BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kirik Hammet is a better guitarist than Angus Young

"Guitarists should be able to pick up the guitar and play music on it for an hour, without a rhythm section or anything." -Joe Pass "Hammet can play faster and can solo better."Why is playing faster a better attribute of a guitarist than playing slower? If a musician puts passion into playing a simple phrase exquisitely, or even a single note for that matter, while passionately making love to it, nurturing the note or phrase along by saturating it with raw emotion, perfect tone, and expressive musical wit, he is doing a much better job than someone who rips up and down a scale quickly without any lasting musical phraseology. Listen to Herbi Hancock on the matter, "The value of music is to be able to play one note at the right time in the right way." Angus Young can solo better. He takes a note and makes it sing for a while before returning to a bluesy phrase. He understands what it's like to put the singing soul of southern slavery and the pitch-shifting passion of a prophet cotton-picker into his playing, while making it rock and making it listenable to a wide range of musical audiences. Playing good music isn't necessarily about speed, it's about playing the right note at the right time."Young can't play as intensely."Intensity isn't a single criterion for determining the musical prowess or insufficiency of a player. I would posit that a player who works the crowd with a melodic phrase covered in soul-juices is more emotionally, musically, and viscerally intsense than experiencing the faster, more distorted, and unmelodic purely-derivative style of Kirk Hammet. Angus Young has proven through his extensive career (starting professionally at age 15) that he has a simple, appealing, and passionate playing performance that is both acoustically enjoyable and aesthetically appeasing. Blues-RockAngus noted his influences to include Chuck Berry and Freddie King, while he plays licks relating to the virtuosic guitar sylings of Jimi Hendrix, the soulful blues of John Lee Hooker and the simplistic, pleasing The Kinks "You Really Got Me." He uses and innovates off of major and minor pentatonic scales, enhancing them with sexy, vocal like bends, screaming holds, and his innovative tapping technique. He essentially took blues-rock to a wider audience, promoting respect and interest in the genre.Sourceshttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.imdb.com...;http://www.wikihow.com...http://thunderroadrocks.com...
Darth Plagueis is better than Kylo Ren

I think Kylo Ren is better because he was born into the family who is most powerful with the force. we know this because darth Vader was the chosen one and he is Liea's brother. Leia has a son who came to be called Kylo Ren. because he is related to the chosen one who had a higher force level than yoda it clearly sates that Kylo Ren is better Darth Plagieis
Darth Plagueis is better than Kylo Ren

First I would like to comment on your argument that you posted in round 2. You say that Kylo Ren is 'epic' because he wears black, I would like to tell my honorable friend that Darth Plagueis also wears black in many pictures and action figures. The following link will show you a couple of pictures of the Sith Lord. . http://www.deviantart.com... I will accept that his lightsaber is 'pure cool' but his lightsaber could explode at any moment which makes it a very bad design. I shall also accept that stopping a bullet in mid air is impressive which shows power in the force. However this brings me back to Darth Plagueis' mastery with manipulating the Midi-chlorians which shows that when it comes to the force the fore mentioned Sith ranks highest in strength in the force. Now, your argument that Kylo Ren not going to the toilet is just ridiculous considering that we do not see anyone in any of the Star Wars films go to the toilet nor does Darth Plagueis go to the toilet in the book 'Darth Plagueis'. Conclusion: Darth Plagueis is dominant over Kylo Ren because at this moment in time only Plagueis as out of the two he has been been a fully trained master, whilst Kylo Ren is only an apprentice whose training is not yet complete. Darth Plagueis is a master in the force as he mastered manipulating the Midi-chlorians, through immaculate conception he, in effect, started off the the whole saga and finally Kylo Ren has shown signs of light in him as he was scared from killing his father whilst Darth Plagueis only has ambition to gain knowledge and conquer the force. P. S if you would like to know more on Darth Plagueis either read the book or go to the following link: . http://starwars.wikia.com...
Darth Plagueis is better than Kylo Ren

I accept that Kylo Ren lookes better. Your argument is flawed. As you say Kylo Ren can be defeated by an untrained girl with her eyes closed. This shows that Kylo Ren was weak as he could be so easily defeated. Darth Plaguies on the other hand ruled as the master of the Sith for many years. Yes he was defeated and killed but by his trained apprentice (Darth Sidious) which shows that he was also a good master. As I have said he influenced the midichlorians to sustain life. Also as many have speculated he influenced the midichlorians to create an immaculate conception which lead the the birth of Anakin Skywalker which is pretty impressive. If he had not created Anakin then there would be no Leia Organa which means there be no Kylo Ren or Ben Solo.
Darth Plagueis is better than Kylo Ren

Darth Plagueis could save people from death, he trained a man who would end up ruling the galaxy and also he does not go into a fit of anger when something goes wrong. Kylo Ren on the other hand committed Patricide in the attempt to release himself from the light side. He also has a fit of anger when something goes wrong and strides to be like and better than Darth Vader which so far has failed in.
We shouldn't use animals in circuses

Animals in circuses may have access to more medicine than in the wild but it is not like a zoo. Most zoos try to keep the animals as natural as possible but circuses don't. When is it ever natural for an elephant to do a headstand? Or for a bear to ride a bike? The British government agrees with me too as they have passed a law banning circus animals (http://www.express.co.uk...). If the government agrees, then it is unnatural and wrong.
We shouldn't use animals in circuses

Let us ask ourselves "Does performing in a circus harm the animal?". I believe that it is possible for an animal to be used in the circus for entertainment and not be harmed. Consider the actions they do: Performing tricks, walking around, and some are just there to add a little bit of zest to the act. Also, since these animals are being kept by people, they have access to resources and medical treatment they would not normally receive in the wild. I see it not much different than keeping animals in a zoo. It is true that trainers may beat their animals to listen to them, but other forms of training are possible, such as positive reinforcement,.
We shouldn't use animals in circuses

Animals may provide entertainment but that doesn't mean it is right to use them. People used to think a hanging was good family entertainment but you wouldn't agree to that, would you? The animals have been treated horribly in order to make them do what the trainers want them to do ((http://www.peta.org.uk...) and (www.ringlingbeatsanimals.com/). We should consider what the animals are made to do. When is it ever natural for a lion to sit on a barrel and wait patiently? We should let the animals show their natural behaviours, not just ones we want to see because they are 'entertaining'.
THW Temporarily Ban Muslim Immigration

IntroductionRepublican presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed to curb Islamic terrorism by banning Muslims from immigrating to the United States temporarily. This divisive proposal has become one of the main talking points for critics and supporters of Trump alike. In this debate, the proposal's merits shall be discussed.Rules Pro would start in round 1. Pro's model for this debate should be similar to Trump's proposal No trolling Let the debate begin!
THW Temporarily Ban Muslim Immigration

With nothing to respond to, I see no reason to push my point further. Con having forfeited the round has conceded that he cannot appropriately justify an argument contrary to my position. I am not supporting a permanent ban on Muslim immigration. I am supporting a temporary security measure similar to those seen in recent history to tackle the very real threat of Islamic terrorism. There is nothing racist about wanting to save lives. The right to life is infinitely more important than the right to travel, and so I urge all of you to vote for the motion, to vote for the security of the United States, and the people that reside within it.
THW Temporarily Ban Muslim Immigration

I'd like to state that although I am more playing devil's advocate here, I do think that a focus on Islam is essential in defeating Islamic Extremism rather than gun laws as the media is currently proposing. As you said I start in round one, here I go. .. Islam is a fundamentally dangerous religion as all of those who practice the religion base their beliefs on extremely inflammatory scripture, and equally irresponsible hadiths, which lead to many Islamic beliefs being totally incompatible with Western values. Amongst those incompatible views are the homophobia that we have seen inspired the Orlando shooter; a man who was disgusted by homosexuals and proceeded to swear allegiance to ISIS during his attack. Consequently we see an enormous amount of Islamic extremism sweeping across Europe and indeed the US. Now studies do show that Islamic extremism only makes up about 6% of terrorist attacks in the US (1). This may seem like a very low figure to get into such a ruckus about, however it starts to become alarming when you realise muslims only make up 1% of the US population (2). This is extremely disproportionate, showing that there is far more hatred and intolerance amongst the muslim community than the general population. One might notice that Jewish extremism makes up 7% of attacks, and has a similar population size to the Muslim community. Nonetheless the 5.3 million Jews that reside in the US make up 40% of the world's Jewish population (3), whilst the 3.3 million Muslims living in the US make up only 0.2% of the world's Muslim population. Thus the threat of extremism coming from overseas is far greater among Muslims than Jews. By sheer numbers, there are far more Islamic extremists in the world than Jewish extremists. The ultimate question around this comes down to whether a ban on Muslim immigration would reduce Islamic extremist attacks. The answer is of course, yes, yes it would. If Islamic extremists are unable to enter the US, then they will not be able to attack. One may argue about home-grown extremism, but this leads into my next point. Trump's proposal is not a permanent ban and shut out the entire global muslim population forever. His proposal is a temporary ban until 'we know what the hell is going on'. By this, I believe he means a ban until regulations have been put in place to remove or at least limit the threat of Islamic attacks (including home-grown extremism), which given ISIS's growing activity will frequently be present. Thus although a ban seems like a very extreme measure given that most muslims do not commit terrorist acts, it will limit the deaths by extremists until the threat has been neutralised. Surely saving lives is of far greater importance than preserving the vacation rights of an extreme minority? (1) . http://www.globalresearch.ca...(2) . http://www.pewresearch.org...(3) . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
do you agree that good looks triumph over efforts

It sounds very rude but all the philosophies are made to give consolation to the broken and weak people to keep going but the fact is everybody try his or her best to get the results no one choose to be a looser handsome handsome people make less effort cause they are effective and smart to do in what they doin . Its human tendency to avoid the pain and gain the pleasure simply no one likes ugly pictures . Have u ever seen any news speaker who dont have good looks any prom couple. Just think about the beauty and sergical industry businesses and reason of existence you will get all the answeres .
do you agree that good looks triumph over efforts

People with efforts work hard throughout their lives and their achievement serves as a reminder to the people around them that with enough effort and determination. They also could made it far in life. Although good looking people have a head start in life as they get noticed easily but without enough effort, they are never going to last long and will tend to be forgotten. Especially celebrities like lindsay lohan, she was once a child actress and puts in efforts in her acting to get recognise but things went hay wire for her when she stop putting in efforts and starts depending on her looks. With good looks but without effort to do better, the person is nothing more than an empty shell. People like bill gates started his business when he was young but without effort could he have gotten far to where he is today. i doubt so, without effort his business will never reach the heights. Therefore, efforts triumph over good looks
do you agree that good looks triumph over efforts

I totaly agree with the fact of charm is warm . If we take the examples of worlds greatest people who did the miracles right from the jesus christ , herculis , j.f kennedy , etc we will find that there were one common virtue beauty , handsomeness, loveliness , glow, light which works as a fuel in a motor to influence the people.the worlds top ceo , actors, sportsmen, politicians, all have one X-Factor that is good looks which makes them stand out from the crowdy competetion.
Cheekyhobo is a better sign on than Lysis17

"Cleary your name was based on a book from Plato, that was how I refuted it." First of all you are clearly jumping to conclusions when you insist that my name was based on a book from Plato. But once again, if you insist....your name is not 100% original....the word cheeky and hobo have been around for years...you just happened to accidently put them together. Clearly your thoughts are scattered...so go hop on a train to hobo neverland where you have escaped the evils of this world. Perhaps I will come visit you someday and bring you some pie. "I believe in good honorable hobos like myself who enjoy tuna from a can." For the sake of the dolphins please skip the tuna cans. They are harmful to dolphins!!! But that is a whole other debate. And in case you didn't get the memo...Willy is already free! My dolphin friends will tell him you said hi! ~It was a pleasure debating my first cheekyhobo!! LYSIS17
Cheekyhobo is a better sign on than Lysis17

""Vote Cheeks in order to establish a brighter and happier day for hobos around the world!" So if someone votes for you is it for a darker or brighter world? Just wanted clarification on that one." Darker for most but brighter for hobos. I believe in good honorable hobos like myself who enjoy tuna from a can. Power does not equal better. "powr corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and clearlyt your mind has been corrupted to think that cheekyhobo is not the best name ever invented! "BUT if you would rather insert your own meaning (which I will allow now that you have informed me of your mental puppiness) I will comply for your sake." - Cleary your name was based on a book from Plato, that was how I refuted it. My name is 100% original and you have replicated your name off of some 4 thousand year dead guy who wrote about philosophy. Don't get me wrong, you have a good name. but mine is clearly the winner. If we were having a pie contest you would be banana cream and I would be cherry or pumpkin! "tip toe through the tulips then work hard like the philosphers trying to figure out the answers to life's problems." First off, philosophers had WAY too much time on their hands and they were paid via "patronage". Socrates was poor and mooched off people. My cheekyhobo-ness implies that I am a happy hobo because I have avoided the evils of this world and have established a care-free life unlike the philosophers who found little pleasure in trying to explain the world. Hobos and Philosophers are cool, but Cheekyhobos are abso-freakin-lutely AMAZING!!! Free Willy!!!! - Cheeks
Cheekyhobo is a better sign on than Lysis17

I do, and I did apologize for my "cheekiness". I assumed you wanted to engage in insolent rhetoric so please forgive me for my false assumption. As far as assuming, you did such when you stated that I was showing "discontent about my situation" when actually I was just getting carried away in the fun of trying to provide examples of what "cheeky" means! OK, now on to the real debate. I am so hapy that you enjoy your carefree happy life as a hobo, and a cheeky one at that. However, I am somewhat befuddled by your contradictory requests. First you state to vote for you "for a darker tomorrow" but then resort to "Vote Cheeks in order to establish a brighter and happier day for hobos around the world!" So if someone votes for you is it for a darker or brighter world? Just wanted clarification on that one. ALSO just because Lysis is also the title of Plato's wonderful piece on friendship does not implicate that is the meaning of my sign-on. In my first argument I defined Lysis quite differently and you said nothing to refute the "powerful" implication of my name. BUT if you would rather insert your own meaning (which I will allow now that you have informed me of your mental puppiness) I will comply for your sake. So according to "your" definition of "my" sign-on I would still be considered more creative as a name referring to the philosphy of friendship on a site like this is much more fitting than an insolent vagabond who would rather tip toe through the tulips then work hard like the philosphers trying to figure out the answers to life's problems.
Cheekyhobo is a better sign on than Lysis17

"hmmm, so not only are we "cheeky" but slow. I guess the "S" on your cape stands for "Stupidman" not "Superman"!" To show discontent about a situation by lashing out at your opponent is only a reflection of your intelligence! How dare you talk to a mentally ill person such as my puppy! I shall beg for your pardon and will be looking for a well-thought-out apology for next round! But, the debate must go on! Cheekyhobo is original. Lysis, was a book that Plato wrote way back when. cheekyhobo is as it sounds, a happy hobo man strolling down the lane enjoying the world and absorbing the sunshine! What could be more interesting than that? A bunch of philosophers talking around a table? Cheekyhobo can be played on more than Lysis as well. Vote Cheeks in order to establish a brighter and happier day for hobos around the world! Thankme - Cheeks!
Cheekyhobo is a better sign on than Lysis17

First of all creative can be a relative term...but if you really want to debate this I must say that Lysis17 is not only more creative but more "powerful" than Cheekyhobo. Cheeky fits you well though as it means insolently bold, in simpler terms "RUDE" and hobo is pretty much self explanatory...but just in case you don't know ..." a homeless and usually penniless vagabond" Lysis is the resolution or favorable termination of a disease, coming on gradually and not marked by abrupt change. I will gradually terminate all cheekyhobos, chicken, cluckers and any other rude fowl before midnight. So vote Lysis17 for a brighter yesterday!
Mormons are Christians - Apologetic Setup [01]

The [XX] in the resolution is just a numbering system to keep track of repeated resolutions. The resolution is 'Mormons are Christians'.The burden of proof will lie with Con to show that Mormons aren't Christians. I will respond to any points Con brings up, and show that Mormon beliefs are indeed Christian. In this way, I will be playing a defensive, or apologetic role.There will be three rounds. Con will begin with arguments R1, and I will respond to R1 in R2. This will continue, so Con will not be allowed to present arguments in R4, as we will have both had 3 rounds.For the purposes of this debate, the following definitions apply:Mormons - Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day SaintsChristians - [people] who follow or belong to a religion based on the worship of one God and the teachings of Jesus Christ as described in the Bible .Christian(Biblical Definition) - A follower of Christ, from the Greek 'Christianos'
Severe Gun Control.

I. Controlling the uses for gun, will reduce gun related accidents. A nine year old fatally shot her instructer in the head with an Uzi gun. Which results in a innocent person killed, and a girl scarred for life. (Although I am assuming so). Clearly this means there has to be some gun control such as do not let a 9 year old shoot an Uzi? There have been other incidents such as a man in Florida, shot a person for having to be on the phone while being in a movie. Apprantly, a police officer who did this was not a criminal. He had a spotless reocord and he was being threatened. (Apprantly, being threatened means being thrown popcorn at). The trigger was fired and a life was taken away. http://www.usnews.com... http://www.newrepublic.com... Before I go any further, I would like to point out that this is NOT about BANNING guns. But RESTRICTING its uses. Therefore, my opponent cannot use the idea of banning guns for I am not in favor for that. (According to tittle at least). II. Moral point of view. Now, this part of my argument holds no evidence, but I would like to bring it up. Now, morally speaking, a person being attacked, is morally better than a person being dead. (Speaking from a moral point of view, not a personal). If a person was attacked, there are other forms of defense as well such as pepper spray. (Which I will go deeper into my argument later). Some forms of weapons, do not kill and thus making them morally superior. If another person had a gun, then it would turn into a gun fight, resluting in more deaths if in public. Again, this part of my argument were mostly assumptions so I will not go into it any deeper. III. Other forms of defense. it does not mean that if you do not have a gun, and someone breaks into your house, your done for. There are other forms of defense such as 1. Security system 2. Pepper spray 3. Taser guns (Hopefully we are talking about firearms) 4. Baton 5. Tactical pen 6. Having a phone nearby IV. Increase age of gun uses. This is a form of gun control---increasing age. As I stated beofore, a nine year old had shot an insutrctor in the head. Gun ages vary from different ranges. In 30 states, a child or minor can own a rifle or shotgun. Which is one of the reasons why there should be some form of gun control. . .Increase the age so perhaps child related accidents do not occur. I would like to have my opponent elaborate on "severe". In following rounds, hopefully, my opponent agrees it will be rebuttals.
Atheism is the default position

I'll try to clarify the statement I made. Clearly if there is a state of lacking then there is also a state that is NOT lacking. You have the burden of proof that the default position is the former (condition = lacking, without). Because with out evidence the latter (condition = NOT lacking, or being with) is equally valid. If cold is defined as the lack of heat. Then the statement "The Food is COLD" has to be proven accurate, because the food has the POSSIBILITY of being HOT Plus you are the instigator and pro, so burden of proof is likely to lie with you anyways. Seeing how my opponent has made no argument just the statement of a rhetoric. I urge all to vote CON. Thank you