BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Liberals Ruining America

Okay I'll take that as somewhat of a loss but some of the things you said are plainly not true. According to the Bureau of Statistics and Rainn it's actually 1/6 women that are sexually assaulted. Also. I won't argue that sexual assault is still a problem but more men are raped on average then women if we bring in the prison statistics. Also most domestic violence cases have the women arrested because they were the ones who attacked the man. Onto your statement about racism 7/10 hate crimes committed in America are caused by African Americans towards white men. White men are victim to hate crimes more then Black Men due to the liberal agenda. Not only that I'm not saying all do but a lot of liberals attack those who disagree with them. Now if you look at the board most of Trump's seats are mostly filled by women. SOme of the strongest roles in America are filled women. Now due to the liberals Sexual Harassment can be anything. If a man coughs towards a women it's sexual harassment. If a man makes a joke about women it's sexual harassment. At this point anything can be sexual harassment and thanks to a large amount of liberals. At this point the most oppressed race are the whites. There's so much hate for the whites that it's become ridiculous. Now due to the liberals White Men are 3x more likely to not be accepted in to college. A lot less whites are being accepted into not only colleges but they are also now less likely to get jobs then other races due to the liberal movement. Most companies are scared of the liberals because they know if they don't bend to their agenda their companies will be shut down because of the liberals. THe whole country is scared of the liberals because the liberals are so extreme they will easily ruin the lives of anyone. Here's the problem like I previously stated there are rights men have that women don't and there are rights women have that men don't. Here's a few big ones. Women can abort a baby with no input or permission from the father. A women can put a child up for adoption without input from the father. If a divorce takes place a women gets automatic rights to the children unless the father can prove that the women can not take care of them. When a women commits a crime and a man commit the same exact crime the women will get off easier then the man. Those things would be unfair but no one says anything because it's all about what men can do that women can't. At this point women actually do have more rights then men but that doesn't matter. Of course tampons should be taxed. Foods are a necessity but food is still taxed. Everything is taxed. Condoms are taxed. If you make it to where tampons aren't taxed we should make it to where condoms aren't taxed. It's ridiculous. Please don't use such a stupid argument against me Jesus Christ. Liberals don't want everyone to start equally, and everyone does start equally. The reason a lot of people aren't doing good is because they do not work for it. Everyone is already equal. In their own ways everyone has a right someone else does not have but they also don't have a right someone else have. It's the way of America.
Are Liberals Ruining America

If everyone got what they wanted this world would be a hell hole, but for some reason Liberals believe everything should be handed to them on a silver platter. People have to work to get what they want. Liberals want Immigrants coming over and want illegals to stay because they need to provide for their family, but what about the legal Americans who can't get a job and can't take care of their family because of the immigrants. Liberals also believe women should have more rights then men but how is that fair. Men have rights women don't have that's true but women also have rights men don't have. I just don't understand why do women deserve more rights then men. Everybody is equal in America but Liberals believe that since in the past people have been oppressed then they deserve more rights then those who weren't oppressed. Times have changed and not for the better due to the liberals.
"The Adventures of Stringman" is the best Orchestra song of all time

I would like to refer everyone to the comments section as my opponen has made his final round. In closing, I believe a song should not be measured by difficulty, length, or how fun it may be to play. It should be based on how it is crafted, how intricate it is, and basically how good it sounds. The Adventures of Stringman may be a good piece for a high school orchestra, but when compared to the great composers such as Vivaldi, Bach, Zimmer, or Williams, it simply can't stack up. Those songs are classics and will be remembered for years to come. That is because those songs are masterpieces that are masterfully crafted. The Adventures of Stringman may be entertaining, but it doesn't have the substance that all of those other pieces have.
"The Adventures of Stringman" is the best Orchestra song of all time

I feel that I can put your criticisms into three points. Difficulty, length, and fatigue. I have been to my fair share of orchestra concerts, and I can tell you that they are usually around two to three hours, so forty two minutes isn't that big of a deal. At a college level of musicianship, people usually practice two to three hours as a minimum, so I don't think a two hour concert is going to cause the professional musicians too much fatigue. Finally, the difficulty shouldn't be a problem on a professional level, and most musicians at that level enjoy a challenge. I believe that I have a better understanding of your taste in an orchestration. I would like to present two more orchestrations. He's a Pirate is clearly more exciting, and the Superman Theme is more heroic. I would like to challenge you to explain why these are inferior to Stringman. Superman Theme - Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra http://youtu.be... He's a Pirate- Hans Zimmer http://youtu.be...
"The Adventures of Stringman" is the best Orchestra song of all time

Classic songs may be good, but they can't be the modernized stringman. I argue that although these classical pieces, although may hold beauty within them, are no better than Adventures of Stringman. All of these are very very long, tiring for the orchestra to play and although it might hold the audience's attention, if put any one of these within a program with other pieces, the orchestra simply will be unable to play them all. Four Seasons: 42 minutes long!! Even if played only one season, it is still very tiring, while stringman is very exciting and relatively easy to play, being only in a 3 to 4 minute range. Symphony No. 104--I played this in orchestra class. Although the beginning might be cool and the happy light theme returns, similar to stringman, stringman has the unpredictability and fun that Symphony No. 104 simply cannot achieve. Stringman's heroic theme combined with the contrast of the bad playing and the amazing solos, plus the clarinet breaking, has a whole new level.
"The Adventures of Stringman" is the best Orchestra song of all time

For this debate, I will be stating that my opponent has issued a state of absolute superiority and that this is an opinionated statement. I would like to point out to the voters that if they have an orchestration that they enjoy more than "The Adventures of Stringman," then my opponent's statement has been proved false. While I can agree that "The Adventures of Stringman" is a fantastic and entertaining composition, I would like to present several other pieces that are also fantastic compositions and have the voters decide if any one of my several pieces of evidence is superior to my opponent's chosen piece. I would like to challenge my opponent to describe why the piece is superior to these. Vivaldi- The Four Seasons Bach"Brandenburg Concerto No. 2 Haydn"Symphony No. 104 Mozart"Symphony in C Major, "Jupiter"
"The Adventures of Stringman" is the best Orchestra song of all time

"The Adventures of Stringman", by Richard Meyer, in opinion is the best orchestra song of all time. It's heroic, has a nice theme, funny to watch and fun to play, being very unpredictable as well! It starts off with the low notes, adding on the other sections, soaring upwards, only to come back down and go straight to the melody. The transitions are very nicely done, and not only do violins get the melody, the cellos get a chance too. The dramatic ending adds a nice touch to the whole song. Accept the challenge if you dare. But before you accept, listen to it here: http://www.jwpepper.com...
Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriage is a tough issue; AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY It divides families, splits political parties, splits people and splits the society. Marriage is only made for two people; a man and a woman, even if you don't look at it from a religious perspective, this is what nature is all about; love within marriage can only be between a male and female. How can two males or two females have intercourse with eachother? That sounds completely wrong if you just think about it. How can you even be able to have kids? And even if you adopt children, its gonna be unfair for them they won't have a mum or a dad and won't receive love from both genders, it will also affect them socially. Seriously you people are disrupting nature; marriage has always been for a man and a woman, and should always stay that way. And it's not about going against equality rights; same sex marriage has got nothing to do with equality; its just weird and makes people have mentalities and also divides the society Nowadays it's so awkward as we have to look at two men or two women making out in public Disgusting people.
that the united states should implement universal health care modeled after the french system

to wrap up this debate what I'm trying to prove is that we should adopt universal health care modeled after the French because as I have stated earlier that we have a 2.3 trillion debt due to health care and France has a 9 billion dollar deficit do you can clearly see the difference between the two and I do agree with my opponent that we would go bankrupt with this universal health care but what I'm also trying to say is that even if we don't take in the universal health care we still would be going bankrupt. but by taking in universal health care we wouldn't go into bankrupt so quickly. my second point is that it could be possible to work universal health care in the united states, in Kentucky they had done a similar thing like universal health care but they stated it did not work due to the low number of citizens. so if we were to take in universal health care which would include every one then we could possibly work universal health care into our system this are my two main points on why I should win this debate thank you masterzanzibar for such a great debate no one has ever bring up this kind of information and you should tell me what framework has to do with this debate
Music is in need of change

I accept. Just make sure you don't post anything for the last round. Regardless of which, allow me to proceed. Music, honestly sucks. Have you heard some of these songs? Well, it mainly comes from rap, so let me list a few lines that will shock you. "Uh, I'm in the ocean getting shark p***y"-Lil Wayne, IANAHB "I just talked to Jesus. He said 'What up, Yeezus?' I said 'S**t, I'm chillin', tryna stack these millions"-Kanye West, On Sight "No Doubt like Gwen Stefani's group...Lemme put my mouth where you potty boo"-Ab-Soul, Smoke Again "Boat or Jet? What do you expect? Her p***y so good I got her a pet."-2-Chainz, Talk Dirty "I take a flight to Spain, just to heat a baked potato!"-RiFF RAFF, Mr. Popular I would post many more, but you should get what I'm saying. These lines suck, and you even know it yourself. Now I agree with you in the context that musical talent is usually targeted towards those that don't have the greatest academic skills, and that music is a hobby. It's just that music needs to change. A lot of popular music is filled with a bunch of DJ's, and very few songs have any sort of original instruments. Would you want to hear something from the Beatles, or would you want to hear "Titanium"? I'm not saying all music is bad. Exceptions are bands like Passion Pit, Imagine Dragons, Fun, Train, etc. Most of it, however, sucks. That is all I have to say, thank you very much
Music is in need of change

Ladies and Gentleman, honourable judges, trustworthy team mates, worthy opponent and helpful timekeeper. This house believes that Music should not be changed. My first argument is that music is needed for people who are not specifically good at subjects in school and have an insanely big talent in music. By that they have a better chance to go into college just for their good music playing. As I said they can go to college more easily and even better with a scholarship, so that means that their parent shouldn't have to pay money. Also if music is changed then music stores will close down causing people to loose their jobs and stay without money to feed their families or even stay homeless on the streets because they don't have enough money to pay for their lives. So if Music is not changed, it will be more economical for children to enter collages and their will be a shorter amount of deaths occurring because of starvation. Scientifically their are over 3.1 million deaths each year from hunger. Also another argument is that Music is a hobby for lots of people and maybe it has been passed on by the years in somebody family and they want to make a career out of music to earn money in the streets or even strip clubs, shops, parties etc. So to close my speech is strongly believe that Music should be kept. Thank you!
Should we get rid of "absolute value" and replace it with "square root of square?"

Taking the square root of square of a number will indeed make any real number positive. The problem is, absolute value measures magnitude. Why does this matter? For imaginary numbers, the result you get with these 2 functions is different. Take sqrt(-1) for example. The abs(sqrt(-1))=1 but the sqrt(sqrt(-1)^2)=sqrt(-1). Sqrt(-1) doesn't equal 1. Therefore, we can't get rid of absolute value.Why did I bring up this topic? For algebra students, it would be nice to know how to undo an absolute value sign. Take this equation: abs(x)=3 How do you undo an absolute value? Well you could pretend that absolute value is the same as the square root of square. So the equation then looks like this: sqrt(x^2)=3 This is solvable using systematic algebra now. In both cases, x=3,-3 which is completely correct. Now let's say we have this equation: abs(x)=-3 Our trick before doesn't work simply because of reasons stated before. Let's try it out anyways. The equation will now look like this: sqrt(x^2)=-3 Solving the problem will give you x=sqrt(-3) and -sqrt(-3). Plug these answers back into the original equation: abs(x)=-3 and you will realize that it is incorrect. That is why we can't get rid of absolute value.
Should we get rid of "absolute value" and replace it with "square root of square?"

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentRound 3: Rebuttal and Closing Statement Should we get rid of absolute value and replace it with the square root of the square? I believe not. This is something that I thought we should do as a kid, but now I realize that I'm wrong. Hopefully I can convince somebody else also. Good luck to my opponent.
School detention

Since Con seems to make their first argument I shall introduce mine. I. It's the student's fault for getting a detention. Overall, the reason for the detention/the cause of the detention is entirely the student's fault. The teacher is merely there to enforce the rules set by the school administration and educate the students. If the students disrespect the teacher or do something to disrupt the teacher from doing their job, then the student totally deserves the detention. II. Detention is designed to be a punishment. Especially in the higher grade levels, students have lots of homework they have to do. If the student disrupts the class and ends up getting a detention, then the student will "reap what they sow" for a lack of better words, and they end up, because of their actions, not being able to do their homework or study for the set amount of time of the detention. III. As a form of discipline, detentions help shape a student for the better. Pretty much as the title says. If the detention is used properly, and as a form of discipline, it should prevent students from attempting poor behavior again. For some students this simply doesn't work, and further punishments have to be made. However, for the majority of students, one detention serves to be enough. For the reasons above, detentions should exist, and be used in the schoolplace.
Android is better than Apple

It seems like your just referring to phones. Apple has computers, which include movie editing and a lot of other features too. Apple has made Mouses, iPad's, iPhone's, iPod's and lots of others. Almost no Android users have access to new updates when they"re released. Instead, they have to wait months or longer before they gain access to the latest features and security updates. Many Android phones will never have access to new releases even after just a couple of years. In conclusion, apple has created and has a lot more things than android has. An apple computer has so many more capabilities than an android phone. I mean its a computer vs. a android phone.
Android is better than Apple

There is something for everyone on the Android platform. The sheer variety of Android smartphones from manufacturers like"Samsung,"HTC,"Sony,Motorola,"LG,"Huawei,"ZTE, and others is staggering. You can get a compact phone, something with a huge touchscreen, a stylus, a rotating camera, an edge screen, or even a physical keyboard such as found on the"Blackberry Priv. Niche demands like dual SIM are catered for, and the flagship devices are on the cutting edge when it comes to specs. There"s also features you just can"t get with Apple"s devices, like microSD and removable battery.(Android Authority)
3rd wave femism in america

first off this is a debate site so no I'm not just goanna let be. but with that logic why did we fight Hitler if you don't like Nazi's, then just let them be. this feminist movement is also attacking men and scaring women. for example the whole 1 in 4,five, or six rape statistic is completely false it actually around 1 in 40 (I don't know the exact number sorry) and we don't know what the men's rape statistic is because feminist would done it. and yes men can be raped and women can rape too. how can you say just let them be when BRITSH LAUGH AT THE THOUGHT OF TALKING ABOUT MENS PROBLEMS. and you haven't told me how women are treated worse
3rd wave femism in america

honestly if any ones oppressed its men the British board laugh at the idea of talking about men's problem. feminist clothing is every were but one MRA p of clothing and they go to boycott. men have a much high suicd rate and assault victums but all we hear about is women's harassment and sexual assault(which is bad but the point still stands). women have several legal rights over children than men . i could add more but you get the point so tell me what ways are women oppressed so that we need fem
If dogs are human? (http://picsolf.com/10-pics-dog-people/)

Dogs aren't human. Those pictures must be photoshopped, or they've taken pictures of a weird species. If you look around the page, you see the word "funny", and various other clues that say the site's meant for photoshop and other silly things. I can logically show that dogs aren't humans, but I'll wait. (This was probably meant as a joke, but I decided to accept, so not sure how to disprove it without ruining the joke)
Canada needs to eliminate supply management.

Canadians can develop trade lines with whoever they want as long as a suitable contract is made between the Supplier and buyer. This therefore means that your comment about 'Canada can "sell" SM to the united states for negotiation power in the NAFTA agreement. ' has absolutley no place in this debate. my next point on your argument is that ending SM can lead to a lot of job loses in canada and therefore people may still be forced over the border in order to get food as they will recive little/no money.
Canada needs to eliminate supply management.

Canada has recently been faced with a new economic push coming from Maxime Bernier. The push to end the supply management of Canadian dairy, Poultry and eggs. The move to end SM is a good one for all Canadians, And here's why. -Canadians will save huge on the products currently under SM, And all complimentary goods, Like cheese and baked goods pre-made lunches etc, As well as co products like veal, Whey, Etc. Producers will be reimbursed for their quota over many years. This means an easy retirement or capitol to invest in ways to compete with US farmers in long run. -Canada can "sell" SM to the united states for negotiation power in the NAFTA agreement. -the price of these products will decrease, Which will increase demand for the products. People eating more dairy milk and eggs means more jobs for the Canadian processing companies, Shippers, Grocery stores, Etc. -Canadian farmers can look for export markets for their products. -Canadian shoppers don't have to cross the border for a smaller grocery bill.
Death Penalty

I will begin by addressing the arguments my opponent made in the previous round: "Many people convicted of murder want to die. Timothy McVeigh said 'I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel. ' Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. p. 358. McVeigh knew he was going to die and liked the fact of it. " While it may be true that many of those who commit murders and other atrocities want to die it doesn't necessarily mean that banning the death penalty will prevent them from being killed. Many will instead just choose to kill themselves as the perpetrators behind the Virgina Tech, Columbine High and the Budweiser plant killings did. [1][2][3] I would also like to point out that my opponent choose one example when making his point about perpetrators wanting to be killed. My opponents example is mostly irrelevant as it pertains to one criminal in particular, and as such does little to support his claim that MANY people who commit murder want to die. "It costs more money to hold someone on death row for 10 years than it does to keep then in jail and let them rot. " I would like to address this by stating that every year that an inmate spends in prison costs the tax payer $22,000 US and that the average cost of a life term is $1.5 million. [4] My opponent has made no reference to the cost of permanent imprisonment, so he cannot truthfully say that it cost more to execute inmates than to imprison them. As my opponent has the burden of proof and I have successfully negated his previous contentions it would be unnecessary for me to produce original arguments at this time. I eagerly await my opponent's response. Thank you, Sources [1] . http://www.virginiatechmassacre.com... [2] . http://history1900s.about.com... [3] . http://vidnewz.com... [4] . http://www.heartsandminds.org...
Death Penalty

Is it right for someone who has committed a murder to be sentenced to death? I believe no it is not right. A few reasons why. 1) Many people convicted of murder want to die. Timothy McVeigh said "I knew I wanted this before it happened. I knew my objective was state-assisted suicide and when it happens, it's in your face. You just did something you're trying to say should be illegal for medical personnel." Michel, Lou and Herbeck, Dan. American Terrorist. p. 358. McVeigh knew he was going to die and liked the fact of it. 2) It costs more money to hold someone on death row for 10 years than it does to keep then in jail and let them rot.