BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mad Music Skills Video Debate

I enjoyed Pro's selection. However, although it takes skill to play the cello they do not demonstrate skills above what any good cellist would be able to do with their instrument. They played what someone else wrote rather than creating themselves. Their uniqueness lies in their ability to find a niche in the industry where they were able to play cello with the unusual combination of metal and classical music. Although this is impressive, if we take out the gimmicks of smoke machines and shock value of the unlikely combination of music they will not compete with the skill exhibited by my artist.I present a man who revolutionized what was possible on the electric guitar. I assure you that although this is longer than I intended they are simply extra minutes that the audience will remain in awe at his incredible talent and mysterious ability to bring out sounds from his instrument unheard of before. I give you the guitar improv of Eddie Van Halen's "Eruption".http://youtu.be...
Flag burning should be illegal.

I do not think that flag burning should be legal. This is because burning a flag is disrespectful towards a country. Many people protest, and say we have freedom of speech. "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not expression, and, whereas all speech may be an expression of a sort, not all expression is speech, and there is good reason why the framers of the First Amendment protected the one and not the other." --Walter Berns, Making Patriots, p. 139 The first amendment protects freedom of SPEECH. It clearly says not all expression is speech. Flag burning is an expression. Burning the flag is a sign of disrespect. Period. It is unecessary and there are much better ways to protest without showing disrespect to this country.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible in which nobody can even prove exists

So what if God kills women and children? He gives life and can take it away whenever he pleases. God owes us nothing. First of all you ignorantly just ignoring my argument about free will. God can interfere with a murder, it's just that he won't. Big difference between can't and won't. Actually most historians agree Jesus of Nazareth was the influential man that has ever lived. Fraudulent you say huh. Tell that to the 2.2 million people (or 1/3 of the world's population) that believe in him. And he does exist as there are records from the Roman Empire and Caiaphas' library. Jesus is not more powerful than my god, he is my god (via. holy trinity). And yes Jesus is more powerful than Satan. He is the only person demons and even Satan tremble upon hearing his name. Please tell me why God wouldn't use text.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible in which nobody can even prove exists

I have free will because I am smart, educated, and intelligent enough to never believe in your god. You on the other hand believe in your god, therefore you do not have Free Will. PE-RI-OD. Since you did not watch the videos or pay any attention to what I said, and since your god said absolutely nothing about granting you free will in your bible, simply put, you do not have free will according to your god. This subject is now a dead subject because you did not pay attention. "And afterall God can't interfere with that murder." Wow. Your god has murdered 2,821,364 in his bible which included innocent babies and children, pregnant mothers as well and he's also according to you created---the---universe---in---6---days and you don't somehow think he can interfere with a murder? "God can't do anything to the Earth as the Earth belongs to Satan." Oh I get it, so also you must think that satan is somehow more powerful than YOUR flying pregnant fetus screw who obviously has no powers, god? "As Jesus said..." Who cares what jesus said? He's as fraudulent as they bumbling babbling baby brained get. And btw, since you treat your god as trash, and think that you are somehow starter than he is, and that jesus is somehow more powerful than your god as well as satan, thus your god is a weakling inferior/ aka trash. Its very crystal clear that you have to wing it in order to stay afloat in this debate, and probably the real world as well. So I am now ending this debate because you honestly have no idea as to what on THIS earth you are talking about AND YOU KNOW IT. Oh and oh yeah there was an outhouse of other things mentioned that you didn't even touch in RD1 thus proving that your god is pure s--t. And it comes directly from your bible. So why should I even bother with you? Bye.
Reasons for accepting atheism and not the god of the bible in which nobody can even prove exists

(I'm a catholic) We do have free will. We do in fact have the right to do whatever we please. The argument that god makes up all your decisions for you is true but it doesn't really matter. If I asked you whether you liked apples or bananas more, and you answered bananas it doesn't matter if god made that or not. The fact is you agree with all the decisions god made. It's sort of like playing a telltale game. While you don't literally choose the decisions you agree with them. I'm quite confused. Why are you blaming God for a murder. It's not his fault that a murderer murdered someone. People have free will. It's like hate speech. It doesn't exist because hate speech is part of the freedom to say anything besides actually saying you will kill someone etc. Having someone racially, religiously, etc. offend you is the price you pay for the freedom to say anything. God doesn't favor evil at all. Guess who's going to heaven, that mother and child. Guess who's going to hell, those murderers. And afterall God can't interfere with that murder. God can't do anything to the Earth as the Earth belongs to Satan. As Jesus said, I am not the king of this realm, but one far greater. You are guaranteed free will, but just like in the world, you'll be penalized and punished for your wrongdoings and shortcomings. As I have mentioned before God is all powerful, but refuses to play in the world of Satan. WIth your *'s. These are all from the Old Testament, these laws and rules didn't apply after Jesus came. God decided that all punishment shall be done on the judgement seat. You find many hypocritical statements in the Bible because the verses you use are all from different Bibles. If you take any of the three catholic Bibles I can almost assure you, you won't fin anything hypocritical in one of them.
Piano competition of awesomeness

My opponent has failed to follow the rules and give me a theme. My opponent still refused to co-operate when I asked him nicely in the comments. Therefore, I have chosen a theme for myself. I had a dream about a very old king last night, so that was my theme. Two and a half hours later (most of which was spent reminding myself how to play a piano), this is what I came up with.I know the sound quality is terrible, especially on the low notes (my microphone is a terrible inbuilt model), but please put up with it. Also, sorry about all the mistakes I made playing my own song - you can probably see why I kept failing all my old music exams! I hope you can enjoy it anyway.My opponent will post a song on the theme of "brushing teeth".http://www.youtube.com...;
Piano competition of awesomeness

Following Wallstreetathiest's model (although with some important differences), I have decided to instigate a piano competition. This one is particularly awesome because I'm so terrible at it that I'm going to make my opponent look awesome. So have fun thrashing me.FormatRound 1 is for acceptance. In each other round, you must post a youtube video that depicts you performing your composition. I'm not going to set any strict limits on it, but try to keep it longer than 10 seconds and shorter than 5 minutes.ALSO it is a condition of acceptance that you do not force me to post a round on next Saturday, Sunday or Monday as I will be away from a piano on those three days (NZ time). Please try not posting anything around the very start of the weekend and I'll manage (I can write/record a song on Tuesday morning).RulesLike my previous DDO composition competitions, each round must be on a theme set by the opponent. So for round two, con's "theme" that they must compose for will be determined by pro in round 2, and pro's theme will be determined by con in round 1. Good themes from the past have been "Iraq War", "Money - the rich and poor" and "The Igloo". Don't forget that if you accept this debate, you also need to post a theme for me to write a song for in round 2.All piano songs must be originally composed and performed by you within the 3 day time period.All music must come from the piano. No pre-recorded tracks.Character space may be used to explain your compositions.If you don't have a piano, a keyboard will do.JudgingPlease use only the convincing arguments button in your vote. You'll probably want to consider factors such as musicianship (which I will lose on, because I'm technically a terrible pianist), the quality of the performance and the quality of the music. Do not penalise either side for having a poor microphone, a shoddy piano, or for anything else beyond their control.Good luck to my opponent, and I look forward to hearing some wicked music!
GMOs

If we are shifting our focus to Monsanto, we should at least explain to voters what it is: Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri. Monsanto is a leading producer of genetically engineered seed and Roundup, a glyphosate-based herbicide. https://en.wikipedia.org... Monsanto may use dirty tactics to shut down small farmers, but that's just one company that works in bioengineering. The Big-6 Companies have problems and I would argue need investigating with their products, but you're coming across as though you think every single GMO product is bad, not the companies, as the former was what I intended to argue for. As I think that GMO's have a possibility of being good, I would ask for your next argument, would you disagree? I will say that using a corrupt company to prove that GMOs are inherently bad came across as a dirty tactic. So finally I ask, what are we arguing about: Companies or the product themselves? Because I agree that the companies are terrible and corrupt.
GMOs

Thank you for your argument. While I agree that GMOs perform many publicity stunts and make promises that have never been done, most of GMOs are naturally bad. In fact, studies by Japanese scientists have disproven everything Monsanto claims. They proved that GMOs are malnourished, produce many deadly allergens, and are no better than organic foods. Also, shifting our focus on Monsanto itself, Monsanto performs many underhanded tactics. Their best strategy is to sue farmers. When GMOs cross-pollinate, they can cross-pollinate with organic plants. Then Monsanto goes to the poor organic farmer and sues them for all of their money. The farmer has a choice, because Monsanto is so kind. They can either shutdown their farm or sign a contract saying that the only seeds that they can plant are Monsanto seeds and they can no longer sue Monsanto when their kids die because of the DEADLY ALLERGENS. I will save the rest of my argument for later. I am looking forward for your response.
GMOs

Thank you. My opening argument for GMO's will start with a definition of GMO's, or a Genetically Modified Organisms. GMO: An organism whose genome has been altered by the techniques of genetic engineering so that its DNA contains one or more genes not normally found there. Though extensive genetic modification should be monitored, the outright ban or limited use of GMO's can hurt or prevent good change from occurring. There is a common misconception that all genetic modification is bad. An example of a good genetic modification is Golden Rice, a project to help starving kids on the African Continent and potentially everywhere else, and protect them from Vitamin A deficiency. They also play as an antioxidant for eyes and skin. Source: http://goldenrice.org... However I do agree they should be labeled. We should be allowed to know whether we are eating something completely natural or not.
Human expansion into space is a must

Allow me to start my arguments. 1) In sure human survival. Expanding to as many planets as possible will subsequently give humans a much greater chance of survival. At the current moment, we are on one planet, and if said planet is destroyed, humans will be extinct. One day, if roughly 5 billion years, our sun will no longer be stable enough for humans to remain on earth. That is the most definite way the earth will end, however huge asteroids, hostile aliens, and abnormal solar flares also have to potential to end our species. Another end to the earth, as we know it anyway, is the destruction of the moon. If we expand, we will also have multiple chances at how to take care of environments, and not destroying ourselves. 2) Discovery habitable worlds Once we terraform Mars, we will proceed to terraform an planets and moons in our solar system that can be terraformed, however once this is done, we will need to continue outward and expand to our galaxy. We will do this by first scouting for habitable planets and terraformable planets. As we expand into space, the chances of finding alien life will become greater and greater. If these aliens are friendly, then it will be one of the most important discoveries of human kind. If they are hostile, we will learn ahead of time, before they reach earth, so we will have a heads up of what to do and will also already be on multiple planets so if earth or another planet of ours is destroyed by them, it won't end humanity. I will address the possibility of us being alone in argument 4. 3) Gaining new resources and places to live Once we are able to travel fast enough that transporting good back and forth is plausible, we will be able to trade resources across our civilization. If a planet has tons of uranium, for example, than the humans staying on said planet will export uranium to other planets. Having multiple planets will also rid overpopulation. Humans will begin to move to new worlds as they become more and more habitable. 4) If we are alone. If we are alone in the cosmos, it is about time we start making some head way into a universe that is unimaginable big. Some people say, "if we are alone, it is an awful waste of space. " Well , its time we starting using some space. . http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to Con's arguments and for this debate to get started!
Gears of War 3 ending was bad.

Gears of War 3. The final game in the main series with delta squad. The ending battle was intense, but it left you off with a cliff hanger. Now is it that bad? No, but if only it was finished. Epic left the game series unfinished, then People Can Fly came in and screwed up the series, and went back before the series. I don't like to see series end like this. But at least it leaves it to the fans to write it out. I prefer official endings to non. (No spoilers.)
inazuma eleven games are better then pes or fifa games

hello i am gonna say some rules spelling is not rated oke cause im not so good at english 1 inazuma eleven is a soccer game and fifa too 2 in inazuma eleven u have an rpg story that makes the game more fun 3 inazuma elevne is more strategic cause u can move not only 1 unit but all at a time in fifa u can move 1 unit and shoot the ball and then u are another unit! thats realy confusing 4 also in inazuma eleven your characters have better personalities in fifa it realy doesnt matter wich characters u choos 5 in inazuma elven u have hissatsu technics wich make the game more fun 6 in fifa if u shoot it goes nearly always over the net wich makes the game dificult 7 in inazuma eleven your characters can level up and become stronger and learn new hissatsu so u can focus on something and not only plays for nothing but also for leveling and u can play further in the story thats another goal u can have 8 i can get a fifa game for 50 euro inazuma too but when fifa becomes 1 year old its only 10 or something like that and the first inazuma elven ds is also 1 year old but its still 45 thats cause the first game is differnet frome the second and newer fifa games only have better graphics and have some new players that what i already said doesnt realy matter thats why they lower the price fifa is too repetitive and inazuma eleven is always new, if there is a new one out or if u play the newest so thats why i think oh sorry KNOW its better
inazuma eleven games are better then pes or fifa games

===Definitions===I should think adding some preliminary definitions would prove useful so as to minimize the chance of semantical arguments or trolling by either side in this debate.Inazume eleven refers to the sports game for Nintendo DS[1].Fifa games refer to the sports game series available for all major consoles[2].The term better will not have a specific definition, though aspects like quality and critical reception will no doubt come to factor whether one of the games can be considered better thamn===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(video_game_series)
All students should be expected to participate in structured debate cirriculum.

There are several reasons I disagree with my opponent. The first is that they have not presented any evidence to back up their feelings. And while feelings due have their place, decisions that impact our education system should be based on verifiable information. Making a decision like this can also negatively impact many schools. Schools might have to hire new teachers or even make new classrooms which cost money. This means someone would have to shell out a lot of money. This means that some type of tax will have to implement. In addition the points they brought up were all accompanied with an assertion of some kind. So allow me to challenge some of those assertions. The first of these is that objectivity is necessarily good. Becoming objective is not necessarily a good thing, subjectivity has it place in life, and other classes serve this purpose. English classes that include reading comprehension or argumentative essay writing or classes like AP Seminar can also do this. Their second point about finding a solution to a problem and not just winning is also incorrect. As someone who does Lincoln-Douglas debate with my school I can tell you, a debaters opinion does not matter. What matters is how well we can argue any point of view, not necessarily what we feel is best. What we learn is how to win no matter the view we are presenting. Their final point about teaching people to have their own opinions is true. However, normal progressions into teenage hood does this and the harms of implementing a system where it is required to teach a formal debate class render this a moot point. In conclusion a law that requires the teaching of a formal debate class will bring detrimate to communities and families through increased taxation and is necessary in the sense that what it offers can be gotten elsewhere or it really cannot offer it. For these reasons we must conclude that we cannot implement a system that would force every student to undergo a formal debate class.
All students should be expected to participate in structured debate cirriculum.

Definitions:Structured - throughout all grade levelsCirriculum - whether built into English classes, or having it's own elective class required for graduationStudents - fully enrolled students from elementary school throughout high schoolParticipate - have some kind graduation requirementMain Ideas:I personally believe that people should be required to participate in structured debate curriculum because it teaches children to become more objective and less subjective when deciding upon solutions to issues, teaches children to focus on developing the solution to a problem instead of simply trying the prove the other side wrong (which is something shown in politics every day), and teaches children how to develop their own logical and rational opinions instead of taking short cuts by identifying with a political party and simply believing the basics of the parties beliefs.
Abortion is generally immoral

Resolved: Abortion is generally immoral.Four rounds. Shared BoP. No new arguments in R4. R1 for acceptance.I shall argue that abortion is immoral in most cases. This means excluding extraordinary cases such as rape, incest, to save the life of the mother, etc. So I shall be arguing that in cases where the individual gave consent and partook in sex, resulting in a pregnancy, abortion is immoral. My opponent shall argue that abortion is morally acceptable in these cases.Definitions:Abortion: "a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus" (1)I don't want this debate to be about "Is there any objective morality?" So for the sake of it, we shall assume that things such as rape, murder, mutilation of children, etc. are prima facie immoral, regardless of whether or not they're "objectively" immoral.Good luck to Zarroette! :)(1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Does an existance creator of design exist or not.

My heart is paining for RMTheSupreme. Please forgive me for yes I am a dog t#rd. I would like to meet you in person and buy you lunch. Or do for you a good turn. But I am a dog t#rd that hasn't for my own sake become hard white and crumbly. For that day I suppose is on the way. I hope I don't stink too much for you to even consider speaking with me ever again. Once upon a time in my life at about 24 years old a man of about the same age accused me to be a know all know nothing. I took offence to that it hurt me badly he was much larger then I. I could have given him a bunch of fives but I am not good with the fisty cuffs and I really hope that I don't need to be. But as I have over the years thought so very hard about what he could have meant. I would shake his hand and thank him or even hug that man if I ever meet with him again. Peace be with you RMTheSupreme. I am sorry and I do humbly apologise with all of, that I am. So I will at least share a story with you that many find peace within. Jesus and a woman walked upon the wet sands at the beach and left two pairs of footprints behind them. But when the woman looked back there were but only one pair of footprints. She asked where did you go, why did you leave me behind? and Jesus answered I didn't go anywhere that my dear friend was when I was carrying you.
line cutting

While it can be an inconvenience to have someone "cut" you in line, it is often to join friends who have been waiting. Considering that going to a theme park is a social leisure activity, it is acceptable for people to move to where friends are waiting in line. Another thing to point out is the minor nature of this inconvenience, for example: Expedition Everest at Disney World: Ride Duration: 170 seconds Operating Cars: 5 Car Occupancy:36 Assuming the cutter is taking the 36th position or preventing your party from being in the same car, requiring you to await the next vehicle- 170(duration)/5(cars)=34 seconds(arrival delay between cars). Based on these calculations, a line-cutter would only add thirty-four seconds to your time in line. If you plan to spend an entire day at the theme park(around eight hours-9am-5pm) 34 seconds is inconsequential. By allowing someone to move in front of you, you could save their entire group up to an hour. Such a minor delay for you is totally reasonable when you recognize the time you save others. People ought to provide others the courtesy of jumping the line to be with their friends.