, but all illegal immigrants are criminals, because they did not legally come into this country, thus should not be rewarded with citizenship. Instead, they should legally immigrate. The notion that illegal immigrants are not criminals, despite having broken the law is outrageous. Breaking the law is what makes someone a criminal. Criminal definition. crim"i"nal G2;krimənl noun 1. a person who has committed a crime. This is exactly what an illegal immigrant has done, so why should they be allowed to reside in this country, because they committed a crime? Pro has to provide irrefutable evidence to prove this topic, but has not done so, therefor not fulfilling BoP.
God's Word (the Bible)

Con: "Your Genesis quote: ...God said that Isaac's children would be his and Ishmael's children would not. Has NOTHING to do with this debate. You must be posting in the wrong debate. This debate is about God's word, is it infallible?" Nope. This is a 2 fronted argument. In the Old Testament we are told that Ishmael"s descendents are not of God according to God Himself. In Revelation, all of the nations that Christ comes against are Islamic today. Elam, Arabia, etc. It would be the greatest coincidence in human history if the OT and NT coinsided in this manner by coincidence, seeing Islam would not come around for 700 more years after Revelation was written. In Revelation we are told antichrist will set up at the temple mount declaring himself to be God and renouncing Christ. This is where the antichristian Islamic Dome of the Rock sits today because of defeat during the Crusades. Here is an excerpt from this Islamic temple. "It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!" Here is a link with the full inscription on the Dome of the Rock. http://www.islamic-awareness.org... It would be one heck of a longshot call for the Bible to describe antichrist's followers to match a group that exists today, in real life, who: 1)Has a great infallable antichrist prophet. 2)The prophet sets up an imsge to be bowed to. 3)He gives power to another "god" and sets it up at the exact spot, the Temple Mount. 4)Christ goes against all Islamic countries in the end. 5)Even the OT rejects this exact group thousands of years before the fact. 6)No other religion does it. Only one. 7)It beheads Christians even in 2016 AD. 8)Its enemy is "The King of Kings". With this kind of pretzled proof, we can conclude the Bible is infallable.
God's Word (the Bible)

The question on the table is - "is the Bible without error/infallible? The problem with quoting 2 Timothy 3:16 as evidence, is a problem within itself. For, you see, there are manuscript discrepancies with that verse. To base all concept of all scripture being God-breathed on that one verse alone is misguided. The word - "is" - changes the entire outlook. Some early manuscripts do not have the word "is" where later translations currently put it. Thus, a more accurate interpretation of that verse would be, "All God-breathed scripture is ..." is certainly useful in teaching and instructing others, no doubt. But that is a whole lot different from saying, or thinking, "all" scripture "is" God-breathed, therefore, all of it, (no matter how illogical, off the rocker, or outlandish it seems), is useful for instructing, rebuking, etc., etc. Early English Translation Examples: In 1380 John Wycliffe translated this verse as: "For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach", etc. In 1526 William Tyndale translated this as: "For all scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable to teach", etc. The Coverdale Bible (1535) and the Matthew Bible (1537) and the Great Bible (1540) basically repeat the Tyndale text. "[Now] you know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." John 8:32
God's Word (the Bible)

When it comes to reading Scripture the first goal should be to discover what the text quoted/in consideration actually does say. Not to get too sidetracked from the original question, let's focus attention on the verse so quickly and commonly quoted when it comes to the view that "all Scripture is God-breathed," 2 Timothy 3:16. Interestingly, there is no other verse in the Bible which says, all scripture is God-breathed. Jesus never said it (he might of thought it, but I can't claim to know his thoughts, no one can) Abraham, no. Moses, no. Noah, no. Proverbs, no. The Psalms, no. No other place in the Bible does it say this. Only Paul, written at a time when he was contemplating his own death; urging Timothy to not be ashamed of Paul, because Paul is not ashamed of the gospel (1:8-14). If "all Scripture is God-breathed" why is some of it so X-rated? Could God not make his point cleanly or with a little more tact? Here is one example (of many); why did God feel the need to breathe this verse in Ezekiel 23:20 "There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." (NIV)
abortion

I believe that abortion is a very controversial topic. Some people say that it should be illegal and other say it shouldn't. I believe that the women holding the kid should have the right to decide if they want a abortion or not. If they were raped or had a kid with some one they didn't want to they should have a right to have an abortion. There should still be a law stating that you have to have it with in so long before the baby starts to develop. After a certain point you should not be allowed to do it. If you want have an abortion you must be able to prove your case of why you are having one. Also the doctor can opt out of it if he/she thinks the baby is to develop. Still there should be certain laws put into effect for abortion. New laws should come into affect soon I Believe.
Voting is based on preconceived bias rather than substantive debate

"but if the opponent just came out and said bush mad war and clinton was the best cause he didn't...then of course the third grader would win....just for the fact his statement make a better argument and that's makes more a of a debate." Then it seems we are actually in agreement. When I vote on a debate, I am voting on who made better points, even IF I think they are ultimately wrong. I don't believe that is the case with many people. I think more people would be apt to vote for things they personally like, rather than basing their decision upon the skill of a certain debater. And in a way, I guess I'm asking on what criteria we are supposed to voting on. It seems unclear to me. Are we voting for people on their ability to debate, or whether we agree that either Bush or Clinton is better?
Voting is based on preconceived bias rather than substantive debate

i would have to knock you on this one.....for starters, on that type of situation, debating would not be worth it...now if the topic was to be who is the better president bush or clinton....then you would have a debate...but even on this, if the third grader come out and say bush is better because he made opportunity's that no one made. and his opened say clinton made it so single mother would not have to struggle..and for anything the only opportunity he made was for war...then of course the opponent will win...cause we both know that bush is the worst pres. we ever had.....but if the opponent just came out and said bush mad war and clinton was the best cause he didn't...then of course the third grader would win....just for the fact his statement make a better argument and that's makes more a of a debate.
Voting is based on preconceived bias rather than substantive debate

My opponent says, "believe that even if a person sounds like a third grader, it does not matter..i think that if that third grader have a great argument then am voting for him. and i think that it should not matter on how well the person can right..as long as his point get across." But would you vote for him because of what he is saying or how he presented his argument? For instance, lets say that you think baseball is the best sport ever. And someone comes along with a post talking about how baseball is the greatest sport ever. But the opponent in the debate thinks that basketball is better, and gives stronger points on why it is better. Lets say the guy who thinks basketball better just had a better debate. Would you vote for the person who like baseball because you also like baseball, or would you vote for the person with better argument?