BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Beatles are better than Justin Bieber

Before I begin I will point out that Con does NOT address the pioneerism and revolutionary style of the Beatles which is one of the most important parts of my argument. Also, note to Con, your reference link is a dead URL. My opponent wishes for me to define better in this situation. Better will refer to the following: more revolutionary, more skilled at song-writing, more legendary, effect on music for generations 1. Remembered for Years to come Rebuttal My opponent's point about Roy Orbison and Rebecca Black does not refute my argument. Do either of them have a 2 hour slot on Sunday morning on the radio? Rebecca Black is a YouTube phenomenon, not a talented artist. 2. Shallow Reasons Rebuttal I have never heard of any males who are in love with Justin Bieber. Almost all of his fans are females, whereas at least half of Beatles fans are male. 3. Deepness rebuttal My opponent tries to sum up the meaning of "Yesterday" in one sentence. This is not what the song is about, it is his poetic and DEEP way of saying how he misses his mother who died when he was very young. He didn't know why she had to go, (why she had to die,) and now he "longs for yesterday," (when his mom was still alive. ) 4. Future Uncertainty The Beatles do not have 40 years of "experience," they became known towards the end of 1962 and disbanded in the middle of 1970, they have less than 8 years of "experience. " Here is why it would be reasonable to say Bieber will not be popular very long. For the future, because the Beatles are so revolutionary they have impacted the music industy forever like i put in round 2 which my opponent did NOT address. What new style has Bieber brought to the table? Lastly, The Beatles wrote all of their own songs, Justin Bieber does not write all of his own songs. You may say that their were four Beatles, but many of their songs that they performed were written by one of them. 1. . http://b.qr.ae...
The Beatles are better than Justin Bieber

Pro Case1. The Beatles will be remembered for years to come.This is likely true, but it is hardly saying much. So will musicians such as Roy Orbison (who I happen to believe has a much better voice than any of the Beatles), the B-52s, and perhaps even Rebecca Black. This claim is somewhat vacuous, and tells us little about the quality of a musical group. 2. Justin Bieber is liked for shallow reasons, and he will be forgotten.Um, hello? Do you know how the Beatles started out? Women adored them. Did the phenomenon pass? Hardly. Even in their 60s or 70s the surviving members of the Beatles still host an enormous female fan base that remain stubbornly attracted to them. Singers grow as they mature, and assumptions about Bieber's place as a singer in the future are appeals to an unknown future.3. The Beatles are deep."Yesterday" may be beautiful, but it is hardly deep. The song can be loosely summarized as "Life sucks now, and it was better in the past" - a thought that surely passes through the heads of middle aged men on a daily basis worldwide. 4. Popularity ArgumentAgain, popularity does not indicate "betterness." You have no way to determine the popularity of JB in the future since we lack the information. As specified in my opening argument, we are referring to Justin Bieber in the past, present, and FUTURE.Con Case1. Subjectivity of better: Pro has never clearly defined what "better" is. He appeals to popularity but Rebecca Black has over 150 million hits for her single "Friday"[1] making her an extremely popular artist.2. Future uncertainty. The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the Beatles are better than Justin Bieber past, present, and future. This was specified in my opening clause, as it would be blatantly unfair to pit the career of a group with over 40 years experience to one with 3. Pro must know Justin Bieber in the future![1]http://www.shinyshiny.tv...;
The Beatles are better than Justin Bieber

Firstly, the Beatles will be remembered for years to come. Justin Bieber is currently liked because he is young, cute, and has a girly voice. Ten years from now he will not have that and someone new will come along to take his place. I am not denying that he has talent but I believe my opponent likes him mainly because she is a teenage girl and that's who he appeals to. Secondly, his lyrics are not deep, inspiring, nor do they make the listener really think. In fact, most of Justin Bieber's songs are simply poorly constructed teen break up scenarios, in his song "Baby" he repeats the same word during most of the song. 'and I was like. .. Baby baby baby oh! like, baby baby baby no! thought you'd always be mine! ' VS. Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away, Now it looks as though they're here to stay, Oh I believe in yesterday. Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be, There's a shadow hanging over me. Oh yesterday came suddenly. Why she had to go? I don't know she wouldn't say. I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday. The second set of lyrics are deep, relatable, and yet profound at the same time, yesterday is truly a beautiful song. To my opponent, I ask, if Justin Bieber sang "Yesterday" would you like it? Thirdly, popularity, like I already stated. The Beatles have been popular for 40 years and when Justin grows up another teenage heartthrob will take his place. It has happened in the past. The Beatles are in the rock and roll hall of fame, whereas Justin Bieber will not likely end up. The Beatles have 20 #1 hits in the US and 50 songs that went into the to 40 chart positions. Lastly, the Beatles were pioneers in many ways. 1. One of the first bands to make music videos mainstream. 2. Prior to them, the most popular pop singers drew their material from a pool of songwriters. (Elvis was notorious for this. ) 3. Kids growing their hair long, the Beatles made this popular.
Baseball should have a promotion/relegation system

Arguments:The Draft and the End of CompetitionEvery year, the baseball rookie draft gives teams a chance to draft young prospects. Teams that didn't do well the year before get more chances to draft players, and teams that did do well get fewer picks. Teams that are out of the playoffs at the end of the season don't have any motivation to do well at the end of the season. Come October, teams that do badly have nothing to play for.SteroidsAs many baseball fans know, steroids are a problem for the world of baseball (along with all sports). So far, there hasn't really been all that much punishment for cheating. Baseball needs a solution, or else it will continue to jeopardize the integrity of the game.Minor League TeamsSome teams do badly year after year. Other times, minor league teams do well, but they always lose their good players to their major league affiliate. This doesn't allow for continuity for the minor leagues, while it might supply major league teams that do badly with players.The Connection to P/RWhat connects these problems? They could all be solved with a P/R system. A struggling team would have to worry about relegation. A bad finish would mean relegation, not more draft picks. Also, a steroid problem could result in relegation for a team. That would be a no nonsense punishment for an offending team. It would likely put a quick end to the steroid problem. Lastly, minor league teams would have a chance to succeed. They could get a chance to play in the big leagues by doing well one season. Good minor league teams could make it to the playoffs and eventually win in the World Series. Minor league teams that go major might attract more tourists to a needy city, helping the economy. A P/R system would be very beneficial.
Baseball should have a promotion/relegation system

Baseball is one of America's favorite sports, but I'm willing to argue that it should introduce a system of promotion and relegation, as found in many European football leagues. I will argue as Pro, saying that MLB and minor baseball leagues that currently include MLB farm teams would be better off with a promotion/relegation system, while Con will argue the opposite. Definitions:Promotion Relegation: In sports leagues, promotion and relegation is a process where teams are transferred between two divisions based on their performance for the completed season.
that money is the root of all evil

===========DEFINITIONS========== Money- a medium of exchange issued by a government or other public authority in the form of coins of gold, silver, or other metal, or paper bills, used as the measure of the value of goods and services (. http://www.bing.com...) Root- the fundamental cause, basis, or essence of something, or the source from which something derives (. http://www.bing.com...) Evil-1. morally bad: profoundly immoral or wrong 2. harmful: deliberately causing great harm, pain, or upset "This evil act is clearly the work of terrorists. " 3. causing misfortune: characterized by, bringing, or signifying bad luck "an evil omen" 4. malicious: characterized by a desire to cause hurt or harm "an evil mood" 5. devilish: connected with the devil or other powerful destructive forces "evil spirits" ================ARGUMENT============== As you can see, PRO has not provided proper arguments. He claims "money is the root of all evil as it is the only thing that modern day society thinks about" Which, in fact, was his entire argument. I urge you to vote CON. Thank you.
The Affordable Health Care Act

I refer you back to the point I made about very hard-working people that do fundamental jobs but are on a low income- even if you compare nurses, who I am sure you agree are more than essential in the very healthcare we are discussing, are on relatively low incomes compared to many other jobs, for example executive managers. The fact of the matter is that some career lines have higher potential incomes than others and there is no way for everybody to earn the same amount of money, even if every person in the world put in the same amount of effort, yet you are suggesting that they should be penalised for that. In truth, if every person were able to earn the same wage, then money would be useless. The tax system as it is, where you pay a proportion of your wage, is much fairer than to say that every person must pay the same amount- if you consider that 10% of the population holds 50% of the worlds wealth, I'm sure that you would end up paying more. As it stands, the higher your income, the more you pay in tax, but you also take home more than anybody with a lower income. You also appear to be implying that the only thing that encourages people to work is healthcare when in reality there are much bigger issues at hand such as paying for a roof over your head and food to fill your stomach. People that choose not to work are a whole separate matter; paying their healthcare will make a negligible difference to them deciding whether to work or not. However the issue lies with those that are stuck in low paying jobs, positions that every economy needs to be filled in order for the country to continue to run smoothly, but that don't give much room for advancement as these people make up a significant proportion of the population whereas the higher tax for the richest of the population is not likely to make a significant difference to their income.
The Affordable Health Care Act

Thats the problem. Why should a more wealthy group of people be forced to fund something. It's welfare and I strongly disagree with that too. Democrats with their handouts, but people who side with this topic needs to understand that the United States isn't completely made up of people from the middle class. It's like saying "ok we're going to do a welfare program that is funded by african american tax money." It's not the same in the fact that my example was racial but you shouldn't create a welfare program funded by one group of people. The two Major Issues with Obamacare: 1. The 'rich' people fund it for those who can't afford it 2. It's another welfare program. I'm so tired of people who are too lazy to work getting the same wage as somebody who actually works for their money.
The Affordable Health Care Act

Sorry... I must apologise on behalf of my opponent. He seems to be too busy calculating whether having equal taxes for everyone in the country would benefit him or not... Meanwhile, an act like AHC would simplify things for the patient; the need to fill out lots of paperwork before you can be treated is eradicated as there are very few people that would not be covered. The vast majority of the population pay taxes for trivial things like highway maintenance and garbage disposal, the argument for this is that they contribute to the need for it. As I pointed out in my previous argument, the causes of illness and accidents is very rarely clear and I would go as far as to say that EVERYBODY has contributed to somebodys hospital or doctors visit.
The Affordable Health Care Act

Hi, I'm from the UK and under my experience of the NHS which I feel is similar to this, I agree with the act. In the current society, some of the most important jobs are the worst paid, for example, a care worker such as myself is usually on not much more than minimum wage, however we work extremely hard to support thousands of people across the country that would be unable to live without us; we wouldn't be able to afford healthcare if we were expected to pay for it, we are also more likely to require healthcare because of the increased risk of illness and injury from our jobs. Why should we have to put ourselves in to poverty because our job, a necessary role in life that not many people are willing to take on, has made us ill? Who should really pay that cost, or to rephrase the question, who is responsible for the illness or injury? It's either the worker, the service user or the employer, but in most cases, it is a combination of the three. With your idea of 'if it's free for one, it should be free for all', where would the funding come from? Tax payers money, of whom the wealthier pay more than those with a lower income anyway. In order to argue that the wealthier shouldn't pay more, you should also argue that everybody should pay the same amount in tax regardless of income.
The Affordable Health Care Act

The Affordable Health Care act is a terrible Idea. So health care for all by itself sounds like a pretty good idea, until you learn the details. The affordable health care act forces people to pay for health care through taxes. Don't worry if you can't afford it, the president made the wealthy people who worked to make a living pay for it. I know somebody is going to say "not all people living in poverty don't try to make money" Here's my argument against that, I know people who aren't as wealthy as other's may try to make money, but when they hear that wealthy people are going to pay for it anyway, why would they even bother trying. It's a terrible idea. I'm very lucky and I live in a family that is pretty well off and I agree with my parents on the fact that if it's "free" for one group of people, it should be free for everybody.
Transgenders have a mental disorder

Burden of proof lies on any claim made by both pro and con. 2. No semantics, trolling, insults, or logical fallacies. 3. Do not accuse the other party of a fallacy without an explanation. 4. Statements starting in "In my opinion. .. " "Well, actually. .. " or "I think that. .. " etc. are not allowed. 5. This debate is a debate of facts and statistics, not opinions or feelings. 6. No new arguments, Introducing new sources, or accusations of burden of proof in the final round. 7. No forfeiting 8. Be respectful I will be arguing as Pro (for) the argument that Transgenders have a mental disorder
Faith is Universal

It's common sense that faith is an immaterial reality. You can't weigh or measure the chemistry of faith. I stood on the premise of faith being an immaterial reality and is universal regardless of your worldview. You have already acknowledged that faith is universal. I don't see how it's winning in your favor. Don't give your hopes up. The burden of proof is for you to disprove me and demonstrate that faith is not immaterial and/or not universal. Faith is an abstract object like the laws of logic or philosophical propositions. Faith seems to exists as properties of persons, Not as mere abstractions. Since the abstract object faith is not itself faithful (just as quickness is not quick or laziness not lazy), It would seem to follow that in the absence of any people faith does not exist. Which seems to contradict the hypothesis. You can't leave them floating in the unintelligible way. The nature of faith seems to be grounded in a divine Creator and Lawgiver. Because faith is independent of human conventions just like the laws of logic. Humans just use words to describe it in order to verbally communicate it or create contingent things that represent their idea of faith. Now about faith in religion. Faith in the Bible means to simply trust. This stuff is not complicated. Saying faith is universal is not unfair. By definition if you have trust in anything then by definition you have faith in it. It's not tough. You can object to the term. You can use a different term to describe it. By definition that is what faith is or means. Abstract objects (which are immaterial) although can be EXPRESSED in material, Are independent of human conventions. For example the laws of logic are independent of human minds. Before there were any humans on the earth, Is the statement, "there are no humans on the earth" true? I'm going to say it another way. Faith is much like the laws of logic. Abstract objects and immaterial and independent of human conventions. Logic isn't a "thing" and neither is faith. It isn't created by anybody. Logic is a word that refers to the inescapable rules of existence. These rules are not contingent. They apply to everything that exists. For anything that exists, Exists, And it is false to claim that it does not exist. Everything that exists, Exists; and it doesn't non exist because if it didn't exist it wouldn't exist in the first place. Faith and logic isn't just "true in this universe or true in a material sense" it's true literally every case of existence. In any possible universe. Logic and faith is not "in" the universe. The universe does not contain "logic" or "faith. " Logic/faith and existence are not able to be separated from one another. But nobody is "forcing" the laws of logic or faith down your throat. There's no cosmic force doing that. Laws of logic (like faith) are necessary and couldn't be any other way. Logic or faith is NOT an entity that you can point out. It's woven into the fabric of everything that exists. You could say that it's a necessary part of any existent thing. The laws of logic applies to all existent things. Much like faith.
Faith is Universal

Alright, Well second round time. My opponent states that if I state that I have no faith, Than that is Oxymoronic. And I agree, IF that had been a cornerstone to my argument that would've been quite a weak argument. However, This is the one of two points my opponent has addressed. He did address his definition of faith. However, He said it is "nothing special, " or "literally a synonym of belief Confidence and trust. " By this, My opponent concedes that faith is no different from other traits or so called "Virtues. " By this, They concede the round. As faith is nothing special and on the same plane of reality. Let me just extend some of my un-attacked points, And show you why they should flow through as reasons I am victorious. My opponent has not identified why "Faith" is on a separate plane of existence separate from our own. The burden of proof still rests on them. And, In fact if they reside with this un-unique definition, It inadvertently shifts the definition debate over in my favor. My opponent neither addressed his universal claim saying "Faith is an immaterial reality that everyone has regardless of your worldview. " My opponent has framed an un winnable debate. I agree that all humans can feel hope, Faith and other of these abstract concepts, But to say it is in a completely separate and immaterial reality is how this debate is unable to be solved in my opponents favor. Once again, The burden of proof is on my opponents shoulders, If they cannot provide a consistent philosophical argument to it's deified and quintessential nature (As they have provided nothing but a solid, And materialistic view of Faith which is how I define it and will give me the victory if he concedes. ) then the round cannot be won by them. To simply recap, My opponent to win must Define faith as a morally consistent, Entity beyond our astral plane, Have his argument defined and properly address my points in refutation. So far, The debate is in my favor. And I win as my Historical argument of Faith has also gone unaddressed. Saying that faith is different morally depending on many materialistic and normal variables. My two previously mentioned points have gone unaddressed, And my opponents only argument thus far is if I theoretically used the statement that I do not have faith, I would be contradictory. So, I urge you all to vote against this resolution thank you for reading.
Faith is Universal

I defined faith by the dictionary term. Nothing special. It's literally a synonym of belief, Confidence, And trust. If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are using faith in order to justify your statement. You are trusting in that statement to be true. If you are trusting in that statement to be true, Then by definition you are using faith to justify your statement. If you make the claim, "I'm not a person with faith. " You are contradicting yourself because you are claiming you don't have faith by using faith to say it. Which is self-defeating. [NOTE: I am not saying that you specifically think or say this, This is just an example]. And no problem. Thank you for accepting the challenge.