BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kirk Hammett is a bad guitarist

I must say that my opponent's rebuttal has changed my views on technical guitar playing against playing with soul and emotion and has effectively made me appreciate Metallica as much as I did before I started playing guitar. However, this is a debate and I might as well continue to oppose. It is a fact that Kirk Hammett started playing guitar at age 15 (same age as slash) which in my opinion is rather late in comparison to guitarists like Zakk Wylde who started at age 8 and Ritchie Blackmore who started at 11. Those two guitarists aside, slash's guitar experience is on par with Hammett's and I must say that the two are rather similar but slash has always written more notable riffs like Sweet Child O Mine and Paradise City while Hetfield wrote most of the guitar riffs for Metallica and Hammett just played along. That's pretty much all I had to use as rebuttal. I bid luck to my opponent for the final round.
Kirk Hammett is a bad guitarist

I already told you that if someone is better that does not make you bad. Petrucci is not as versatile as Guthrie Govan. There is not way. Govan can literally play anything ever written for guitar by anyone. So Petrucci is bad because of this ? Also Petrucci had academic education so obviously he would know classical and jazz. Petrucci plays different genre being progressive metal which requires a lot more complexity then trash metal . And yeah John Petrucci is monster player and is light years ahead of Hammett. The point is that Hammett does not need to show anything else since He plays what is given to him and what He wrotes to suit the song structure. He uses fingerpicking because Hetfield wrote it that way and its a ballad so fingering strings there gives better sound then pick. Thats the reason fingerpicking was used. You dont know if Hammett knows more advanced stuff. Maybe He is just not showing it or He is not playing at his full potential. If you for example take a look at Paul Gilbert in his Mr. Big years, you would think that he suck at technical skill. Thats because there is no place for shreding while playing ballads and pop. And in his racer x years he is a technical monster. So my point is that since Metallica was always popular metal, its lines were never meant to be shredded but to be melodic as possible with great riffs and catchy melodical lead fills to appeal to widest audience. Almost every single Metallica solo can be whistled under the shower. Try to do that with Malmsteens solos . As for Page being sloppy I cant believe that you are not aware of this after 3 years of playing guitar. Maybe you havent listened to a lot of his live playing. On studio records He is not that sloppy but you can hear it there too ( listen to his hearthbreaker solo, the second part of solo with fast pentatonic runs. ) And on the live He often made mistakes and fluffed notes - the more so towards the end of Zep. It seems there were times that his picking hand, his fretting hand and his brain were all in different places at the same time. But He gets away with it (generally), because for him the guitar is more about feel than technical ability. And public feel that. So nobody thinks that He is bad bcs of some sloppiness . Haha yeah , that note in Seek and destroy was a bum note. He even apologized for it. But one note is not nearly enough to call him sloppy. Show me more examples of his sloppiness . Of course that He cannot be compared to Gods like Randy and Dimebag. They were forces of nature. Hammett is just good guitarist for what He does. They were among bests. My main argument is that Hammett though far from great and overrated is also far from being bad. Its all relative to what He plays. What Metallica plays is simply not that demanding for nowadays standards. But They're the pioneers of what they do. Kirk is an average guitarist,but he's got feel and knows when to show off and when to make a smaller solo and let the others shine.Plus,he is a total beast live and always makes those solos more interesting. Definitely no bad player. Good luck in next round Pro
Kirk Hammett is a bad guitarist

I state my gratitude for my opponent's appreciation of this topic. While yes Kirk Hammett has in fact present some versatility with his guitar playing, he has not presented versatility as great as guitarists like John Pettrucci from Dream Theater who ranges from power metal to jazz and even to classical. Whereas, Hammett has really just done songs one after the other with similar song structure (Example - seek and destroy - similar song structure to Blackened). The only songs where he has shown a larger degree of versatility is Nothing Else Matters and Fade to Black, both songs have classical fingerpicking and chicken picking. As for Jimmy Page being "sloppy", I personally have never heard him play sloppily so some song examples would be good. While my opinion on hammett's sloppy playing is present in songs like Seek and Destroy where in the solo he hits a wrong note that is dissonant to the em pentatonic scale. While it is consensual that Hammett is not technical like Jason Becker or Fredrik Thordendal from Meshuggah, he is also void of being known as a guitar god like Dimebag Darrell or Rhandy Rhoads and in fact has never even been given the remotely the same amount of praise as those two have. Even in comparison to other thrash guitarist like Kerry King from Slayer or Chris Broderick from Megadeth he is of meager talent. As well as the lead guitarist from Black Tide who is more than half his age can play circles around Hammett, I myself have been playing for 3 years and can already play most Metallica songs with little practice. While yes the guitar is an art, but art also requires skill as with skill and strong knowledge in music theory can you achieve versatility. I bid good luck to my opponent in the next round.
Kirk Hammett is a bad guitarist

Hi pro. Thanks for the interesting topic. Since I can rebut in round 2 I will do that first and then post my arguments for which I do not think that Kirk Hammett is bad guitarist. Since that is what we argue about. For the start let me say that I don't like Kirk Hammett and I don't think that He is great. I rank him somewhere between average to decent. But to say that He is bad is exaggeration. Now I would argue that technical skill is only one of the factors of what makes a great guitar player(or bad). Some of the other factors are versatility, impact, fame, feel, melodic expressions, phrasing, frontmanship, compositional skills, trained ear etc etc. If you take a look at most top lists of greatest guitar players of all time you will see some very sloppy players on the top 20 places. Like Jimmy Page or Hendrix. While technical monsters like Batio or Rustey Cooley are nowhere to be found. So Hammett was in the right band at the right time and He was great addition to the Metallica as a lead guitarist. He played and helped to made some of the most influential trash metal licks of all time. He influenced many guitar players and shaped trash metal of that time. So to call him bad simply because He is not as skilled as someone else is really unjustified. As far as technical skill goes, there is always someone better. There is someone better then Batio or Morse in alternate picking, there is someone better then Becker or Rustey Cooley at sweeping, there is someone more versatile then Guthrie Govan, someone better with harmonics then Eric Johnson, someone faster then Shawn Lane, with better legato then Satch etc etc. Does that mean that those players are bad ? No they are perfectly fine for what they do. And that is creating the music and playing it the way they imagined it to sound. Playing the guitar should not be a sport. Its an art. Its not about how many notes per second you play but what do you express with those notes. That being said lets take a look at Hammett`s technique. He is great addition to Hetfield for riffing. I would argue that Hetfield has better timing for riffs though. As far as technique goes its not that advanced. Fast pentatonic solos usually in e minor. Some tapping, nothing too fancy. But He plays it with great style and furiosity and it sounds solid. I do not find him sloppy, each note is clear to the point. Also Metallica riffs are not mostly simple down picking. Most of the trash riffs are too fast not to be alternate picked. So I agree that He is not great. I agree that He is technically worse then Mark Morton. But to call him Bad you need much more then that. If He was bad He would not be in Metallica all those years.
Kirk Hammett is a bad guitarist

My first rebuttal entails the evaluation of hammett's guitar playing. I'll keep this brief as in my country it is currently 4am and I want to go to bed. Kirk Hammett while he does in fact have some skill, he does not have a great deal of it, as a guitar player myself I enjoy songs with some technical tendencies (I.e. sweep picking, alternate picking in riffage, and key change). In Kirk Hammett's 30 years of being the lead guitarist of Metallica, he has done none of these techniques but instead has played sloppy lead fills and simple down picking riffs. In case if my opponent, does not know of these guitar techniques, I will provide them with songs that include these techniques: Riff (short repeated phrase usually in metal music but also in jazz). Best song example of a riff - Smoke on the Water by Deep Purple. Sweep picking - This War is Ours by Escape The Fate (Intro only) Alternate Picking in Riffage: (Moving the pick in an up and down motion while doing heavy riffing). Waking The Demon by Bullet For My Valentine Key Change - Sweet Child o Mine by Guns N Roses (Solo) Lead Fills - Short solos between riffs used in most Guns N Roses songs. Down picking - Literally striking downward with the pick, used in pretty much every Metallica song.
Desalination Plants Are A Waste Of Money

The future water shortage problems of the world that I mentioned earlier may also hit Australia at some point in time considering a large portion of Australia is a desert, it is the worlds driest continent. Even now there are water restrictions in place in Australia. I am sure Pro is aware of the 2007 drought. http://en.wikipedia.org... Even so, in Asia, particularly South West Asia (middle east), desalination plants are a necessity since they supply the water required. Oases in the middle east cannot supply nearly enough water to the population. The only plausible solution to water problems is desalinating water. Which is what is being done, and which is what should be continued. After all, what use is money if you die of thirst?
Desalination Plants Are A Waste Of Money

I live on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. In 2010 the Gold Coast council decided to add a desalination plant. This plant has been a massive failure and was a waste of taxpayers money. It has ended up costing a massive 9 billion dollars and is due for ongoing repairs. The parts are extremely expensive and as saltwater is very corrosive they are needed frequently. The Tugan Desalination plant was a massive waste of money.
Desalination Plants Are A Waste Of Money

I accept the challenge. I must prove that desalination plants are not a waste of money Perhaps wherever you live, desalination plants are a waste of money. BUT in the place I live (Dubai, UAE, Middle East), the land is practically a desert. The only water body close to the city is the ocean and the backwater. The closes freshwater from Dubai is in Al Ain which is 141 km (2 hour drive) from Dubai. http://www.distancesfrom.com... Even that Oasis would not be able to provide for 2.5 million people living in Dubai and Al Ain. http://en.wikipedia.org... What is the solution to this problem? Desalination plants. Providing water from the vast Ocean by removing impurities like salt from seawater and adding minerals. Without this, Dubai would experience severe water shortages which would be a massive hit to their expat (basically, immigrants) based economy since nobody will be willing to live in this place. Tourism will also take a massive hit. In the future, Desalination will be even more essential and well worth the 20 million (US dollars I assume). Water is already so scarce, 1/9th of the world (780 million people) lack proper drinking water, in 2030 this figure will become 47% of the world's population. There is a significant chance that whoever is reading this will be facing water problems 16 years from now. Wars maybe even fought over water. People keep complaining about wars fought over oil. Now imagine wars over water. How pathetic is that? The answer is - VERY pathetic. The solution to all of this is to use the largest source of water on our planet. The ocean, which contains 98% of the planet's water. To use the ocean to solve our water problems, we need desalination plants. Therefore, desalination plants are not a waste of money. After all, anything is worth avoiding global drought and war. http://www.aljazeera.com... http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Trolling is Wrong

I thank bsh1 for instigating this friendly debate.I am personally somewhat ambivalent about trolling. On the one hand, I think hateful, insulting and non-constructive speech should be limited...on the other hand, I think such restrictions may inadvertently limit the range of valid argumentation.I agree to bsh1's definitions, although I will caveat that trolling in general is not limited to the definition proffered in this debate. Regardless, I will agree to it, as it was the definition utilized in a different debate that served as the impetus for this debate.http://www.debate.org...Accept.
Trolling is Wrong

Resolved: Trolling ought not be permissible. 1. Troll - a person who deliberately uses harassing or insulting language or who uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people. It is "e-defamation" or internet defacement. 2. Ought - indicates ethical permissibility/desirability 3. Permissible - allowed under the rules I will affirm the topic, WrichcirW will negate. First round is only for acceptance, definitions, and rules. Should Wrichcirw wish to change the definitions, he may challenge them in this round. As agreed, this will be a NO VOTING debate. As such, we will tie this debate, and we ask no one cast a vote on this debate. However, if you would like to provide feedback, please post in comments. In round two, we will offer our own cases; in round three, we will offer rebuttals; in round four we will summarize our arguments in a closing statement. I thank WrichcirW in advance for what promises to be a fascinating debate.
It is probable that God exists

Evil Evil is simply defined as pain and suffering. What is unnecessary evil? Essentially that, but with no greater good coming about. All evil with God is unnecessary since God is all powerful, all knowing, ect. I would also be in support of William Roe’s inductive argument. Some greater good could possibly come about, but it is unlikely because it doesn’t seem like it. He asks me to prove a tri omni God must stop evil. This has already been done. Look at premises 2-4. He then asks on what moral grounds do I have the right to call something evil. This is irrelevant. I am pointing out a contradiction in Pro’s case. My position doesn’t matter. Even if I did concede evil does not exist in an atheistic position, all that matters is that Pro thinks moral realism is true. This argument stands. Modal Argument for Atheism Pro says premise one has not been justified. P1 is a very modest claim and hardly needs justification. It is easily justified because all plugins of P are conceivable. Conceivability entails possibility [1]. If Pro wants to negate P1, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate all plugins of P are impossible. I furthermore, did give justification for P1. “However, since we can come up with more P plugins this makes P more plausible” My argument still stands The Argument from Physically Dependant Minds Pro’s rebuttal here is a complete strawman. Pro tries to refute the argument from temporal minds, which I have used in the past. But I have not once used it in this debate. My argument is not arguing minds are dependent because of time, I am arguing minds are probably dependant because of what we have observed. My arguments remain standing. Back to Pro [1] http://consc.net...
It is probable that God exists

Thank you, Magic8000 for your reply. Problem of Evil Magic8000 needs to define evil in this context. What is evil? What is unnecessary suffering? Can you give me examples of those? Finally, can you prove that if God exists and is the three-omni God that he must stop evil? Moreover, upon what moral grounds do you have to call anything "good" or "evil"?Modal Argument It is possible that p. An unsubstantiated claim. My opponent needs to substantiate the plugins for “p.” Simply stating that it is possible doesn’t mean that it is possible. Physically Dependent Minds This argument fails because it confuses God’s nature with man’s nature. 1) This assumes all minds are like human minds and that God, who is transcendent, and thus above space and time, bust think in a manner like humans and that which involves time. Because this argument is based on an assumption, it is invalid. 2) If God is ontologically prior to the universe, then time isn’t applied to God’s mind and the issue of temporal sequence of God’s thoughts do not apply. Over to con.
It is probable that God exists

NOTE: I have borrowed these terms and introduction from Contradiction's debates.I have made this impossible to accept. If you want to debate this topic with me, please comment. TERMSResolved: It is probable that God exists.Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals5. Closing arguments/rebuttals For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, I am not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. "Probable" will be defined as being more likely than not.The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.The burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable. It is thus not enough to simply refute my arguments. My opponent must also erect his own case against the probability of God's existence.
My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponents.

I must first request that my opponent follow the guidelines for this debate set up in my first argument. Two (2) pictures each, per round, each with a short description. I will accept the first two photographs in that album for the round. I feel this is fair, let me know if you disagree. http://www.debate.org... The poor composition of the picture combined with the over exposed background takes much away from this photograph. The head and nose of the horse are cut off and the subject lies dead center, head on, making the photograph appear flat. http://www.debate.org... This photograph suffers from poor composition as well with the cut off mountain and horizon. There is also a distracting and out of focus tree in the bottom right corner. I haven't taken many horse pictures but I have taken many pictures of cosplaying Korean girls, so I hope that is enough to make up for that. My next two photographs were taken at Comic World [1] in Seoul, the largest convention of its kind in Korea. Photograph 1: http://www.flickr.com... Photograph 2: http://www.flickr.com... Unfortunately I do not know the characters that they are dressed up as, perhaps our voters can tell us in the comments if they know. Relevant Reading: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponents.

As I lost the last debate regarding this topic [1] , I feel that it must be held again for the redemption of my internet photography honor. This time around my opponent and I will post two (2) photographs that we have taken ourselves each round with short descriptions and a criticism of their opponent's previous photographs. My first pair of photographs will take us high up into the mountains of South Korea. Baekundae, the highest peak in Bukhansan National Park [2] offers a spectacular view of surrounding lower peaks. In the distance can be seen a defensive wall running up the mountain, and in the lower left corner is a Buddhist temple. Photograph 1: http://www.flickr.com... Also taken from Baekundae peak, my second photograph shows the neighboring Insubong peak breaking through the thick cloud cover. Photograph 2: http://www.flickr.com... Relavant Reading: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponents.

I see that I have clearly won this round of debates, for that you have fortified. I will continue this so on debate with my two pictures. These I have saved for the last two rounds to be my last marks to winning this debate. Here is a picture of a crane getting some food in the evening. My lighting on my camera made the good quality of the crane. http://www.debate.org... This picture here is one of my favorites. It is a picture of the Ferris wheel her in Okinawa Japan. These is a popular thing here in Japan. and my other picture that I used in round 3 shows what it looks like at the top of the Ferris wheel http://www.debate.org...
My photographs are, on the overall, "better" than my opponents.

I would again like to ask my opponent to follow the relatively simple guidelines of the debate. Two (2) pictures per round, short description(s), then criticisms or critiques of the opponents photographs. To address the question of whether or not I took the photos I'll offer some simple evidence. On the same Flickr account is also posted this photograph: http://www.flickr.com... of me sitting on the same peak in the other photographs. I own the Flickr Pro account and can provide receipts of the purchase. I really don't need to continue. http://www.debate.org... I'm not really drawn into this photo by anything in particular, the grass in the top right though does offer a nice distraction. More advanced techniques could have been used to change the appearance of the water, slower shutter speed, etc, to provide some blending and a flowing look in the water. http://www.debate.org... The background is distracting, half cut off person, random stuff in top left corner also cut off. The person isn't looking at the camera or even away from it in any meaningful way. The shadow on his chest is distracting. This is basically a snapshot. I enjoy taking pictures of people going about their everyday lives. Photograph 1: http://www.flickr.com... This picture was taken under a bridge on the 8.6km long Cheonggyecheon [1] stream that runs through the heart of Seoul. The little boys are being scolded by their father after walking in the river (it's very shallow), which you're not allowed to do. Photograph 2: http://www.flickr.com... Shown here is a janitor in Hoegi Station early in the morning. All of the subway stations were very clean, even with the large crowds that move through them. I wonder how tough the day ahead of him was. Relevant Reading: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Raging Bull is a better film than Taxi Driver

Furthermore on the basis of awards Taxi Driver received no wins from its four nominations whereas Raging Bull won 2 of its 8 nominations. Raging Bull won one of its 7 nominations for the Golden Globes and Taxi Driver did not get any of its 2 nominations My final point involves the American Film Institutes's 10th anniversary edition of the 100 greatest movies of all time. On that list Raging Bull is ranked number 4 and Taxi Driver is ranked 52 . http://www.imdb.com... . http://www.imdb.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_100_Years...100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition)