BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

Okay, so Ariesx, you before you can competently argue against my view, you have to get a few things right: A. I am a conservative Democrat who is a girl, not a boy. B. Get your amendment right; Amendment #2 was about the right to bear arms rather than the freedom of religion. (nice try! freedom of religion is under freedom of speech which is clearly under the 1st amendment. BAM! In your face!) C. Why would you bring religion into this at all and atheism? You can as an American can say that atheism is wrong, but you cannot legally abolish the religion. What you are saying about atheism and how it promotes immorality is going against the Constitution rights are wrong. As long as a group of individuals are not trying to abolish it, you can say whatever you want about atheism. (Look outside your window girl. There are still KKKs out there in America and they are not considered illegal when they are peaceful, are they?) I am not trying to completely be rid of music in America. You my friend or opponent in this case are completely misreading this. Or rather I have not made myself 100% clear. I am trying to purify music because youngsters retain what they hear more than what they see. Which do you remember more: seeing the exact scene of a movie or hearing that exact scene's music. I am a piano player that memorizes music phonetically; I use my ears greater than I use my fingers to memorize. If a note sounds incorrect, then I restart, so applying this concept to youngsters: If youngsters were to incorporate this type of foul language into their everyday speech, pretty soon they'll be using the F*** word or the B**** words. The foul music like Nicki Minaj's Anaconda will imprint itself onto youngsters and soon America will have its hands full of troublemakers. There has already a drastic decrease in the amount of respect elders receive in America (example my band teacher) and why do you think this has occurred? "From their friends, no doubt. Please stop, you are boring me to death. I clearly won the argument," you may say, but that is highly false. Where then has the friends learnt it from? If there is one common thing about everyone, it is "Music is a world in itself with a language that we all understand," Stevie Wonder sang this in his song "Sir Duke" and that is completely true. Without music, how would the news successfully reached the ears of people of the world. Music in itself is a form of propaganda, a tool that artists use to get their words across. (eg. Selena Gomez's The Heart Wants what it Wants, Stephen Hills' Ecology Song, etc.) But that doesn't mean artists should abuse the propaganda by filling it with dirty language and dirty words.
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

My opponent seems to repeat the same mistake over, and over again. She says that she wants to "purify music". This is protected under the first amendment. I brought religion into this, because I could write the same case for religion. That I want to purify religion. It is my opponent's opinion that Americans listen to bad music that will lead them into trouble makers. She has no evidence that kids are going to become troublemakers. She is basing her case off of her experience. She does not have any statistics or evidence of her predictions, therefore my opponents' case is invalid. She wants to promote her own free speech over others' free speech. From time to time in history, people have made the same mistake she did. What did Britain have to say over religion? Christianity is the more pure religion. What did the Confederates say when people asked them to stop segregating black people? We want to keep the pure race away from those animals. America does not want to repeat the mistakes that other countries have committed. The founding fathers built this country, so free speech could exist. What if I were to say lets purify this debate, and let her stop speaking her evils. I would be promoting one free speech over the other. (And don't take me wrong, I don't think that what she is saying is evil. ) Vote for the rights of America. Vote for free speech. Vote for the things that America stood for. If you side with my opponent, and still are not on my side, I will give you these 1 word. Consequence. If you promote this free speech over the other, then you are going to leave a very different future for America. We can now start to question other amendments. 4th Amendment: Citizens cannot be forced to subject themselves to seizure and search without a search warrant and probable cause. Lets take this amendment, and put the same question, and say Well what if that citizen is hiding something very valid from you, can't you just go into his house, and look for it. By using my opponent's logic, you would have to vote for that resolution. This would in my opinion create a society that is revolting against American society. Even saying that this applies to youngsters won't help it, because you could use the same "logic" for slavery. A slave owner could say that I don't want the youngsters to learn about equality until he is over the age of 21. You can learn about equality in any age, just as you can learn about music in any age you want too. Protect the amendments, Protect our Rights.
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

Okay, so Ariesx, you before you can competently argue against my view, you have to get a few things right: A. I am a conservative Democrat who is a girl, not a boy. B. Get your amendment right; Amendment #2 was about the right to bear arms rather than the freedom of religion. (nice try! freedom of religion is under freedom of speech which is clearly under the 1st amendment. BAM! In your face!) C. Why would you bring religion into this at all and atheism? You can as an American can say that atheism is wrong, but you cannot legally abolish the religion. What you are saying about atheism and how it promotes immorality is going against the Constitution rights are wrong. As long as a group of individuals are not trying to abolish it, you can say whatever you want about atheism. (Look outside your window girl. There are still KKKs out there in America and they are not considered illegal when they are peaceful, are they?) I am not trying to completely be rid of music in America. You my friend or opponent in this case are completely misreading this. Or rather I have not made myself 100% clear. I am trying to purify music because youngsters retain what they hear more than what they see. Which do you remember more: seeing the exact scene of a movie or hearing that exact scene's music. I am a piano player that memorizes music phonetically; I use my ears greater than I use my fingers to memorize. If a note sounds incorrect, then I restart, so applying this concept to youngsters: If youngsters were to incorporate this type of foul language into their everyday speech, pretty soon they'll be using the F*** word or the B**** words. The foul music like Nicki Minaj's Anaconda will imprint itself onto youngsters and soon America will have its hands full of troublemakers. There has already a drastic decrease in the amount of respect elders receive in America (example my band teacher) and why do you think this has occurred? "From their friends, no doubt. Please stop, you are boring me to death. I clearly won the argument," you may say, but that is highly false. Where then has the friends learnt it from? If there is one common thing about everyone, it is "Music is a world in itself with a language that we all understand," Stevie Wonder sang this in his song "Sir Duke" and that is completely true. Without music, how would the news successfully reached the ears of people of the world. Music in itself is a form of propaganda, a tool that artists use to get their words across. (eg. Selena Gomez's The Heart Wants what it Wants, Stephen Hills' Ecology Song, etc.) That's fine and all, but now they are mentioning that "Sex is good for you at any age," "Boyfriends/girlfriends are people you can easily replace". America by this is becoming immoral and relationships are shortening itself and more people are promiscuous instead of monogamous. (If you don't know what these words mean, then look it up!). The world is changing out there rather evolving itself and there isn't much we can do to stop it. But we can help it by stopping the bad sitting on our doorsteps.
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

From my understanding, my opponent wants to end music, so we can create a better, educated America. I respect this modest approach to fixing America, but I am here to argue the consequence of his actions. This is violating the 1st amendment(freedom of speech) as my opponent stated. But if he succeeds in controlling the way people write songs, the constitution can be questioned again. The 2 amendment is freedom of religion. If I were to say that atheism is wrong because it promote immorality, than I would be violating the 2 amendment. But you let my opponent get his music idea pass, so violating our amendments would be justifiable, and that is not what I stand for.
Music has Crossed its Boundaries

Music, over the years, has greatly changed its context. Going from Stevie Wonder's Sir Duke to modern songs like 5 SOS's Amnesia, artists are throwing the meaning of certain topics into the air. Music is today joking about the seriousness of many contemporary problems such as suicide (), relationships (Amnesia by 5 SOS), and so much more. Music influences the way people think; if music continues to be this way, it will destroy the mind of youngsters. If a popular song was to repeatedly use curse words, then youths listening to the song will incorporate sung curse word into everyday speech. The freedom of a song's lyrics are protected under the 1st amendment (freedom of speech), but using the freedom this way greatly abuses it. We want to create a better America with educated people not a rotting America that is heavily under the influence of a poor choice in music.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Even if your context was correct, you would class God as "anyone"? "If G-d can do anything, he can become a man, he can destroy all his laws, therefore any objections to Jesus's doing this are nullified, here is my reponse to that: If G-d can become a golden calf, why then don't you worship a golden calf?" You are creating your own question with your own context and implying (by the speech marks) that I to am asking this same question and context. I am not. As you know, God lets us know his will and we either accept it or reject it. Jesus fulfilled, not "destroyed" the laws. Of course you can object to it, it's only natural to ask questions, but ultimately as I said only us as individuals accept or reject the answers and for me the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus Christ is the messiah. As for the golden calf question, even if God was a golden calf I would not have to worship it because I believe the old testament has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ and I only have to keep the natural law. Also as a catholic we do not worship statues even though there are misconceptions that we do. Secondly, this actually helps my case for Jesus as the messiah. The Hebrews were reverting back to the Egyptian ways because they were losing there faith in God because Moses was absent for so long, this is happening today, because of lack of faith in Jesus, old laws and wrong teachings are being accepted. "Also, there are many verses that imply anything which G-d says he must abide by and cannot repeal" Again it is you that is being vague, I would be happy to address objections if you could elaborate.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Binding G-d? Oh yeah, I've heard that excuse before, "If G-d can do anything, he can become a man, he can destroy all his laws, therefor any objections to Jesus's doing this are nullified," here is my reponse to that:If G-d can become a golden calf, why then don't you worship a golden calf? If -d can become one?Also, there are many verses that imply anything which G-d says he must abide by and cannot repeal.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Actualy, Isaiah 8:20 is refering to anyone;"Consult God’s instruction and the testimony of warning. If anyone does not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn." And Hosea 2:11 doesn't say that the commandment of Shabbat will cease,because if you see this verse in context, Hosea 2:11-13:"I will stop all her celebrations:her yearly festivals, her New Moons,her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals. I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,which she said were her pay from her lovers; I will make them a thicket,and wild animals will devour them. I will punish her for the daysshe burned incense to the Baals; she decked herself with rings and jewelry,and went after her lovers,but me she forgot,” declares the Lord." And yes those 365 prophecies are vague, such as the ones that say he would be a Jew, born of a woman, that he would die, that he would thirst, that he would eat food and drink wine (no joke). So yeah they are vague.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

The context (verse 19) indicates that Isaiah is not referring to the Ten Commandments, but to that part of the Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant which commands the Jews not to consult with mediums (them that have familiar spirits) and wizards. (Leviticus 19:31) A generalization to the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath Commandment or to the entire Mosaic Law of the Old Covenant might be justified except, with respect to the Sabbath, the Lord says elsewhere by another prophet, "And I will put an end to all her mirth, her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her appointed feasts." (Hosea 2:11) The Apostle Paul accordingly describes the now voluntary and passing nature of the Sabbath observance under the New Covenant, "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come." (Colossians 2:16-17) And again, "One man esteems one day as better than another, while another man esteems all days alike. Let every one be fully convinced in his own mind." (Romans 14:5) Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: (28) Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath." One of Jesus" responses is to point at how the priests in the temple work on the Sabbath yet they are "blameless". How much more blameless are His disciples who are working for the Messiah Himself? Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. The Sabbath was not to be a burden for God"s people. God made the Sabbath for man and not man for the Sabbath. The old and new testaments are simultaneous because of Gods omnipotence, it is free will that allows us to reject it. I noticed how you tried to hand wave away "365 prophecies" and also, "fits zero prophesies" and your elaboration is that they are "vague". That is vague. If you would like a better understanding of the prophecies I suggest this, http://www.catholic.com... Skip to 17:25 for prophecies. Source, Catholic.com. Jimmy Akin.
Jesus cannot be the Messiah.

Isaiah 8:20 says:"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."This verse lays out that any teacher who teaches something contrary to the Mitzvot is a false teacher, and there is no light in them. In addition to this, the Non-Testament confirms the Torah, which means it must be held in accordance to the Torah, the Torah doesn't confirm the Non-Testament, so it does not have to teach in accordance with the Non-Testament to be true. And to top this point off, the Non-Testament itself lays out in Matthew 5:17 that it doesn't come to destroy the law:"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."There for we may conclude that the Non-Testament must teach in accordance with the Torah enable to be valid at all. Matthew 12:1:"At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them."So now we see Jesus allowing his disciples to harvest wheat on Shabbat, something completely contrary to the law. Just one of many examples. He also fit ZERO prophecies, and no those 365 non-prophecies fulfilled by Jesus are not valid, a lot of them are very vague that just about anyone could fit, like being born of a woman, being a Jew, having enemies, or dying. Isaiah 53 isn't valid either cause first of all it isn't a Messianic prophecy. Second of all Jesus didn't fit it, he didn't live a long life or have children (Isaiah 53:10), and he wasn't rich (Isaiah 53:12).
The federal minimum wage should be increased

But again, the cost of living is increasing. The only way to fix that problem, caused by inflation, is to stimulate the economy through an increase in the minimum wage. Increasing the wage would assist many people, mostly those who are in poverty. As discussed by CNN (1). Quoting from the article: "Last week Oxfam released a new study that dispels many of the political myths surrounding the nation's minimum wage debate. It shows not only that increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10 per hour would give some 25 million workers across America a much-needed raise, but also that, on average, one in five workers in every single congressional district in America -- red or blue -- would benefit from such a raise. In fact, according to our data, a hike in the minimum wage would benefit more than 55,000 workers in the average congressional district." This increase has been proven to assist workers across America, helping those in every state. Quoting from the Study done by Oxfam: "The districts with the highest percentages of workers who would benefit from a higher minimum wage are a diverse mix " at least 29 percent of workers in districts like South Florida, rural South Texas, and Bakersfield, California." (2) This increase would benefit workers across the nation, but assisting those mainly in the states with the highest number of workers. This is what America needs, a chance to fix this poverty problem by attacking the source; low income. The price to live has risen over these seven years, and it is time that we fix that mistake. Sources: (1)http://www.cnn.com... (2) http://www.oxfamamerica.org...
The federal minimum wage should be increased

The minimum wage has been raised in several areas already, and has shown some harmful side effects. Take Oakland, California as an example. The minimum wage there has rose to $12.25 hourly. A CNN report was shocked to find the usually affluent Bay Area had a high level of child poverty. Economists there thought a wage hike would help decrease the poverty, but it did the exact opposite. The 2003 wage increase was supposed to have an immediately positive effect on people there, but that was not what happened. According to the City and County of San Francisco"s Office of Economic Analysis, The food service industry saw a -2.3% job loss and the former booming manufacturing industry saw a -8.5% job loss. Now, looking at the community demographics, about 14.1% of the families there live in poverty. This wage hike hit single mother families hard. Single mothers with a child/children under five had about a 42.3% poverty rate. The minimum wage law increased the number of children in poverty, it did not help families! This is a perfect example of a time where the minimum wage increase did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. As you can see, it hit single mother families hardest, which are the ones who need the most help. The economy in Oakland took a sharp nose dive. As you can see, increasing the minimum wage did not help break the low income cycle. In fact, it made the whole situation worse. Many places in California have had similar experiences, too many to describe them all here. The state in general is pushing for increased minimum wage, which as you can see, has not benefited many of the cities it was implemented in. For these reasons, I believe it would be best for everyone AND the economy if the federal minimum wage did not increase. I fear it may have the same effects it did in Oakland nation-wide. Source- Americanthinker. com, Minimum-wage.
The federal minimum wage should be increased

So because these people are not the ideal societal members, we should forget about them and leave them to their fates? We should leave the group who is forced into these jobs to suffer and make below the amount required to live? You also forget that the price to live has increased, and it will only continue to increase. And with the current minimum wage, these people will continue to seep deeper and deeper into poverty. (1) Quoting from the article: "When the cost of living goes up, so should wages. It's common sense. While serving in the US Congress, we supported reasonable periodic increases in the federal minimum wage to enable workers to better support their families and keep up with the economy. And we rallied our Republican and Democratic colleagues to make it the law. But the last time Congress voted to raise the wage to its current rate of $7.25 an hour was seven years ago. Since then, the cost of life's essentials have shot up. Groceries cost 20% more, a gallon of gas costs 25%more, and average tuition at a community college increased 44%. But the minimum wage remains at $7.25. If it had kept up with inflation since 1968, it would be almost $10.70 today." These people deserve to have their wages increased as the price of living increases, for the time that was a proper minimum wage. Now? Prices have increased and to live costs more. Should they be forsaken to this fate as the prices continue to rise every year? Raise the minimum wage and leave it that way for ten years then go back and review the situation. Change the minimum wage to be parallel to the price of living. As it increases, raise the wage, as it decreases, lower the wage. Sources: (1) http://www.usatoday.com...
The federal minimum wage should be increased

You seem to be forgetting that people are forced into living on minimum wage due to the shrinking amount of well paying, high education jobs available. Again, there must be checks. For a Fortune 500 company to cut employees because they are making more per hour shows that, once again, these companies are shady and will do anything to make the big bucks. These people living on minimum wage do not make enough to get by, they lack the ability to break out of this cycle due to the lack of funding that they receive. (1) Quoting from the article: "Raising the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.50 an hour, would inject an amazing $9.5 billion extra spending power into the economy (this assumes all 3.8 million workers are making exactly $7.25, that each additional dollar earned is spent, and that none of the 3.8 million are earning wages below the federal minimum wage " even though there are 9 states that are below this level or which have no minimum wage law). If the minimum wage were instead raised to where it should be, at least $10 per hour (which would still put it below the minimum wage in 1968), this would release at least $60 billion over two years into the economy.. On top of this, an increased minimum wage may also lead to an increase in the hourly pay of other low-wage workers that only make slightly more than the federal minimum wage. This increased purchasing power across the board helps stimulate the economy and benefits small businesses, many of which were hardest hit by the recession." As you can see, increasing the minimum wage will also increase the economy and allow for more spending of the individual workers. Currently, these workers do not making enough. Some states do not even have minimum wage, or they offer much lower than the federal wage. The increase would force companies in these states to give minimum wage, and this would in turn increase the purchasing that these workers receive and may even help them out of this deadly cycle of low income. Sources: (1) http://www.timeforaraise.org...