BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voters should be required to post their reasoning behind each vote they make.

I like debate. I like debate.org. I think it is a really cool idea. However I find myself often dissatisfied with the voters. In debates where I feel I have clearly won its not so bad because to some extent I can justify my loss in my head with the thought, "Wow... those people are idiots!" Its when I'm debating someone of equal or similar skill level to myself that this annoys me the most. To lose a debate that I am unsure of how I did on and personally feel was close is o.k. in itself. But when I do not know why I have lost that debate I can't actually modify my strategy or improve my debating skills. Therefor I advocate that each time someone votes they should be required to post a reason for why they have voted in such a way. While many comments will doubtlessly say something to the effect of, "~INSERT DEBATER~ IS STUPID!" or just a persons personal view on the issue I feel that some would actually post helpful criticism. (The voting comment section should be separate from the actual comment section.) I now stand open for my opponents first rebuttal. I reserve the right to clarify my arguments if necessary.
vote stuff

Your argument basically says that those with the most to lose, should get no say in the political processes that influence them. Here in the US that would mean Blacks should have no say in Civil rights, Women no say on equality, Gun owners no say on gun legislation, etc. This entirely defeats the purpose of any democratic or republic type system. In your case, people with no vested interest in the topic make the decisions for those who do have. How do you see this as being an improvement to society at all?
Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

I am not arguing about proving God exists. No one would be convinced either way and it is not the topic being discussed. I know what atheism is. If you don't believe in God, How did the world come to be? Many people believe the big bang theory, Which is why I suggested you could say the inverse of where did God come from, But rather where did the ball of gas come from, Or however you think the world was made. "According to the Bible, God was always there and always will be there. " Chapters and verse(s) only please. And still has nothing to do with the article because you cannot even prove that your god even exists. " Revelation 1:8 - "I am the Alpha and the Omega, Says the Lord God, Who is and who was, And who is to come. The Almighty. " I could prove God exists, But nobody is gonna get convinced so what's the point. "Humans can't comprehend it because we have a beginning, " No what normal humans state rather than being complete idiots about it and say "therefore god" when billions of questions come up that man does not have the answers to, That answer is "I don't know". Exactly. You just proved my point. Humans can't understand God, Because he is supernatural and has a far greater purpose that we will never know. And yes, We don't know. That's basically what I said. "That's what God is. A supernatural power, And not a human. " And yet again you cannot even prove that your god even exists. And no supernatural power has ever been proved regardless. There are different historical items and accounts associated with the Bible. No one can prove how the world came to be in Atheism, Either. That's like saying we can not prove Julius Caesar existed because there is no pictures or video recordings. "Why do you think god was invented? " Now why is that? " I answered that very clearly. God wasn't invented. He always was there, According to the Bible.
Where did God come from? A dream, A lie, And an explanation

1. You didn't pay ---any--- attention to the article whatsoever. None. 2. You have no idea what atheism is. 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. That's all atheism is and absolutely nothing more. You came up with a concept that has 0% of nothing as to what atheism is. 3. "Where did the tiny ball of gas come from? " Has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Nothing. 4. "According to the Bible, God was always there and always will be there. " Chapters and verse(s) only please. And still has nothing to do with the article because you cannot even prove that your god even exists. 5. "Humans can't comprehend it because we have a beginning, " No what normal humans state rather than being complete idiots about it and say "therefore god" when billions of questions come up that man does not have the answers to, That answer is "I don't know". 6. "That's what God is. A supernatural power, And not a human. " And yet again you cannot even prove that your god even exists. And no supernatural power has ever been proved regardless. 7. At the the very end of the article you completely failed to answer "Why do you think god was invented? " Now why is that?
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists

Beginner songs do tend to look easier than more advanced songs. You can judge a song by how it looks. An advanced piano song looks very different front a beginner piano song. This advanced piano song [1] looks a lot different from a grade one piano song [2]. And yet that simple grade one piano song is more complex than the guitar music sheet my opponent provided. What does that say about the complexity of guitar music? Guitar plays in only one clef. The treble clef, whereas the piano plays in both the treble and bass clef. As for a guitar playing both the melody and voice, did you not see how simple the guitar sounded? I'm pretty sure that was just finger picking and finger picking is quite simple. The strings are conveniently placed for your fingers to pick and your other hand is pressing down strings. Guitars can't even claim the complexity that violins have because guitars have frets to help them find the right note. Going down a fret is going a semitone, and each string is labeled with a note. It's that simple for a guitar. Here is two good examples of a piano playing both the melody and the voice, and you can easily pick out either. [3] [4] You can easily pick out the melody and voice in both songs. Pianos can play by themselves while guitars are usually used as accompaniment. That's a large difference between the two instruments. Pianists have the skill to play both melody and voice better than guitarists. I have addresses plucking and would like to add that even though guitarists may seem skilled, all their usually doing in a solo is playing one note. Whereas when a pianist improvises, they have to play more than one note. Therefore the knowledge of harmony is useful and most pianists have more skill in that than guitarists. Finger plucking may be not that simple but I'd like to see a guitarist play flight of the bumblebee with the same effect and skill that Yuja Wang did. Most guitarist playing that only have to move their fingers down a fret for each note and that is very simple. [1] https://www.google.ca... [2] https://www.google.ca... [3] https://m.youtube.com... [4] https://m.youtube.com...
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists

Not all guitar songs are simple to look at. In fact, those simple to look at are the beginner songs and not the more advanced ones. Beginner songs tend to be one note after the other, same on the piano. Although guitar songs don't look hard compared to piano songs, they're difficult to play on the particular instrument. A piece cannot be judged by how it looks, instead by the instrument that plays it. http://guitar-houston.com... This, again, ties in with the difficulty of learning where each note is, as guitarists do not have the leisure of repetition like pianists do. Many guitarists play songs with more chords than the example above without sound effects, predominately those who play the acoustic guitar. More advanced guitar pieces also require the guitarist to play both the melody and the accompaniment. I'll provide a simple example here. https://m.youtube.com... Plucking two or more strings with different rhythms and/or notes is much more difficult than it is given credit for. You're only using one hand to play two or more parts, and you also have to focus on plucking what string at what time. Your hands are doing two completely different actions, and to add to the difficulty, you're playing more than one part with just one hand. Pianists, however, can use both hands to play two parts, which is much more simple and far less confusing than the guitarist's situation. https://m.youtube.com... (It's not too fast in the beginning, more so in the middle) For some songs, the guitarist needs to pluck at a painful speed in addition to having to lay down the notes at the same speed. This is usually done for scales or arpeggios. Above is an example of a guitarist rapidly plucking throughout the song (however his other hand isn't as fast). My apologies for the late reply. I'm currently dealing with settling into a new house. I may be as late, or later, in the next round
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists

Guitarist songs are simple to look at. Each of them is usually one note after one note. That is unlike piano songs which can have up to ten notes or more depending on if you use the sustain pedal. You may think that a guitar solo is spectacular and that the guitarist is skilled but the reality is that he is only playing one note at a time with a whole ton of sound effects. A guitar may be difficult because it is hard to remember where the notes are but the sheet music is simple compared to that of piano sheet music. Playing the guitar is like rubbing your stomach and patting your head kind of thing. Not so with piano, piano is like writing in cursive with both hands at the same time. A pianist has to play both the melody and the accompaniment. Whereas the guitar only plays the melody. Watch this. https://m.youtube.com... Did you not see how fast her hands were moving to play flight of the bumblebee? It wasn't just little semitones down with one finger like most professional pianists do, it was ridiculous. A guitarist could do the same except that for a guitarist, you don't have to bother with your hand getting in the way, you don't have to bother with the black keys of a piano getting in your way, all you have to do is move your finger down one semitone which is a lot easier than on a piano, and on a guitar you would only be playing one note. It's clear that pianists are more skilled than guitarists. Watch this. https://m.youtube.com... Star Wars songs were played by whole orchestras. Now this pianist here has played Star Wars Fantasy Suite and covered for a whole orchestra. Could a guitar cover for a whole orchestra? Probably not. The piano is far more complex than the guitar and pianists are more skillful than guitarists.
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists

I accept. Based on experience, I believe that the guitarist is more skilled than the pianist. Piano keys are easy to remember due to mere repetition of the octaves. Guitar notes are harder to remember due to most strings not having repetition of fingering when it comes to playing note(s). In addition, the hand position required to play guitar is very painful to hold as opposed to hand positions on the piano, making it difficult to play most guitar pieces.
Pianists are more skilled than guitarists

Round 1-accept/first point Round 2-debate Round 3-debate This debate is purely subjective. It is to state why you think guitar is more skilled than piano. Your allowed to use videos to show your instrument. I think piano is more skilled than guitar because piano actually uses both hands. Guitarist may say that strumming and pressing strings is using both hands but the multitasking in piano is twice as hard as it is in guitar. I will continue in the next round.
Abuse of new youtubers by popular youtuber via over exposure

Considering you took the Pro position, I will take the Con. I can find several good and bad outcomes of popular YouTubers promoting a new channel, but I'll focus on the bad, considering that's the position I took.I've had a few YouTube channels. One when I was in grade 10 with a friend, doing literally whatever, from making ice cream to reviewing games to just talking about stuff. Another a couple years later, after I graduated, I created music videos with movies or other videos from YouTube (getting upwards of 20,000 views a video), which only lasted a couple months. I then started a gaming channel, trying to do things nobody has done before, and my main game was Sims 3. It took a while to get off the ground, but after a dozen or two videos, the views started rising and I started getting new subscribers more frequently. I then got picked up by a more popular YouTube channel because of my videos, and started playing Minecraft and other things with them.Why do you care? Because the first three channels I made were all my ideas; I didn't ask for anyone to promote me, I didn't ask people what I should do next, I did what I wanted, and if people liked that, great. The channel that picked me up was fun to begin with, but it quickly went downhill when we asked for a much more popular YouTuber to send his subscribers our way. They had a complete different mindset than we wanted, and basically asked us to do what the other guy did. The other two guys in our group were totally cool with that, and I guess I was at first, but I realized (and I'm sure they realized) that we weren't doing anything we liked, we were doing what our subscribers wanted.It got boring quickly and it felt like we were working for someone; not making videos and having fun anymore.I don't really want to make this some super long rant, so let me just sum it up with a few points.-Like you said; too fast of growth can scare young YouTubers, in turn causing them to cave under the pressure and either give up or try way too hard to please everybody, and fail miserably-The popular YouTuber's subs don't want what the unpopular YouTuber is creating, for the most part-It makes it feel like you're making videos to please people instead of making videos for fun and having people enjoy them as a bonus-There is the possibility that the young YouTuber will spend way too much time and money dedicated to YouTube because it seems as though a lot of people like their content, when in reality it's just people subscribing because someone popular told them to. Their money and time is wasted after a while when the new subscribers realize they don't like the content and just revert back to the popular YouTuber--It looks like you may possibly agree with me. Either way, I hope this helped.
Abuse of new youtubers by popular youtuber via over exposure

I find that the abuse of power by popular youtubers is wrong the fact that they can easily destroy new youtubers by overexposure. I have seen plenty of new up and coming youtubers getting ,,recommended,, by popular youtubers then in a matter of days their subscription goes from 20k to over a few hundred thousand causing sudden camera shyness a decrease of video quality and frequency and in less then a month the youtuber looses their original sub base and all their new ones essentially killing the youtubers name Do you agree or disagree that popular youtubers should do this to new youtubers
Racism is normal

I am going to assume that based on your opening comments that your use of the word racism is less focused on prejudiced and discriminatory meanings of the term and more centred of the definition "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." Firstly I agree that in some circumstances it can be desirable and natural to explore 'racial' (or more appropriately 'ethnic') differences; for example from a biological perspective our genes are different from ethnicity to ethnicity, with physical features, susceptibility to illnesses, and even mental well-being. However I believe it is naively collectivist to get bogged down in this thinking outside of a purely scientific approach. Individuality is far more valuable than such boxed in views of humanity. No, racism should not be normalised. Cultural differences are a more important focus imo.
Racism is normal

Race is a useful social construct based on identifiable features. Although race is a continuum without concrete borders for each race, there is a general distinction between races. These distinctions correlate with geographical origin and are based upon many shared biological and measurable differences. Because races are distinct enough from each other to warrant their own categories, this means that judging people based upon their race is normal, natural, traditional, and useful. Judging a group of people who exhibit shared differences in instinct, behavior, chemical makeup, genes, physical attributes and mental abilities is perfectly reasonable.
Racism is normal

I can't dispute that culture shapes empathy as I have argued the importance of studying these cultural (not racial) differences. The study is based on social science and seems to draw very respectable conclusions, though it admits that the reasons for the ethnic-cultural differences are to do with how cultures interact. There is no genetic or racial aspect here. As I have previously stated, it is natural and desirable to scientifically study racial differences. You have provided a study which compares testosterone levels between black and white men and considers the relationship with prostate cancer risk. This is good work. It would be interesting to see a study which looks into testosterone levels among various ethnicities in relation to aggression, but to what end would those findings be useful? Eugenics is a gross path to follow. Cultural critique is fair game. Behavior of others rather than their genetic makeup should be the focus. No good has come of racism, nor will it ever.
Racism is normal

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Compared with East Asian participants, British participants report greater empathic concern and show lower empathic accuracy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There is evidence that testosterone levels are higher in individuals with aggressive behavior Lets not even mention IQ. We share 98.4 percent of our genes with chimpanzees, 95 percent with dogs, and 74 percent with microscopic roundworms. What"s meaningful is which genes differ and how they are patterned, not the percent of genes. The genetic differences between continentally defined groups are sufficiently large that one can accurately predict ancestral continent of origin using only a minute, randomly selected fraction of the genetic variation present in the human genome." (Allocco, 2007; also see Newsome,M. Wired, Oct. 5, 2007)
Racism is normal

I'm disappointed with the tone here. It's telling that when asked to evidence and expand your bold claims about idealistic racism that you deflect and get a little personal. Let's not name call please. Socialised here means that culture is learned through interaction with others and the surrounding environment, sorry if this wasn't clear. I couldn't find evidence that supported your example, so I didn't acknowledge it, but would appreciate a source. The environment has shaped the human race, though we are all 99.9% similar our genetic and physical differences do not separate us all that much. Science is really split on just how far the differences go. Perhaps my wording was poor, but contextually you said "environment shapes race which in turn shapes culture" to counter the theory that culture is shaped by the environment and interactions, and not just race. Please tell me of your experiences dealing with "aggressive, less intelligent or selfish" races. Supporting evidence please.
Racism is normal

I am not sure if you are playing dumb. I explained why culture is entirely dependent on race. As I said, culture does not fall out of the sky. It is developed and upheld by people of that race. Bring in other races, and the culture inevitably changes. Yet you just ignore this, say its unfounded and keep repeating that culture is "socialised", whatever that means. I even provided a clear example. Also, to be unaware of how environment shapes race, you must be completely unaware of how evolution works. Teaching you the ins and outs of natural selection is beyond the scope of this debate. Furthermore, if you cannot understand how having a race that is more aggressive; less intelligent, or more selfish can affect day to day life and standard of living then you should interact with more people. As extreme examples, highlighting racial differences in Haiti or Zimbabwe could have prevented those societies from being completely destroyed, and thats no exaggeration.
Racism is normal

Again, I have to dispute that. Culture has strong links to race, but to claim that culture entirely stems from race neglects many human elements. Anthropologically you've to consider factors such as environment (conditions, resources, economy etc.) and human interaction and choice. To claim race is the entire provider of culture has no scientific or logical backbone. It's unfounded. So cultures are different because of numerous socialised elements. Environment shapes culture, yes... race, no. As I am unaware of any well regarded evidence to back up this claim, I would sincerely like it to be included in your RD4 argument. Moreover, in paragraph two where you say "it affects our life" it is unclear what you mean here, so without expansion I cannot agree or disagree. What is a real world situation where highlighting racial difference is beneficial? How should people be treated differently and to what benefit? I feel like I shouldn't further comment on that last paragraph w/o development
Racism is normal

Culture does stem entirely from race. Saying that culture is "socialised" does not contradict this at all. Culture is learned, and thus culture is taught. Culture is just a lifestyle that has been honed over generations and is largely suited to the nature of the people that have developed it. Cultures are different because races are different. East Asians have a strong shame culture, because they do not possess to the same degree the internal self-policing attribute that Europeans possess, known as guilt, an involuntary reaction to the knowledge you have caused suffering. Culture does not fall out of the sky. Environment shapes race which in turn shapes culture. Normalising racism outside of a scientific/academic context is extremely important, because it affects our way of life. Understanding that there are differences, and then in the real world acting like there arent any, is illogical and dangerous. If people are different, then they should be treated differently.
Racism is normal

I agree that we are inherently different at the genetic level, yes. I believe that racial definitions are tenuous at best when going beyond noting physical differences, chemical make up. There may be an argument over the link between race and mental health, however from my understanding the extent at which mental attributes are also socialised cannot be ignored. You claim that "culture stems entirely from race". This is a falsity. Where race is absolutely heredity, culture is not. Culture is learned. While culture is passed down it is done so through socialised learning. It is more accurate to highlight the links between race and culture, we know of Black culture, East Asian culture etc. But we also know that there cultural boundaries can be passed, as not every Black person participates in Black culture... and so on. We have agreed that some racial differences are "measurable and verifiable". However, outside of a scientific/academic context, what is the use of normalising racism?