BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap, excluding hip hop and other variations of Rap, is not music.

I agree with my opponent that "One can spend his/her whole life in the learning of Music and not learn everything about it. " But what can be called music is not undefinable. My definition provides what can be called music, and by that definition, rap is music. A musician is any person, whether professional or not, skilled in music; so, not everyone can be called a musician.
Rap, excluding hip hop and other variations of Rap, is not music.

First thing I'm going to pick on. Music can not be restrained by a definition. One can spend his/her whole life in the learning of Music and not learn everything about it. Second, Rap is speaking through a microphone with organized words a person has written. If Rap is music then any Lawyer, Teacher, Company Spokesperson or anyone organizing and presenting words in different rythms or pitches could be called musicians. Rhythm by the way is the subdivision of a space in a repeated pattern.
Rap, excluding hip hop and other variations of Rap, is not music.

I offer the following definition: music- an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. Rap is music by my opponent's definition because it contains all the elements provided in my definition of music. The lyrics express ideas, harmony in the meter, melody is provided by the pitch and speed of the syllables. Color is all of these put together.
Should we streamline students based on their exam results

If my opponent wants to argue that exams should not be ignored completely but should be given less importance than other things like course works, then I want to argue for the opposite that exams should be given the major importance with assignments and course works given a smaller share of the whole evaluation. 1- Cheating in exams is possible but easier to control and prove. My opponent has based his arguments mainly on cheating and the possible alternatives to exams, and my response to that is that cheating is possible in those alternative methods like assignments and coursework (ex: another person may do the assignment for them), it is much easier to control and to prevent cheating in exams, and it is easier to confirm cheating should it happen. So we ought to concentrate on standardizing the exam conditions and to supervise the students strictly and cheating would become negligible if not completely abolished. Assignments and homework are good methods to help students understand the subject and learn how to look up information, but at the end of the day you need to test if the student had understood the subjects and accomplished the required goals, and this is best achieved by a unified exam. And as I mentioned above exams can come in various forms; practical, theoretical, open book ,etc. Each can test a different a skill a student needs to acquire. 2- We should not ignore students' preferences completely, but each student should register their choices and students with higher grades should have the priority in choosing the majors. 3- It seems that my opponent has based his views to exams on a bad experience in his school (ex: the abundant cheating and the unfairness by the teachers), but I do not think this is representative of all schools, and if reflects anything it reflects bad management in this particular school. Finally if find my opponent's statement "So if you fit this altogether you get me destroying his points before he even launched them" equally arrogant to students who say "Exams cannot test my true abilities" without them showing any signs of special abilities or talents!
Should we streamline students based on their exam results

Nice points there. I will point out the flaws of them Overall, you based your points mainly on laziness, bribery, and reflection of hard work they have. Before I rebut them, I will like to clarify myself as you seem to have misunderstood me. I am not saying exams should be ignored or are unimportant but they should not be used for giving majors. My school gives assignments and coursework for 70% of our marks as those cannot be cheated. For laziness, exams are not the only way to give majors. My example above suits as an alternative for the motion. That 30% of marks will, if failed by the exam, only give them a B. That is only a narrow pass. Coursework does not promote laziness as that usually racks your brain. With this system, they will be, (if they do) lazy for only the minority of the time in school. Ignoring exams is not my case. It is not using them as key definitions to a student's talents. Number 2. Reflecting on hard work and studies. Again, exams can be cheated on and when succeeded, the only hard work they reflect on is the planning on how to get the answers and write them somewhere the teacher won't see. Again, my assignment alternative solves the problem. Course works are completely cheat-proof and, this way, requires hard work and at the same time teaches the students' critical thinking and about the topic. Number 3. Bribery. That one word sums up this whole paragraph eh? Here is what is wrong with your point. Basically, we all know humans are greedy and can accept a bribe at the right amount. I am going to reveal what is wrong with it in 3 of the following sentences. In my class, at the end of every exam, we compare each other's papers. Evidently the students will see the same answer to the same question with different marks and will get suspicious so that student will go to report this to someone and the teacher and student will be in trouble. Last sentence: If they don't compare their papers and go through all that chaos, they might get sent to the wrong major and they will be miserable until graduation. Ok. Challenge finished. Let's con's case. My main points are: Cheating, getting the wrong major and alternatives My rebutals are based on: Alternatives, getting the wrong major So if you fit this altogether you get me destroying his points before he even launched them. Overall, we shouldn't streamline students based on exam results and since I have proven that criteria, I urge a con vote. Thank you.
Should we streamline students based on their exam results

Thanks for the good opportunity to debate this important topic. 1- The number of seats for each major are limited, and the competition is strong since there are certain majors that are commonly proffered by students because they provide more working opportunities and have higher future incomes; so there has to be a fair method to decide who can get which major, and I will argue in the next points that standardized exams are the best way to do so. 2- Exams do not only test students' skills in the subject but also reflect the degree of hard work and dedication they have. Also exams test the student's critical thinking and problem solving skills, and all are essential for success in their future careers. 3- Ignoring exam results as a way to evaluate students will open the way to other insincere and unlawful methods like bribery, because the results of other methods like interviews can be easily manipulated, since there are no legal documents to prove students' eligibility. 4- Exam results can be adaptable in a way to provide maximum efficiency; for example: considering the results of science subjects only for scientific majors, and literacy for students who want to study literature. 5- disregarding exam grades will promote laziness and negligence amongst students, who will miss the valuable chance to learn various skills and general subjects before they get into certain specialty. The academic route and postgraduate studies are not for everyone, and people can still be successful in life even if they do bad in exams, but for the sake of qualifying the students to study majors exams are the best way to do so. And we should focus on making exams more efficient and versatile (ex: having both theoretical and practical tests) instead of canceling the system altogether.
Should we streamline students based on their exam results

Thank you for accepting this challenge. How they are going to be streamlined: Students given majors Now lets start with the args. 1) No confirmation info has even been digested. We can all agree that people have tried to cheat in exams and some have succeeded with leaked test answers. This is a really general point but it cannot be ignored. The more people succeed to cheat in exams, usually the more people WILL try to cheat in exams and it just turns into a vicious cycle and it keeps on repeating but only with a bigger population this time. If we base assigning majors to these people, they may not be successful in that class because they cheated. Yes you may say they deserve it but I am just going to answer no. These students just want to score the tests as much as the next person but they are just afraid to fail. If we make them study what they actually know little about, they may fail to ace that class and their life will just be worse. 2) What they want People have this common characteristic to just hate to do what they hate. They show reluctance in trying to do what they are forced to do making them not give their best shot thus not doing a good job. I myself was an example. If they were put in a place where they do not want to learn, it doesn't matter how knowledgeable the student is in that particular subject but if they go to that subject they dislike so much then they are just going to have low spirits during that time. This way, it may end in conflict between teacher and student or guardians. This is, i'm telling you, not a good world to live in. 3) Jack of all trades, master of none Yep. You saw the title. That is what a student becomes when he/she cheats and goes to a random subject they know nothing of. Yes they know things but there is is some space to improve. Having a major not in that subject is no help improving that person's skill of the absent subject. They may go to the subject they need but it is only chance. . .. .. . In the end, if this is so bad, there has to be another way so here come the. .. Other things to do: If it is the STUDENTS major, why are WE giving them their stuff. Why not we just make recommendations only based on their exam results and let them pick what they want to learn. The subject they pick would usually be a hobby or something to pursue their ambitions. Let them pick what they want and just do our part. It's better that way. With that, I would like to close. Don't forget, 2nd round is arguments and last round is rebutals. :)
Humans could've lived without religion

"I AM NOT A TROLL and if you are supporting religion then it doesn't suits you to say troll to me" The derpiest of arguments. .. 1. I only called you a troll because your argument was so asinine that I couldn't interpet it. That's your problem, not mine. 2. No religion says "thou shalt not call out the obvious" Well, at least not the one that I follow. There are some weird ones out there. "argument is argument either is copied or self written. .. " Yes, and copying arguments without giving credit is illegal (dude, bold, italics, and underline This is some serious stuff) It's called plagarism, and it's against the law. "and one thing more the charities you know . .. .. who use to serve poor, are how much loyal about their work . .. .? ?? " I'm not sure if you're familiar with a term called "Burden of Proof. " Herein reffered to as "BoP," the burden of proof is normally put on the debater taking the affirmative side of the resolution (this is you). The burden basically makes you prove everything you say. You can't just be like "Christian charities are dishonest. " You have to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that most, if not all Christian charities are dishonest. This is something you have failed to do, thus the statement is assumed to be proven false. "I believe in the humanity. .. . which is the real religion. " Did you just defeat your own case? lol humanity can't survive without humanity. This satement is contradictory if Pro is correct. "not only laws will help people, world or universe. " Are you suggesting we should have no laws? If you want another debate, I'd love to show you how stupid that is. "humans needs to get together for the welfare of society. .. .. ." That's cute, but it has nothing to do with the resolution. In conclusion: My opponent dropped contentions 2, 3, and 4 My opponent plagarized his rebuttal for contenion 1 The rebuttal wasn't even good My opponent made no arguments to support his case My opponent resorted to a cheesy Hallmark statement to finish R3 My opponent has the grammar of a child All of these things necessetate a Con vote. Also, I could care less about the conduct score at this point. I got arguments, spelling/grammar, and sources Welcome to DDO
Humans could've lived without religion

aahahaha I AM NOT A TROLL and if you are supporting religion then it doesn't suits you to say troll to me and argument is argument either is copied or self written... And language I have used is Indian Terminology... and one thing more the charities you know .....who use to serve poor, are how much loyal about their work ....??? I believe in the humanity.... which is the real religion.... not only laws will help people, world or universe..... humans needs to get together for the welfare of society......
Humans could've lived without religion

Please tell me you're a troll. The first law you bring up is completely plagiarized from WikiPedia. Since it's not your argument, I won't even address it. The rest of your argument is so unreadable that I can't interpret it enough to rebut to it. I ask the voters to take this into account when they score spelling/grammar. With that, my opponent didn't even bother to plagiarize rebuttals to everything, as he dropped contentions 2, 3, and 4. Vote Con. Seriously.
Humans could've lived without religion

if you are talking about the law then i have also the list of few laws and about their religions here under - Sati Pratha-The Bengal Sati Regulation, or Regulation XVII, A. D. 1829 of the Bengal Code was a legal act promulgated in British India under East India Company rule, by the then Governor-General Lord William Bentinck, which made the practice of sati or suttee"or the immolation of a Hindu widow on the funeral pyre of her deceased husband"illegal in all jurisdictions of British India and subject to prosecution. - Mahabharata- Game of dice- draupadi gets insulted - Ramayana- sita haran - Jesus Christ- hurted by their own peoples are few of the stories of religion...... which always hurted everyone...
Humans could've lived without religion

I will make my argument here, as my opponent failed to do.Contention 1: The Political/Law ArgumentLaws were based almost entirely on religion, as most of the societies in the past (and some today), were theocratic. Theocracies had a way of doing things way better than all of the other nations (see the British Empire, a theocratic monarchy). When religious countries were compared to secular countries, there was no question regarding who was more successful, Even secular countries' laws are rooted in religion. "Don't kill people"-Found in the Torah, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them"- Found in the Book of Matthew, The "Human rights" mentioned in the United States' founding documents are said to be endowed by a Creator. The list is endless.Contention 2: The philosophical argumentMany of the great philosophers were religious and inspired by God. Here are a few [1]- 1) Thomas Aquinas2) Immanuel Kant3) Soren Kierkeggard4) Emmanuel Levinas5) Martin Buber6) Alvin Plantinga 7) CS Lewis8] Norman Geisler9) Martin Luther10) Francis Shaffer 1) NT Wright2) Alister Macgrath3) Ravi Zacharias4) Tim Keller5) William Lane CraigWithout religion, much of philosophy would be dead, as even atheist philosophers may not have been motivated to work because there was no deity to oppose.Contention 3: The Moral ArgumentPretty basic. Most charities are run for religious reasons Religious people are nicer on average Churches are places where addictions are cured, sadness is lifted, hope is given, faith is restored, and everybody can come together under One True God, no matter what their circumstances are. Religion is not "whites only." There are no signs saying "No girls allowed." Even gay people come to church (but that's for a different debate). And my most important argument here: Religion has a civilising effect on people. Really, if there is no God, why don't we jut kill and rape as many people as we want? Is it because we have a conscience? No. Nothing happens after we all die, so why not live this life serving ourselves? That is the purely secular mindset. We'd all be screwed if that was how society was run.I await my opponent's argument.
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

The human will to live is an instinct outdone by absolutely nothing. Every human wants to live. Every human can say they do not want to live, but they are instinctually programmed to. Amnesty International states "In-depth report on United States' executions of the mentally ill. Includes definitions of terminology, explanations of common and relevant mental conditions, primary-source quotations, current national and international statistics, and recommendations by an American Bar Association task force. The report finds and provides startling new information such as that 5-10% of today's Death Row inmates suffer from serious mental illness; it also draws unique connections between certain states' mental health funding and execution rates." This serious mental illness can interfere with instincts, as their minds are not oriented as the rest of the population of the United States of America. This would mean that they would think slightly differently, and therefore 5-10% is the maximum number of persons in death row who could be lacking the instinctual will to live, and therefore my opponent's argument about death being preferred by alleged death row eligible criminals over life imprisonment without possibility of parole is invalid, and death is a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment without parole. When my opponent states "the crimes would usually be done in honor of their higher power" yet fails to give any example of an alleged criminal who could be sentenced with the death penalty, or had been, who had a religion of the such that the person would experience grace in the afterlife, or as my opponent argues "the felon would look forward to the afterlife". When my opponent states "I can tell you that there are an extraordinary number of articles and documentaries you can read and watch across the Internet about life in prison." I could certainly as well. The word can is invalid in making an argument. I can say "I can tell my opponent the National Security Agency is not justified," being granted freedom of speech by the Bill of Right's First Amendment, without limitations from other laws regarding free speech, but that does not mean my statement is true, which is why his statement is invalid. Following on "felon would look forward to the afterlife." What does not matter is what the felon thinks shall be waiting for him, though what is, which is undecipherable by any living human, therefore unreliable as a source, and therefore invalid. My opponent argues that life imprisonment would scare a potential criminal worse than death. My opponent argues that he would rather have death than life imprisonment. This is invalid as previously explained in my Round 3 argument against my opponent's hypothetical situation. To summarize the paragraph, my opponent cannot be placed in a situation that my opponent has never experienced. I once again point out that my opponent misused the word "deterrent" when argued "This penalty is virtually useless at a deterrent," as this is incorrect grammar. The grammatically correct version would be ""This penalty is virtually useless as a deterrent".
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

My opponent uses the argument that convicted criminals are more terrified of death than prison, as stated "Death itself, having committed murder, is in many religions with rather negative consequence. I can assure you that most versions of afterlife for criminals are terrible, ranging from a torture pit to nonexistence." I can assure you that most convicted criminals of such felonies are not, in fact, religious. Even if so, the crimes would usually be done in honor of their higher power. So if anything, the felon would look forward to the afterlife. My opponent also uses the argument that "life being cut short is no pleasure. Regardless of possibility of death in prison, you still have life. You have won if you have life. You have won if you outlived your victim. You have won if you had not met their same fate." I can assure you that I would much rather have death than life imprisonment, which my opponent claims I know nothing about. I can tell you that there are an extraordinary number of articles and documentaries you can read and watch across the Internet about life in prison. Also, if a family member were to be imprisoned, I could be informed about it via them. May I point out the incorrect use of grammar correction done by my opponent, as "This penalty is virtually useless at a deterrent," does not refer to the word "deterrent" as a place, and was intentionally not capitalized. I'd also like to point out that my opponent also incorrectly uses quotation, placing his/her punctuation marks after the end quotation, as they should be placed just before the end quotation.
Capital Punishment (Death Penalty)

Although the cost of the death penalty can be reduced to only be sentenced when video/scientific evidence is shown, the conclusion is inescapable. Charles M. Harris, JD, Senior Judge of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Florida, said on April 18 2012 (only less than two years ago) in an opinion piece for The Gainesville Sun: "...[D]eath by execution is excessively expensive. Most people who support the death penalty believe it is more cost effective than life in prison. Perhaps at one time, when executions were swift and sure, this may have been the case. It is not now. Most people knowledgeable about the subject will agree that the delay now built into the system, more trial preparation, much longer time to get to trial, much longer jury selections and trials, much more complicated and far more frequent appeals, and continuous motions, have increased the cost of capital punishment so that it is now many times the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison for life." My opponent claims that death for criminals is a better deterrent than life imprisonment. Prison is not a place where you can kick your feet up and relax, chatting with your good ol' prison buddies and family at your leisure. The people you will encounter in prisons where murderers go to aren't very friendly. Some could, and often, want to rape, assault, and even kill their other prisoners. Plus, your surroundings will not be pleasant to your expectations. The prisons in the US aim for punishment and exclusion rather than rehabilitation. If I were a felon, I sure would rather not experience such conditions. You're right, fear is a strong deterrent. Especially fear of being more than just "socially unaccepted." Prison is sick, nasty, and the perfect place for a murderer to be. Not underground, at peace.