BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

http://www.youtube.com...My opponent says in Round 1 "Better is defined as a higher quality". He now changes his definition to " Better was describes[sic] as a better sound quality". He then concedes pretty much every point I made.My opponent completely contradicts himself when in round 2, he says: "Although Nirvana does not have as much complexity in their songs they still manage to make amazing sounding melodies, bass lines that are again not as complex as the bass lines of the Red Hot Chili Peppers but still are pleasing to the listener." Now he says that Nirvana has a deeper meaning comparable to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. First of all, this isn't true. Kurt Cobain complained when fans attempted to extract meaning from his lyrics. He would also insist on the unimportance of the lyrics. http://en.wikipedia.org...Secondly, my opponent can seem to decide neither the importance of deeper song meanings to Nirvana nor its relevance to this debate as evidenced by his contradictory statements. My opponent's third round argument seems to be that diversity is unimportant, overcoming difficulties is umimportant, the only thing that is important is sound quality. Q: How does he argue that in the debate? Ans: Simple. He doesn't argue. He just says so.My opponent also attempts to say that Nirvana is more diverse than RHCP asking the voters to compare "Jesus Don't Want Me For a Sunbeam" to the song "School". He never really explains why they are different. I showed that RHCP has a diverse musical tone because its earliest songs have been mostly rap rock and funk rock such as the song posted here titled: True men don't kill Coyotes. Then they proceeded to mainstream rock. They also cover a wide range of topics such as love and friendship, various sexual topics and the link between sex and music, political and social commentary, romance, loneliness, globalization and the cons of fame and Hollywood, poverty, drugs, alcohol, dealing with death, and California. http://en.wikipedia.org...My opponent never really provides any arguments at all beyond simply stating that Nirvana is better, and changing the definition halfway through so that he doesn't have to respond to my arguments.
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

I would like to remind my opponent that this debate is not on which band was able to deal with problems better, i was debated which band was better. Better was describes as a better sound quality. IT was said that RHCP was more diverse than nirvana, fist of all, diversity has nothing to do with the definition of better that i posted, second of all, Nirvana is very diverse. Compare the song "Jesus Don't Want Me For a Sunbeam" to the song "School". It was also said that RHCP had a deeper meaning, so does Nirvana, the song "Rape Me" isn't actually a song about Kurt Cobain wanting his friend to rape him it was actually a song apposing rape. [1]http://www.youtube.com...
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

. http://www.youtube.com...I will show through my arguments that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than Nirvana in many ways.1) LongevityThe Red Hot Chili Peppers formed in 1983. They are still currently active after 28 long years, 4 times longer than Nirvana who were only active for seven years. Nirvana depended too much on its lead singer. Once Kurt Cobain died, Nirvana disbanded. RHCP on the other hand did not let deaths or departures stop them from playing. They released a total of nine albums which is three times more than that of Nirvana which only released three. Nirvana was a short-lived band whereas RHCP is a long term success.2) Overcoming addictionsMany RHCP members were addicted to drugs. John Frusciante left the band and later developed a heroin addiction, which left him in poverty and near death. However, the band at an all time low decided to invite Frusciante back into the band. This was a turning point and led to the huge success of Californication. Overcoming difficulties set RHCP apart from a band like Nirvana which disbanded as soon as its lead singer died.3) Diverse musicThe music of RHCP evolved from funk rock to alternative rock to mainstream rock. They have a wide variety of styles that adapted with the times.4) Meaningful musicAnthony Kiedis writes most of the lyrics for RHCP. He states that most of them have a much deeper meaning than is evident at first glance. For instance, the song "snow" talks not about actual snow but about Kiedis's addiction to heroin. The song "Californication" does not make a lot of sense at first. But when you replace the word "Californication" with "sex", everything starts to make sense. I would describe all of their songs in detail, but since my opponent is young, and his brother may not approve,(lol) I will stop here. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)The video to the left shows one of RHCP's most famous songs: Under the Bridge. The lead singer (Anthony Kiedis) in this video is talking about Los Angeles. It is a prime example of how RHCP songs have deeper meaning in their lyrics. Here is a sample of the lyrics. Lyrics:Sometimes I feel like I don't have a partnerSometimes I feel like my only friendIs the city I live in, the city of angelsLonely as I am, together we cryI drive on her streets 'cause she's my companionI walk through her hills cause she knows who I amShe sees my good deeds and she kisses me windyI never worried, now that is a lieI don't ever wanna feel like I did that dayTake me to the place I love, take me all the wayI don't ever wanna feel like I did that dayTake me to the place I love, take me all the wayIt's hard to believe that there's nobody out thereIt's hard to believe that I'm all aloneAt least I have her love, the city she loves meLonely as I am, together we cry
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

I would like to start off my argument by saying that Nirvana is a better band than the Red Hot Chili Peppers for many reasons, one being that they were able to take one chord and turn it into an inspiration for musicians all around the world. Although Nirvana does not have as much complexity in their songs they still manage to make amazing sounding melodies, bass lines that are again not as complex as the bass lines of the Red Hot Chili Peppers but still are pleasing to the listener, an the sound of their drums is very recognizable, as well as the guitar and the voice of leader singer and guitar player Kurt Cobain. For my video i will choose a song that displays all of the factors that i have mentioned about Nirvana. [1]http://www.youtube.com...
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

I'd like to welcome Spenellzi to DDO and thank him for instigating this challenge. With the first round being for acceptance, we have two rounds to present our arguments. I will show through my arguments why the Red Hot Chili Peppers are better than Nirvana. If my opponent agrees, I would like both of us to post a video of the band we are saying is better in each round in addition to our arguments. I will not post a video in round 1 since Pro has posted videos for both bands in his round 1. Good luck.
Nirvana is a better band than RHCP

Arguments begin in round two. Better is defined as a higher quality. Nirvana was a late eighties to mid nineties American rock band from Seattle. They had four albums including Bleach and Nevermind. Their most popular song was Smells Like Teen Spirit[1]. RHCP is an American alternative rock band formed in the mid eighties from California. They have a compilation f many albums including Blood Sugar Sex Magik and One Hot Minute. one of their more popular songs was Californication [1] http://www.youtube.com... [2] http://www.youtube.com...
Child Beauty Pageants

As found from previous arguments, women want to be beautiful. A way of measuring that is pageants. And just like in sports, when you have people who cheat (get plastic surgery/steroids), it raises the bar for those who don't cheat and inspires them to do better. By forcing little girls to cheat for pageants, it raises the bar on beauty and makes others want to be more beautiful. As being beautiful gives them value, they don't feel the need to enter the workforce. Women abstaining for the workforce lowers unemployment. Lowering unemployment is a good thing. Little girls getting plastic surgery is a good thing.
Child Beauty Pageants

As you haven't refuted my conclusion from the last argument, I'll pick up where we left off. It is good policy to prepare women for their desirable role as caregivers and home maker. How can we do this? Women need different goals to motivate them in lieu of a career to be happy. In the same way that men can prance off they are the V.P. of so and so company making X amount every year, women need some bargaining chip to find satisfaction in their life. Some women may choose to relish in their family's accomplishments, but others need their own fulfillment. What does the woman have to herself?... her beauty. That is the one section of her life that is entirely hers (in the way that the workplace is for a man). Do you agree?
Child Beauty Pageants

I didn't realize we were debating only - plastic surgery on children. I'll try to make the case anyway. The current workplace is saturated. The current unemployment rate is 8.1%. If we removed a section of people from the work force, and gave them other jobs (such as home making/care giving, a vital section of society - as children are our future). The unemployment rate would go down. The unemployment rate going down is positive. Women make better caregivers. It's a win/win, especially for children who get the benefit of mothers home with them. Assuming you agree with both of these, it follows Its good policy to prepare women for their desirable role as caregivers and home maker (regardless of their capability in the workforce
Child Beauty Pageants

I'll bite... Seeing that you are Muslim, I hope we're not talking strictly about Sharia Law (as you didn't mention that) where women are covered head to toe. We must be talking about a society where it is assumed women are allowed to reveal their bodies in any way they see fit (besides nudity). For instance, in the USA and UK. Also, I'm hoping this first round is just for acceptance and clearing up the statement. Since you didn't make it clear, I will use Rounds 2-4 for my arguments.
Child Beauty Pageants

Nowadays, there are many beauty pageants, where young girls participate and contact with fake nails, fake teeth, fake hair, fake everything just to be called a "beauty queen" and earn some money. Making beauty the primary goal of a little girl's life is something really bad. They often have plastic surgeries and their mothers don't even think about the seriousness of these things. There is a show "Toddlers and tiaras", where so little girls compete with each other in order to be the best. The problem is that they think they are beautiful with make-up and fake staff they use there. Actually, children are really beautiful with their natural faces. http://www.youtube.com...
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

Contention 1/Counter ArgumentIt is unnecessary violence, yes Japan clearly did a wrong, but does that mean the United States should have hit back killing hundreds or thousands of innocent lives.Yes by doing this they would eliminate guilty lives, but it would cause the loss of innocent lives. Contention 2/Counter ArgumentIt wouldn't lead to the end of a friendship, you can easily apologize to the friend. It doesn't necessarily lead to hatred, more of a bit of a grudge which is resolved within a short period of time. As you state in Round 2 about Sword 1A, you can always smile at them (non-verbally) and just act like we shouldn't care about a dumb argument. Of course, you could hug them and smile or laugh.The proverb refers that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation. (as I posted in R2)Smiling, hugging, and laughing all are generally used for communication, thus this is a pen argument and is supporting my position.After all, the word "terrorist" refers to "a person who terrifies or frightens others,"...So a bully isn't terrorist? A bully terrifies the majority of his victims and you can easily negotiate with them since the majority of bullies are dim-witted.In a robbery/home invasion, would you try to negotiate with the criminals or escape for your own sake with your kids, family, relatives, friends, etc.? Obviously, you would choose escaping over negotiation as negotiation leads to your death while escaping leads to calling 911 and saving any loved ones.Well esaping wouldn't be a sword method, since your not using physical conflict and confrontation.It would be a pen method since you are calling proper authorities to handle the situation." Though my opponent may use this against me, the sword can also leave scars that last physically and mental scars. An example is the overseer of a plantation whipping the slaves. As we know, whipping leaves scars that last physically and also mental scars of this person hates you and may try to kill you. Pro must argue why the pen is mightier than the sword while, as Con, can argue if they are equal or the sword is better.I'm unsure as to why my opponent presented an argument that can so easily be turned in my favor. My opponent made several examples of how the sword is promoting violence.The pen is mightier than the sword.The pen beats the sword for many reasons.The pen promotes the voice of reason and the human intellect while the sword uses unnecessary violence.
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

CA1==> C1It does promote unnecessary and unneeded violence. In these situations negotiating is the best option.Negation is taking the route of the pen.With negotiation instead of rashly attacking a country you can negotiate with the country. CA2- Sword ViolenceThis is blatant sarcasm, my opponent never bothered to challenge this contention just sarcastically commented on "You physically attack your friend in some way."CA3==> C2If you make a treaty than both parties would have to agree to the terms associated with the treaty and sign it.If the disagreed with the treaty they wouldn't sign it. CA4==>C3If Country A used a sunrise attack against Country B, yet there are much better less violent alternatives.1) Negotiate with Country B2) Issue a treaty between Country A and Country B to come to terms. CA4==>C4Actually the South made no actions until they discovered the North had an intent to invade the south.CA5==> C5Since my opponent is using his CA1 to counter this point, then I am going to extend my refutation of his CA1 to here.C6 Suicide BombersOnce again negotiation would come into play.You can negotiate with the suicide bomber to prevent him from using his tactic.I will now present one counter argument affirming the resolution.Contention 1: The pen has the power to forgive while the sword does not.You can forgive or take back your words (pen), but you can never take my you physical actions, they remain.
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

CA1==> C1 The pen does not promote the voice of reason as well as the sword. Tell that to George Bush. You expect us to just go to a terrorist group and say, "Don't bomb the US. " Good luck with that. The sword, on the other hand, does not always promote unnecessary violence. Try coming with five thousand troops to capture a city that hates you and would like to bomb your country. Chances are that you win and that is not unnecessary violence. Any threat to you, you should take action, not trying to persuade the enemy. It's like saying in a robbery. Try to persuade the robber to leave. Good luck with that. If you ambush them, it's not unnecessary violence. You had courage and to try to fight to save your life. NECESSARY VIOLENCE. CA2- Sword Violence Yes. ATTACKING them with love and friendship. Isn't that a way to solve? I mean, you stated: "You physically attack your friend in some way. " Of course, you hug the friend (non-verbally) and buy the friend some ice cream and you live happily ever after… CA3==> C2 Yes. Try stopping the war in Iraq. If you sign a treaty saying that Iraq should not take the weapons of mass destruction, but, people may have the urge to get the weapons and destroy your country. Because the troops left, you get hit by surprise! SURPRISE ATTACK! CA4==>C3 Isn't that the way of war? Surprise attack? Nothing's fair. Please elaborate on your counter argument for I may have taken it the wrong way. CA4==>C4 Actually, it is an example of the sword's usefulness. When the South bombed the Union fort, would the Union say, "Please stop doing that. " No. The Union would have attacked the South. Would the South have listened to the "Please stop doing that! "? No. Therefore, this example shows the usefulness of the sword. The South did not verbally disagree, they shot and captured anyone who tried to run away. Battle of Fort Sumter. {1}. CA5==> C5 Ha ha. Please read Counter Argument 1 again… ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C6 Suicide Bombers Would you kill the suicide bomber that is about to bomb a populated city? Or, would you ask him to drop his bombs and interrogate him. Most likely, he would press the trigger before you could arrest him. Nice try. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- {1} . http://en.wikipedia.org... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I await your response. Sincerely, Lord_Logic
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

I will elaborate on the actual proverb before I begin. The proverb refers that it is more sensible to resolve a conflict by the use of words and communication rather than by physical conflict and confrontation. I will now present my arguments on why the pen is mightier than the sword. Contention 1: The pen promotes the voice of reason while the sword promotes unnecessary violence. The pen promotes the voice of reason and the intelligence of human beings, while the sword promoted unnecessary violence. For an example of this I will give a scenario giving the outcomes of using the pen and using the sword. You just had an argument with your best friend. 1A) Pen 1A) You verbally insult your best friend out of anger. 2B) You calm down and reach an agreement with your friend and you both apologize. 2) Sword 1A) You physically attack your friend in some way. Pen: 1A) You apologize and forgive your friend. Sword: 1A) Your friend would be shocked at you and would probably end the friendship. Your friend would also probably fight back in self defense. Contention 2: The pen can be used to stop the sword. The pen can be used to stop the actions of the sword For example let's say a country is preparing to go into war against another country. The are numerous example of how the actions of the pen can prevent the war (sword). You can sign a treaty between the two countries negating the war. The populace can rally to get the war to be negated. I will now refute each of my opponents points. C3 Sword Actually it would be actions cannot win alone but need words to support the actions. For example let's say country A plans on attacking country B so that Country B would stop a negative action on country A. If country A had a large amount of weapons at their disposal but made no notice to country B that they had an intent on using it then Country B would get no chance to undo their wrongs and get no warning of an attack. C4 Superior Sword This is actually an example of the pen's usefulness. The south used the pen's and respectfully disagreed to relinquish the slaves. C5 Failing Pens Well seeing as I am just 14, they would not take me seriously. Besides, they probably wouldn't automatically kill the person and instead jail them.
The Pen is Mightier Than the Sword

Good luck! C1 Definitions Pen- Words Sword- Actions I believe the others are self-explanatory. This will be words vs. actions. C2 Literal Let's just go with literal for a second. A sword slices through a pen. Ink spills out. No need to refute this. Readers, this was just a fun argument. .. C3 Sword {1}. The pen is not mightier than the sword because the pen needs swords to back it up. Meaning: words cannot win alone but need actions to support the words. Which basically means that words are discarded when there is no force. Hope you understand. Try going to {1}. C4 Superior Sword: Example 1 An example of failure in words is the Emancipation Proclamation. {2}. The Emancipation Proclamation stated that all slaves are free in the country. Of course, it never worked because the South forced the slaves to keep working when they were technically, "free. " Up until the Union forces came and made the South surrender did the slaves finally become free. Therefore, the swords are better because the Emancipation Proclamation (pen) failed to truly make all slaves free. When the Civil War ended, the swords won and the pen truly did not win. {3}. "The proclamation declared 'that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free. '" stated {3}. C5 Failing Pens: Example 1 Let's give an example. You, Pro, go to some country and say that you want to take all their weapons. You are defenseless with no other swords/people around. Of course, the conclusion would be you dead. Even better, try ask your mom to give all her money to you. Words don't work. Your mother will most likely ground you and, well, bye bye. I feel like this is enough for now. Good luck, Pro! {1} . http://deanesmay.com... {2} . http://en.wikipedia.org... {3} . http://www.archives.gov...