BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mozart's Music Suffers from Having Too Many Notes

My thanks to The_Harlequin; the gauntlet is accepted with the greatest pleasure! I am somewhat uncertain as to how best approach this debate, particularly in the light of Pro's ground rules. However, as I understand it, I am required to defend Mozart's frequent use of passages based on ornamentation or scales, whether tonic or chromatic. I shall therefore be focusing on the following points: - Much of Mozart's best work, for instance the Queen of the Night's two renowned arias, Die Holle Rache and O Zittre Nicht, are among his more profligate in terms of notes. - Mozart was a composer of the Classical period and should therefore be judged, in part at least, in contrast to his contemporaries. It is in this context that his reputation initially arose, until he came to be seen as the epitome of this period. It would be hard to claim that his status as one of the greatest composers of this period is "overrated". - Profligacy with notes is not limited to Mozart, the Classical period, or so-called "Classical music" at all. If we look at Baroque (Bach's Brandenburg concertos, for instance), Romantic (Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet overture) and Neo-classical music (Prokofiev's Classical symphony) all contain far more more ornamentation and frenzied semi-quaver passages than you can shake a conductor's baton at. If one looks at Irish trad, (any reel ever) Mozart starts to appear positively restrained in his use of notes. All of the above benefit, in my opinion, in their use of notes. - Mozart's music is far from being void of emotion (if you don't believe me, listen to the Romance from his 20th piano concerto), and is far more frequently sublime than Pro gives him credit for. - The quote in Amadeus from which the summary of our argument has been derived is used to display the musical ignorance of the Emperor and the irrationality of the Musical Director's dislike. All the above examples have been chosen with an eye to the ease with which they can be found on Youtube and should anyone have difficulty finding a suitable clip, I will be more than happy to provide them with a link.
Mozart's Music Suffers from Having Too Many Notes

Purely for fun, as I know Insert-strange-name-here personally in real life. This is a general argument which we have and would like somewhat resolved. First round: Introduction Second round: Argument Third: Rebuttal/Conclusion I shall provide a definition for the sake of clarity: The music of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is, while technically dazzling and occasionally sublime, more often than not overwrought, emotionally turgid, and therefore, overrated. Ground rules: 1. All points must be backed up with a source 2. My burden of proof is that Mozart was a self-indulgent composer, not a bad one 3. Con's job is not to prove that Mozart is a good composer, but that he used the notes at his disposal economically Good luck! I leave you with a beautiful piece to prove I don't think the poor boy is all bad. http://www.youtube.com...
God is a bad role model for morals

Thank you for joining. In my argument, I will prove that God is immoral. Morals are the understanding of right and wrong. I can conclude that when God says vile and nasty things, such as bragging of raping women and ordering the deaths of infants, that God is not moral. When God orders the death of children when they mock a priest or does not allow people with birth defects such as being short or blind into a church because they are not "clean", I can make an assumption that God is not a good role model.
macroevolution has effectively stopped in humans

I don't think she's done much to my case. All I have to do is prove her definition of evolution fallible and her whole case falls. I would like to raise a question to Pro. If evolution means the previous species have to die, how come monkeys and apes are still alive? I would like to introduce my own definition of evolution. Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (1) Therefore, my research study proves evolution is still taking place in humans. Therefore, we have solid evidence that macroevolution has not stopped either. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
macroevolution has effectively stopped in humans

I won't post any rebuttals yet. Case 1. How Do We Know For Sure? Has anything been clearly defined in scientific law stating that humans are finished with our evolutionary process? I have evidence we're still evolving. This leads me to my second point. Case 2. We're still evolving Humans are still evolving. For instance, women who are severely underweight could mother children in the past. However, they are now unable to mother children if their weight is too low. (1) This proves that humans are still evolving. If they are still evolving, it will lead to a large scale change. Sorry for this being so short. This is really all that needed to be put though. 1. http://content.time.com...
macroevolution has effectively stopped in humans

we won't be developing into another species in any immediate sense, or getting significantly altered due to evolution.we may evolve in space, but this is far off and not the current time period being discussed.remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals don't cause evolution... eg, you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless.there will be spurts as those who are superior will tend to get together etc... but on balance, the weak will dilute the gene pool. we will never branch off into another species or become superior in our own, if we don't have the weaker among us die off.and in every other sense that we might be considered 'evolving' it is minor.
Science can provide 100% proof that humans exist.

Claim 1: A scienfic hypothesis cannot be 100% proven. Warrant:"Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. " [1]. Impact: Since a hypothesis cannot be 100% proven, science can never 100% proof anything whether it be humans exist or that gravity exists. Claim 2: In order for a hypothesis to be scienfic it must be falsifiable Warrant: "Pseudo Science According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not scientific because they have no potential for falsification." [2]. Impact: Any scienfic theory must be falsifiable in order for it to be scienfic. Thus science cannot prove anything 100%. There will always be that 1/Googol chance that the theory is wrong. [3]. Links 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. https://explorable.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Ron Paul 2012

Current Results from the South Carolina Primary had Newt Gingrich in FIRST, Mitt Romney at SECOND, Santorum inTHIRD....RON PAUL FINISHED IN DEAD LAST......So despite everything already going against Ron Paul, the latest primary shows how he is in dead last overall and now is the candidate who must overcome all three other candidates to win the primary and then beat Obama, which right now is almost impossible from his support in the polls....Good policies dont always translate into good support from voters, sorry Pro...
Ron Paul 2012

Since Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, and John Huntsman have dropped out of the GOP race,the four candidates left are now Romney Gingrich Santorum Paul Ron Paul is (as of late January 19th) is in LAST PLACE in the GOP race. It appears he will not win 2012 since he is in dead last in the primaries, even if he wins that he must then beat Obama which would be no easy feat for Paul. That combined with Ron Paul's bad publicity and craziness almost proves that Ron Paul will NOT win...
Ron Paul 2012

Before I even get started, Let me just say something to all the Ron Paul supporters out there (Cause theres tons of them on DDO), Im not here to sh*t on Ron Paul or his policies, I barely know anything about him, and as far as I know, hes the only Republican candidate advocating small government, which is pretty gutsy to do. I am only here to offer evidence of why I know that Ron Paul will not win in 2012. Reason 1) If he wins in 2012, he would first have to win the Republican Primary I've watched the Gallup Polls for some time now, and Ron Paul has consistently been BELOW 15% in terms of poll numbers. http://www.gallup.com... Ron Paul simply does not have the support of enough voters to get him to win the primaries, and its been like that for a long time now..... If Ron Paul does win in 2012, he would first have to win the Republican Primary. In order to do that he would need to beat Mitt Romney, who currently has OVER 3X the amount of support that Ron Paul has. Unless Mitt Romney has a catastrophic fall in poll numbers, and unless both Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich continue to slide in poll numbers and if no new candidates make a stunning entrance into the race, only THEN could Ron Paul win the Primaries. 2) Could he beat Obama? http://www.realclearpolitics.com... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... http://i2.cdn.turner.com... The answer is "Very Unlikely" 3) Weird and even "unelectable" Type in "unelectable" into Google and the first three things that come up is a definition of unelectable, Huntsman (who already dropped out) and then there is a youtube video of Ron Paul..... My point is that many see Ron Paul as a little too weird or crazy for voters to give him their support mostly because of his outrageous comments hes made over his campaign. He allegedly referred to Martin Luther King JR Day as "hate whitey day"..... Im not making this up.... http://blogs.sfweekly.com... http://shark-tank.net... http://bossip.com... My point is, Ron Paul can give himself some really bad publicity just by opening his mouth, and every time he does open his mouth and say something controversial (quite frequently) he alienates a very sizable number of voters which would only lower his chances of him winning in 2012, or the Republican Primary right now.... I will end here for now and Invite the Pro to (re-enter this debate and) explain why Ron Paul will win...
Jehovah's witnesses do not claim they will be the only once safe during Armageddon.

While I could simply extend my arguments I wish to point out something here. Despite Pro's failure to correctly read Watchtower publications, he doesn't provide any evidence supporting his claims that the 144,000 are firstly subject to JW teachings as correct biblical exhortation argues against this making it subject to an entirely separate debate. Pro does the same with the great crowd here. In addition he notes, "They will each have a chance to change and if not, then they will be erase from existence forever" so if they don't become Jehovah's Witnesses, as per the exclusivity of JW teachings, they will be exterminated. So are these people safe? They live if they become JW, but perish if not. Sounds like only JW are safe. The end of the doomed system dominated by Satan is not the end of the world? This is a wild claim as Revelations is the purge of this system and Armageddon. Pro's last statement, "the Armageddon is not a war between men and demons, it is a war between spirituals being, no human will be involve in it, however we will all be accountable for our action bad or good" contradicts the teachings of the Watchtower publication, "Here it is again, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer,"have any Scriptural hope of surviving"the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.""Watchtower"1989 Sep 1 p.19""Notice that he says this is NOT Armageddon, but we're told that JW will survive the "impending END of this doomed system". If Armageddon is the battle of the spiritual realms and the end of Satan's rule, how is the watchtower publication talking about something else? It appears that this Jehovah's Witness is confused on his organizations teachings. Vote con. LIL
Jehovah's witnesses do not claim they will be the only once safe during Armageddon.

OK i guess i should have been much more details. "He also thinks he has "busted" his own organizations belief when the quotation CLEARLY states that "Only Jehovah's witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd""" when i say busted i meant to say, this statement you are using does not prove your stand. I am not saying it is not coming from us. you are simply using it in the wrong way. so lets go into more details. man i hate this. anyways. the Anointed Remnant. so who are they? they are the 144,000 faithful slaves that will rule side by Jesus himself in heaven for 1000 years. hence not all of Jehovah's Witness are the Anointed Remnant. some of them are chosen long before my time. The Great crowd. who are the great crowd? The great crowd are everyone who never accept Jehovah's, as well as people who did. everyone will be resurrected. Yes even bad people. however they will each have a chance to change and if not, then they will be erase from existence forever this is the second death. "Isaiah 26:10 10 Even if the wicked is shown favor, He will not learn righteousness. Even in the land of uprightness he will act wickedly, And he will not see the majesty of Jehovah." By the end of Judgment Day, surviving humans will have "come to life" fully as perfect humans. (Revelation 20:5) But during the 1000 year, people will still not believe in God, can you believe this? Revelation 20:5 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were ended.) So whenever you talk about Jehovah's witnesses, the Anointed remnant, and the Great crowd, you not just talking about Jehovah's people. "Here it is again, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer,"have any Scriptural hope of surviving"the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.""Watchtower"1989 Sep 1 p.19"" this doomed system dominated by Satan the devil, this is not the Armageddon. this is the world which you and i currently live in. And once again this statement is correct. Only Jehovah's witnesses and the Anointed Remnant and the Great crow will survive this system. the Armageddon is not a war between men and demons, it is a war between spirituals being, no human will be involve in it, however we will all be accountable for our action bad or good.
Jehovah's witnesses do not claim they will be the only once safe during Armageddon.

Welcome back. Pro is mistaken as he says, "you said...you said...you said" in reference to my citation of his organizations "heart". These are quotes pulled from the Watchtower Society, which determines all doctrines of the Jehovah's Wintesses. Pro has failed to recognize the citation behind the quotation marks. He also thinks he has "busted" his own organizations belief when the quotation CLEARLY states that "Only Jehovah's witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd"" Despite Pro's error in reading the text it is saying that the Jehovah's wintesses are those of the anointed remnant an the great crowd and anyone can properly determine this by reading the quotation correctly. Thus, it is not busted and it remains to disprove Pro's posiiton since this quote comes from the source of Jehovah's Witness' doctrines and teachings. Here it is again, "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer,"have any Scriptural hope of surviving"the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.""Watchtower"1989 Sep 1 p.19" Ironically pro goes on futher to say that hes "busting" what I am saying, while missing that he's discreting the Jehovah's Witnesses good and faithful servant. Diversion and circular reasoning is recieved as a Jehovah's Witness and is displayed here. Publication records from academic databases have issues from the Watchtower. Pro's most recent defense is from 1955, I know its confusing that the JW change so much in their teachings, but notice that my teaching hails from 1989, which clearly makes the claim that only Jehovah's Witnesses have "any hope of surciging the impending end of this doomed system." I extend my arguments as Pro also failed to refute all of them. LIL
Jehovah's witnesses do not claim they will be the only once safe during Armageddon.

first of all, i do not know why you are arguing all these other nonsense that has nothing do with the topic. but however i will try and stay on topic. I 'm not asking you to prove how we are a cult, or how we lie, or brain watch the world, and planing on controlling the human rise. "Only Jehovah's Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the "great crowd," as a united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer,"have any Scriptural hope of surviving"the impending end of this doomed system dominated by Satan the Devil.""Watchtower"1989 Sep 1 p.19" so you said only Jehovah's witnesses, then you said, anointed remnant and then finally you said. Great crowd. I don't think you are talking only about us. So lets move on, this one is busted. "But Jehovah's servants already belong to the only organization that will survive the end of this wicked system of things."Watchtower"2007 Dec 15 p.14" so once again you said Jehovah's servants. With an "S" we are not the only one praying to Jehovah, neither are we his only servant. So busted lets keep going. "But if we were to draw away from Jehovah's organization, there would be no place else to go for salvation and true joy."Watchtower"1993 Sep 15 p.22" this has noting to do with the end of days. It is simply saying if a follower of Jehovah turn away from him, he or she has no other God like Jehovah to turn to. Hence this does not have to be a Jehovah's witnesses. So busted lets keep on going. Dame i must say, if you are not copying and pasting these thing then, you sure have some really old watchtower collections. I have been a witness since i was 13 years old, and i tell you, i try to go back as far as i can. Anyways moving on... the 1985 watchtower i can't seem to find it in my source, so sorry i will find but i will not say much about it right now so... WATCHTOWER 1985 ISSUES STILL STAND. "Why should not blood run deep and far with"over two billion"[the world population in 1955] dead?.... With the members of this generation that will not pass away before Armageddon breaks out numbering now two billion five hundred million and withonly the remnant"and a larger group of "other sheep" inside the Greater Noah's "ark""surviving, the death toll of the "war of the great day of God the Almighty" will be appallingly all-surpassing, too many for the Armageddon survivors to bury. Come on, birds and beasts! Have your fill then from the human corpses in retribution for the wanton slaughter of animal and birdlife of which the human race has been guilty!""You May Survive Armageddon Into God's New World"1955 pp.340-342 come on now, where in this does it say, only Jehovah's witness will be save? Point it out specifically. Lets not leave people scratching their head now.
Visigoths (Guzmans, Munizs, Velasquezes, etc), more arrogant than non-Visigothic (Garcias, Riveras)

I will argue that on whole, the Visigoths, Spanish descended from the Nordics who conquered Spain in the Middle Ages, much like a lot of Nordic culture, is arrogant. Basically Visigoths are those with surnames like Alverez, Sanchez, Guzman, RodriguezGarcias are much nicer, for instance.Whenever you hear of hate crimes against blacks and Native Americans being done by a Hispanic, they are always a white Hispanic with one of those surnames (Rodriguez, Sanchez, Gomez). In fact, during segregation, those HIspanics were considered white, while Italians and Germans weren't. Non-Visigothic Hispanics, like Ricardos, Garcias, etc, were oppressed equally.I believe, like them banning the episode of "Seinfeld," that Visigoths are pretty arrogant.Native Americans with Visigothic names, because they were raped by the Spanish, don't count. The nation in Latin America where the Visigoths have the strongest prominence is in Puerto Rico. I forfeit. I admit I just made this in anger.
Visigoths (Guzmans, Munizs, Velasquezes, etc), more arrogant than non-Visigothic (Garcias, Riveras)

I will argue that on whole, the Visigoths, Spanish descended from the Nordics who conquered Spain in the Middle Ages, much like a lot of Nordic culture, is arrogant. Basically Visigoths are those with surnames like Alverez, Sanchez, Guzman, RodriguezGarcias are much nicer, for instance.Whenever you hear of hate crimes against blacks and Native Americans being done by a Hispanic, they are always a white Hispanic with one of those surnames (Rodriguez, Sanchez, Gomez). In fact, during segregation, those HIspanics were considered white, while Italians and Germans weren't. Non-Visigothic Hispanics, like Ricardos, Garcias, etc, were oppressed equally.I believe, like them banning the episode of "Seinfeld," that Visigoths are pretty arrogant.Native Americans with Visigothic names, because they were raped by the Spanish, don't count. The nation in Latin America where the Visigoths have the strongest prominence is in Puerto Rico.
Magic is a Waste of Time

I don't care about the word magic. You can win there. I just don't care. I don't feel like typing much, so I won't be thorough at all. "As for the relief of the masses, surely magic is not the only thing that relieves stress." I never said it was the only way. Children are ignorant. They believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and ghosts (ok, fine, a lot of adults believe in ghosts too...). Calling magic harmful because children get deceived is like divorcing your parents because they let you believe in Santa until you were 9. Rape with a sleeping pill doesn't fit the analogy of willing suspension of disbelief. In theatre, people experience similar willingness to be fooled- to want to be fooled. Also, a sleeping pill doesn't affect the will of people the same way as in theater, movies, or magic. To be closer to the truth you would have to say the rape victim knows he/she is being raped and, not only accepts the situation, but contributes to it. I believe this is just called sex. Props for associating magic to rape though. Could have been a bit more subtle, though. "Music, art, debate.org, sports, television, video games, socialization, masturbation, sex, and dance are all things that are much more "relieving" than magic." Subjective. I prefer magic to video games, as do many (not all, in case you try to be creative in restating what I say) people. I love how you're deceiving the "audience" (of what, 3 readers...?) in a way by making them think you actually believe or care about what you're writing while damning deception. Your description of magic's contributions to science being long gone tells more about your lack of knowledge on the subject than the truth of your statements. Psychological research is still being done on aspects of magic and perception. (http://www.boston.com... one of many similar articles on the 'net). Also, many modern and not-so-modern methods of mind reading reveal a lot about the human mind and psychological suggestion. I would like to note that PJ described mostly old, outdated tricks that are rarely used in he described. Props to him for referring to Teller's "Shadows" though. That particular act is intended to be more "performance art" than pure "magic". Objectively, everything is a waste of time (we're all going to die anyways). Subjectively, magic is not a waste of time as I enjoy every moment of performing, practicing, and learning it. It's not a waste. At least to me, and that's all that matters.