BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music debate

I decided to go with a piece by Claude Debussy, a French composer. This piece was composed in 1910 during the impressionistic period, which was a period of approximately 20 years at the beginning of the 20th century. Like the impressionistic period in painting, music composed during this impressionistic period was representative of stories, or ideas, just generally giving you a picture to associate the music with. I was either going to go with this or Reverie, my two favorite pieces by Debussy. In the end I decided on La cathedrale engloutie (The Sunken Cathedral). This piece of music was inspired by the Breton legend of Ys, a myth in which a cathedral, submerged underwater off the coast of the Island of Ys, rises up from the sea on clear mornings when the water is transparent. Sounds can be heard of priests chanting, bells chiming, and the organ playing, from across the sea. [1]If you listen closely you can hear the legend being told in the music Debussy has composed. From the gentle beginning, the cathedral rises from the water, slowly emerging from the fog. In the majestic, profound middle section, we have an idea of the grandeur of this cathedral. And finally the music calms as the cathedral is once again submerged, the "organ" behind heard as if from underwater and the bells finally being the last thing heard as the music fades away. Please enjoy. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...;
reliable source is religion so its instantly false to use in a debate

My opponent listed an invalid argument, stating, "what if the moon is made of cheese?" Also, my opponent didn't give his sources/proof that religion=to rely on. The definition of religion is: "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." Nowhere does it state that religion=to rely on. He/she also avoided my question in Round 1: "What if a reliable source isn't religion, and it is good to use in a debate?"
"Black Lives Matter" Movement

You say : "We are too sensitive and easily offended for change to be solved with violence...". For all the faults we find in the "Black Lives Matter" movement, we will find as many faults in other movements that involve protesting. (For example, anti-government movements can be very violent.) Also wanted to point out that the movement is not entirely violently enforced. There are non-violent rallies for the Black Lives Matter movement. Why do these protesters have to "force the respect of the people" as you say? How do we know that this movement hasn't been going on for a long time? We heard more about the movement after the rallies and protests. I am not justifying violence, I am just pointing out that sometimes protesting is a way of bringing attention to issues that need to be addressed.
"Black Lives Matter" Movement

I agree with your statement that the message that is trying to be proclaimed is the right message. But the message is not being pushed across because media and society is distracted with all the controversy surrounding it. As for the violence, i would agree that violence has been portrayed by movements in an attempt to get there point across. Yet at he same time the new era of technology has yet to see a strong rally for change. We are too sensitive and easily offended for change to be solved with violence, especially on a topic where a big point of focus is on the topic of violence itself. Just this week at a local high school the basketball team had to cancel a game because of threats from a black lives matter rally group near the opposing teams complex. If they are going to try and get something done and show that black lives matter. They are going to have to force the respect of people by acting with peace and giving the people no choice but to accept what needs to be done.
"Black Lives Matter" Movement

"Black Lives Matter" is the slogan for a current movement that supports African Americans facing police brutality. Like you, I feel that the "Black Lives Matter" movement is not a movement that is dismissing individuals that are "non-black" but rather a movement that is calling for the recognition and awareness of the many disadvantages black people face in America. I believe this movement is rooted in past conflicts involving bias against African Americans in the criminal justice system. You view this movement as "completely arrogant" presumably because you are sick of the violent response protesters have resorted to in order to get the message across: " The public displays of violence and comments are only embarrassing and throws any chance of sympathy and understanding out the window.". Many Americans are sick of it. I"m sick of it as well. Although this is true, I don"t think the violent measures protestors display should ever affect the amount of attention authorities put into the issues they are protesting about. People have protested violently for women"s rights, desegregation, gay acceptance, the preaching of creationism in public schools and other civil rights issues. This is just another one.
stop restricting the american netflix from other people

I personally think Netflix wants people to be happy with their content, and to not be offended. A show such as The Indian Detective may not be available to users in India because of its view on the Indian police and people. They may also restrict shows because of the show's producers only wanting it in America. There have also been several shows about American politics, which may confuse and startle viewers who don't know the whole story. These are just some of the reasons why Netflix isn't allowing you to watch your favorite american shows. I hope you find another way to watch them.
the existence of non-existence

okay, but something had to come from somewhere, where ded this planet, this galaxy, our gods,beliefs, people in general and every thing come from, as i said there must be counter parts, balance is necessary there for for there to be nothing or something then there must be the other, if there is a god, then there must be a devel, good vs. evil nothing and something i am trying to prove that nothing exists , when you look at the sky at night and you see no stars considering you cant see air you see nothing, or on a open plain there is nothing in the distance so you see nothing space is a good example of what i am trying to explain not just outter space but like in a drawing or in reality space in a drawing is emptiness, there is nothing there and that can be shat makes a drawing is how well space is used (balance).
the existence of non-existence

First of all, I don't see the relevance of your preliminary statement. In stating that when someone is asked "What is wrong?" and their reply will be "nothing", then this means that nothing is everything. This only applies to a persons thoughts, and therefore is irrelevant. By your logic, if one was to look at an empty space, and was asked "What is this?" or "What is there?", they would reply "Everything is there", which is not correct. In saying that everything had to come from something, then this also implies that whatever everything must have originated from, must also have originated from something. Therefore, it could not be "something", nor, by my argument, could it be "nothing", as both would need something to originate from, and whatever they originate from would have needed something to originate from; creating an infinite sequence that rules out the possibility of a "beginning". And you say that in order for there to be something, then there has to be nothing. How can you prove this? prove to me that nothing exists, and prove it's necessity.
the existence of non-existence

okay, so you know how like you ask someone what is wrong with them and they say nothing but they usually mean everything or like with gossip what are you talking about? and the answer is usually nothing and also, where did we come from? where did this world come from? if i can say that i am actually here then i know that i came from somewhere everything had to come from something and that something is nothing or unless i am not here and you are not there, and then there is nothing anywhere where are we before we are "created"? are we in this heaven like abyss or where did everything come from? i am saying that there has to be balance like god and satan there has to be counter parts so in order for there to be something, there has to be nothing.
is skyrim better then oblivion

My point with my critique of the combat is that TES's combat isn't fun or engaging by itself. Skyrim, however, focused on the series' uninteresting combat by adding things like fancy dodge roll skills and frustrating random instakill animations. Even these pointless additions are flawed. They added to the AI a system of "surrendering" when their health gets too low, but you cant really accept this surrender; you can either execute the wounded enemy or Oblivion's "activities" are far greater than just shooting and fighting. The point of a ROLE PLAYING GAME is to ROLE PLAY. Skyrim's dumbed down approach to RPG mechanics is an insult to its players, and to the labor of love that was its predecessor. The dragon sequence at Helgen was as robotic and boring as the rest of the game. At one point you can just stand right under the dragon while it stares at you and does absolutely nothing. At least in the intro of oblivion, it made an attempt at immersing you in the game world by having the guards relocate your teeth if you decide to walk away from the game without pausing it. The busywork trade skills in Skyrim add nothing to the game. Sure, you get the satisfaction of making your own items, but can you customize them? No. Is there some cool smithing minigame? No dice. Is there any advantage to spending more money on the materials to make armor than to just buy it from a vendor? Not at all. Oblivion made for an infinitely better RPG experience than Skyrim, if Skyrim can be called an RPG with all of its AAA bell and whistle setpieces and obligatory action focus. I feel insulted that I was marketed Skyrim as an elder scrolls title; It bears no respect nor resemblance to any Elder Scrolls title before it.
is skyrim better then oblivion

Ok I understand the arena part but when you said when you're fighting a dragon you only hit the buttons Lb or RB it's the same with oblivion you fight until you're oppenent stops moving. Activities In oblivion all you really do for activities are shoot,stab, fight in the arena and kill animals. I'm pretty sure in skyrim (considering I play it) for activities you can kill,create (armor, leather, and weapons) not only that but in skyrim you can make ore into ingots. introduction In skyrim when you begin in Helgen (imperial city) you technically go up against a dragon showing what you're up against. In oblivion the introduction is a major let down because of what that creepy high elve dude saying you're going to die.
is skyrim better then oblivion

Skyrim's use of action set pieces and big flashy interest curbing is a far cry from a good design choice in an Elder Scrolls game. TES: Oblivion's strongest design points were its lively game world, immersing roleplaying mechanics, and its approach to player freedom. Skyrim does its damnedest to give the player a free and wide open world, but robs the player of the ability to make mistakes and take actions that have consequences. In Oblivion, the quests were full of choices and decisions you could make that would affect the outcome of the quest. Even if there was a straightforward job like The Arena quest where you had to fight a bunch of pre-set opponents, you still felt like you were doing more than just continually fighting opponent after opponent because it made sure that the player always had some form of agency in the affair. A particular design choice that comes up with the arena questline is subtle, but very effective at giving the player the feeling that his choices matter: If you take off the arena uniform, you are disqualified. You aren't told that taking off the uniform is illegal in the middle of a match via a popup, you just get disqualified and booed out of the arena. Skyrim, for all its merits, has lost the epic scale open world roleplaying aspect of its predecessor. The game is constantly holding your hand streamlining every moment between big fancy dragon fights and cinematic battle. The player's freedom and immersion is an afterthought to Skyrim's insultingly linear action RPG wannabe moments. The dragons are cool and all, but is fighting them really that fun or engaging? You're just pressing the L or R buttons to make its health go down until it stops moving, occasionally making sure that yours doesn't go down as well. Oblivion didn't NEED dragon fights: It had a vast, living, and diverse world that Skyrim seems to lack. Skyrim, while far from a bad game, has lost its soul as an RPG.
woman is inferior

My opponent hasn't made a case for why women are inferior to men; he's simply argued that there have (allegedly) been more intelligent men than women in history. I pointed out that lack of educational achievement for women overall could easily be attributed to social factors that have inhibited women from attending school (or thriving) in the past. As barriers are decreased, women consistently prove to have equal and greater strengths to men in different and similar regards of intellect, depending on the individual. Women have better episodic memory than men, which involves recalling and describing experiences and facts. Men"s edge over women in numerical abilities has somewhat narrowed, and women are getting smarter faster than men according to various global studies [1]. Pro hasn't proven that women's intellect is inferior even though it might be different. "Sociology and Anthropology Studies show that women speak and think more in a web fashion. Men think and talk more like a tunnel... women have a broader and more empathetic understanding of undercurrents, sensitivities, and contexts. Women's 'web thinking' perceives many varied elements and connections" [2]. Consider the fact that women outscore men on IQ tests; women outscore men in trivia; and a 2008 Higher Education Policy Institute report said women are not only more likely to get into better schools, they"re also more likely to outperform the men once there [3]. This contributes to my theory that as women are given more opportunities to succeed (equal to men) they rise to the challenge of exemplifying intellect that is greater than or equal to their male peers. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] https://www.quora.com... [3] http://www.redorbit.com...
woman is inferior

that was like 5 woman but you can think of 1000 man any second and every one will be able to think of smart man most people in the world could not think of smart woman. woman only recently eclipsed man in average iq because school helps woman and bullies man and gay dont breed. IQ has dropped by 14 points since the Victorian era. Woman is leading the world into deeper and deeper degeneracy. Salon magazine posted a pro-pedophile article. What is up woman? Bruce Jenner is seen as a hero. He was in his mid-sixties when he decided to do this. He has young daughters who will no doubt be emotionally affected by it. This is because of woman. Woman cause man to act stupid. Woman make up 99% of hell's inhabitants according to the Hadith. Woman is better at making kids, woman have been more unhappy now with rights than before without rights. Woman is happier as a pet.
woman is inferior

Indeed, Marie Curie is widely considered to be the smartest woman of all time. But then there is also... Emilie Chatelet, who combined Isaac Newton"s (IQ=215) definition of energy (E=mv) with Gottfried Leibniz" (IQ=200) definition of energy (E=mv") with Willem Gravesande"s brass balls clay surface impact experiments (see: Leiden University) to synthesize the first version of the conservation of energy (vis viva into vis mortua). http://www.eoht.info... In ancient Greece, Hypatia was said to have had a superior intelligence which surpassed all of the other philosophers of her time, and her accomplishments in music and science paled all others. Her IQ was thought to be between 180 and 200. She qualifies as a genius. http://www.eoht.info... And what about Emmy Noether, who was described by David Hilbert, Albert Einstein and others as the most important woman in the history of mathematics? In physics, Noether's theorem explains the fundamental connection between symmetry and conservation laws. http://www.eoht.info... Surely history (and present day) is riddled with women who are incredibly smart. Yet that is irrelevant to the resolution. Pro has the burden of proving that women are overall inferior to men, and this means by any/many/all standards. Pro has thus far only introduced intelligence as a standard for superiority, but others ought to be taken into consideration. For example women can give birth; men can not. Women also have a higher pain tolerance than men. http://abcnews.go.com... Women have better memories, are better multi-taskers, better decision making abilities, they're better at finding things and better at cooperating. http://www.sutbeat.com... Moreover, Pro has failed to prove that women are of inferior intellect to men anyhow. And furthermore, lack of educational achievement for women overall could easily be attributed to social factors that have inhibited women from attending school (or thriving) in the past. As barriers are decreased, women consistently prove to have equal and greater strengths to men in different and similar regards, depending on the individual. Pro has not fulfilled his burden.
Non-random mutations drive evolution

To answer that, I only need to quote your link. “In this case, it could be that there are only a few solutions in the evolutionary space,” Dr. Xavier said.I've already explained the science behind this. I'll emphasize an underlying point however. The article focused on one gene, possibly the most limited gene of the organism. Who knows what other changes were made genetically that effect the outcome. You don't, and I don't. They probably weren't worth mentioning to us, as we aren't smart enough, not being scientists, to see any correlation in the vastness of the oucomes. The article shows only a common trait in a single gene efecting only two components, second controlling the first. It's not that all the family lines mutated, it's that the one's who didn't, died out in the mutation vs environment effect I've so vigurously explained. The mutations are randomly given from a set of possibilities.[1][1]http://dictionary.reference.com... "A process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen."
Non-random mutations drive evolution

You don't get the same "random" mutation in every single case, if it is truly random. No, you get the same mutation 24 out of 24 times, which clearly shows the mutation was not random. Organisms obviously have a mechanism for adapting exactly what they need for their environment. Out of millions of possible mutations, if not billions, how do organisms usually find the exact mutation they need to adapt? The two articles I provided show that mutations can be predictable, given enough information. In the first case, it is easy to predict that the next experiment will produce the EXTRA TAILS> Why THAT particular mutation, time and time again? Because the organism need it to survive.
Non-random mutations drive evolution

I am not arguing for Intelligent design, nor do I believe in that. That being said, there should be SOME way to prove that mutations are random, and so far, I haven't seen it. I have seen plenty of studies showing very obvious NON randomness in mutation. Here are two. In both cases, the mutation fit the need of the environment perfectly, and were repeated in experiments. Especially in the experiment with the extra tails, in which ALL of the tests the organisms grew extra tails, with the same exact genetic mutation. http://www.nytimes.com... "To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same gene, called FleN." http://www.nature.com... "In the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions"
Non-random mutations drive evolution

It's difficult, if not impossible, to argue for something based in non-evidence with evidence, don't you think? The scientific theory of random mutation based evolution is founded on a lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. I can't verywell reach into my non-evidence and display that to you. The only real argument to be made against your position is the nullification of your "facts". That leaves me to start with the underlying argument of intelligent design, as the opposite of random, being non-random, is dependent on the precision of choice. To that argument, I implore you recognize the reality of fact versus belief, and belief is nullified in the face of science and fact. If you stray away from intelligent design yet argue that evolution is non-random, you have no grounds for argument as there's no evidence to suggest anything other than random mutation. There's been an argument made that the effects of the mutation aren't random, and as the DNA is scattered across the dominant species do to environmental benefits, but then the effect is given reason, not the mutation itself. For instance, to reiterate [Neil Degrasse Tyson: Cosmos], if there are brown bears in the antarctic, and along one of their family lines, there's a genetic mutation and the brown bear is born with White fur, being what we now call a polar bear, the polar bear will better blend in with their stark white environment and be able to hunt their prey better than the less camouflaged brown bear. In this, the mutation is random, being a misspelled DNA code within the family line, an error that can not be predicted through any kind of study taking causation correlation into consideration. This bear existing alone does not count as evolution, evolution happens when the White bear is better able to feed his family than the brown bear, and the white bear has more white bear children, and that trend continues until the polar bear becomes a species of the bear family. This is not random, but this is not mutation, the is the passing on the genes, gene's that originated randomly. The understanding of evolution is random mutation of DNA that spreads over time to create a species. This change in special dominance within the environment over time is the non-random evolutionary part of the process, but the mutation itself is random as the topic is "non-random mutation."