BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

According to, http://www.history.com...;, “the Vietnam War was a long, costly armed conflict that pitted the communist regime of North Vietnam and its southern allies, known as the Viet Cong, against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States.” Consequently, more than 3 million people were killed, the U.S. forces retreated and Vietnam was united under Communist control two years later. I chose this song because I love The Beatles. This song talks about changing the world and a revolution. “Don't you know it's gonna be all right? All right, all right!” These lyrics evoke the little hope that the people at home have during periods of war. “There is also an extra beat at the end of the last chorus, the result of an accidental bad edit during the mixing process that was left uncorrected at Lennon's request.” I’ve always thought this was interesting and fitting. People make mistakes and sometimes you can’t change them. Lennon didn’t change it, even though he has a chance to. “We all want to change your head/You tell me it's the institution/Well, you know/You better free you mind instead.” Free your head of your worries and relax and listen to the music, or be free from your thoughts and “rock out.” Since my dear opponent has kindly claimed his other songs, I'll make a dibs for "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen (my very favourite rock song.) http://www.youtube.com...
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

Alright, this song is called "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival. A legendary band which rose to prominence in the vietnam war era. Their songs were often in protest to the war, and are probably the most notable protest band. They revolutionized classic rock, and paved the way for more artists to enter in the genre. This particular song is talking about how unlucky the singer is, to be dropped down in Vietnam. I was going with "Eve of Destruction" by Barry Mcguire, but I figured that didn't have the same classic vibe. I also had a short deliberation on whether I should go about using "All along the Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix.http://www.youtube.com...
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

So far I remain undefeated, and I'm not ready to break that streak. This edition is Classic rock, and I'll be facing off against the legendary, Esociallbookworm. The rules are simple. Each round you will post a music video, accompanied by a 200 character synopsis. You may not use the same band or song as your opponent. Failure to follow the round struction equals a conduct subtraction. Twice, and a S&G point. My opponent should say "I accept" in round 1. All songs should be classic rock.Round 2: Vietnam War Round 3: RandomRound 4: 70's classic rockRound 5: Randomhttp://www.youtube.com...
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

Thanks for a wonderful debate. Sorry again, I don’t control the font anymore. I don’t know what happens there. I would like to point out Jif did not follow his own rules again, despite warning him. I was going to change this to something with The Rolling Stones, but Queen was calling my name. http://www.youtube.com... For the last round, I’ll use the song my mum and sister couldn’t get my dad me to stop singing for two whole weeks. They had to put us to sit and play other songs and when that didn’t work, my mum threatened not to cook for us- we almost burned down the house once and then shut up. Bohemian Rhapsody, to me, is one of the greatest rock songs. It’s completely random and not at the same time. The tones used are varying and a myriad of instruments are integrated to form the classic. For those of you voters, who need reassurance that this song is suitable for this debate, I’d glady clarify. I did my own research because I really wanted to use this song. It’s right there at number 7 on the first link: http://ultimateclassicrock.com... http://www.digitaldreamdoor.com... ---- I was told some people couldn't access Poison. Well here's another video. Hopefully this one works: http://www.youtube.com... ----- Enjoy. Have fun reading, listening and voting. Thanks again Jif. This was fun. Now go sleep! With that, I bid you all good night.
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

Alrigh, I feel the need to protest the above song. Its not exactly classic rock, and while it does have rock elements, its doesn't really fit the theme. Its more of a ballad. Anyways, my next song is "American Pie", sung by Don Mclean, and is a classic rock song. It seems to be a mix of multiple elements in story form. You will hear references to the cold war, american pop culture, and other random themes. Don Mclean never actually specified what the song was about, choosing to leave it up to the listeners. Anyways, another song I can be captivated with all night.Thanks for the battle Esocial :)http://www.youtube.com...
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

http://www.youtube.com... Penultimately, having to pick one song was a torturous decision. Okay, so honestly speaking, I was torn between choosing “Let it Be” by the Beatles or “Imagine” by Lennon. It literally hurt my heart to choose one. Let’s face it, my weakness is the Beatles. “Imagine all the people/ Sharing all the world… You may say I’m a dreamer/ But I’m not the only one/ I hope some say you’ll join us/ And the world will live as one.” These lyrics speak to me in a way my words can barely describe. They make the ‘dreams’ of people evident and have you thinking. The amount of people on this planet is so great and the amount of dreams and aspirations are beautifully depressing when you think of it: how they might be so genuine and loving but may not come true. As an avid "day dreamer," who got in trouble for staring out the window in Elementary School at the sky, imagination is my best friend. Therefore, I love to imagine and be a "dreamer," like Lennon, without the drugs. I would like to remind Jif before our last round to please follow his own rules and post his 200 words along with his music video. Once again, I still have dibs on Bohemian Rhapsody!
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

I'm sure all of you say it coming...... Aerosmith. Not even words can describe the awesomeness of this group. The songs called "Dream on", and was produced in 1973. It is considered the first mainstream classic rock song, and is the most epic power ballad of the early 70's, an era of revolution in the music buisness.http://www.youtube.com...;
DDO Song Battles - A Jifpop09 Series: Classic Rock edition

http://www.youtube.com... Firstly, I would like to compliment Jif on his song choice I was momentarily distracted by the awesomeness of the song that I didn’t realize for a second I had to post my argument. Next, I’d like to send him a virtual tap across the internet. Jifpop09, in your rules, we are to post a video, followed by a 200 word character synopsis. I have been working feverishly on mine and you just post a 50 word paragraph! I counted by the way, if you think I am lying. “Was it something I said or something I did /Did my wordsnot come out right /Though I tried not to hurt you /Though I tried /But I guessthat's why they say” [1] “Every rose has its thorn /Just like every night has it'sdawn /Just like every cowboy sings his sad, sad song /Every rose has it's thorn” “But now I hear you found somebody new /And that I nevermeant that much to you /To hear that tears me up inside /And to see you cuts melike a knife /I guess” This song is just amazing to me. It has to do with love and everything in this world having a “dark part.”It accurately places an analogy on roses having thorns to beautiful people having their own ‘thorns’ that could potentially hurt someone. It also (in the first set of lyrics [1] I posted) exemplifies the effect that words have on others, and love. It shows how desperately the singer loves the person that when he sees her, he feels such pain, it is compared to the wound given from a knife. I love this song for a few personal reasons, which I won’t share to bore you.Also, I still call Bohemian Rhapsody. The spectators and voters will penalize me if they think the song is irrelevant.
A gun ban in the US

Resolved - A ban on all guns in the US Negative Impact Starting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything. The only effective way to actually implement this idea is by having a buy back accompanying it. A buy back or the removal of guns on a compulsory basis, would incite a great deal of harm in the US. People want to have guns, and they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution. Forcing a removal of those guns, would have long term negative impacts that could lead to another civil war. Countless people have said they would not give back their guns if a buy back happened, and others said they would fight or defend their right to bear arms. The overall negative impact of trying to force people to give up their guns, or stopping their right to defend themselves is a net detriment in the US 0 effect Banning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming. More regulation but not a ban The more effective thing would be to issue stronger background checks, limit high capacity magazines, etc. It is something that would have a more positive effect without the fallout of a total ban. More regulation can be a good thing, but a total ban would result in citizens fighting back. Guns reduce Crime If you ban gun from civilians, they lose their self defense. Guns will still be around via under ground purchase. A citizen has the right to defend themselves and allowing guns in homes actually reduces robberies and other types of crime because it acts a deterrent. Allowing criminals to have guns, while removing them from civilians would actually increase the crime and murder rate by a significant margin.
God used Evolution

Rebutting my opponent's argumentsI find it ironic how you claim my arguments are irrelevant, while you post Bible quotes to try and prove that God used evolution to bring about different types of species. There was absolutely nothing in that Bible quote which indicated that God used evolution. The Bible actually contradicts the idea of man coming from a common ancestor we share with the great apes, by claiming that man came from Adam and Eve. I find it strange how you use a book claiming that man was created ex nihilo, to try and make a case for God using evolution to bring man about."Your first argument on why God didn't use evolution is not an argument on whether or not God used evolution, but it sounds more like you are trying to disprove God's existence." My apologies if it came off this way, however I was just making the statement that natural section doesn't have properties which fit properly with the idea of an all powerful all loving God." "Your second argument does not give any evidence whatsoever. It is more like two facts that don't have anything to do with one another."My second argument was just to point out that evolution has nothing to do with the earth forming, because it seemed like you were ignorant to that fact. Continuing my caseP1: If there was a super-natural cause of evolution, then beings bound to the natural world trying to discover the mechanism/ cause most likely would not succeed without revelation.P2: Beings bound to the natural world discovered the mechanism/ cause (Natural Selection) without revelation.P3. There was most likely not a super-natural cause of evolution. Also, if something can be explained naturally and you still unnecessarily invoke a super-natural cause then once more, you are violating Occam's Razor [1]. You will be hard pressed to find a scientific theory that violates this "rule of thumb" in science...Re-Cap1. Using a source that claims man was created ex nihilo to provide a case for God using evolution like my opponent did, is self contradictory.2. If there was a direct supernatural influence to evolution, we most likely would not be aware if it without revelation but we are aware of the cause of evolution and how it works. This makes it less likely that the super-natural is responsible in my opinion because we are bound to the natural world until God hypothetically reveals other worlds to us.3. If something can be explained naturally, then invoking the super-natural unnecessarily is just piling on assumptions and violating Occam's Razor.ConclusionGod did not "use evolution".Source(s)[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
God used Evolution

I do not disagree that I may have stated my original argument wrong. I believe that it is likely that God used evolution to create man. Pointing out your comment on my argument that God likely used evolution to bring humans into being, You say it's a "Bare assertion fallacy. What ca you provide to support your claim". Proof: Genesis states that God created the earth in six days. The book of Genesis was written by Moses. God gave Moses visions of how he crated the world. Moses could only comprehend so much of it, so he put into the simplest of words. He uses the word "day" ( on the first "day", God created light, On the second "day" God created water, etc.). The use of the word (day) implies a time period, not necessarily twenty four hours. The day could have been anywhere from twenty four hours to a million years. While I don't doubt that God would have the power create the earth in seven days, it would seem more likely that He would've taken His time, especially to create His mot important creation : man. Your first argument on why God didn't use evolution is not an argument on whether or not God used evolution, but it sounds more like you are trying to disprove God's existence. While I would not hesitate to continue with that debate, it is not the topic of this one. Therefore your first argument is irrelevant. Your second argument does not give any evidence whatsoever. It is more like two facts that don't have anything to do with one another. Therefore, your arguments are irrelevant.
God used Evolution

Rebutting My Opponent's Aruments"God used Evolution to create the earth" Evolution is a theory regarding how species evolved from previous species not a theory regarding the formation of the Earth [1]. You could have made a case for God using evolution to create humans (I would have refuted that too, but that's besides the point), but using evolution as a theory to create earth is flat out false."Evolution all by itself is far fetched and unlikely"Occam's Razor is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect [2]. You are making the extra assumption that God is involved when the theory of evolution works without God, therefore it is more likely that evolution probably occured without God according to Occam's Razor (Occam's Razor isn't always absolute, but using it as an argument is certainly more convincing that bare assertions)."it is not unlikely that God may have used Evolution to create the earth."Bare assertion fallacy. What reasoning can you provide to support your claim? Arguments for why God didn't use evolution 1. Around 99% of the species to ever live in this planet have gone extinct. Museums are displays of failed experiments biological experiments, it is unlikely than an omnipotent God would create life this way. Natural Secection is a blind mechanism which makes more sense of all the extinct species on this earth.2. It is more than likely that if God exists, he didn't use evolution to create the Earth becasue the earth forming has to do with cosmology (I would assume), and Evolution has to with Biology.Conclusion God most likely did not "use evolution"Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor PS. I'm not sure how to properly post pictures, so my apologies if it didn't work.
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

Hm, I was going to go into an angle of refuting your definition and what not, but time restrictions force me to play under your definition. Very well, I'll go along with your definition. I would urge that a closer examination of your definition necessitates the following: a leader is greater if the social influence he exerts is a product of his own will, and not due to external circumstances/luck. Simply put, any lucky events that help my goal during my leadership does not necessarily reflect good leadership on my part (just that I'm lucky, or what not). In that case, Hitler was a good leader because he had impressive oratory power, charisma, and a perfect moment for taking advantage of the German people due to the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles, depression in 30's, etc. However, a large part of his success relies on the fact that the German people were particularly vulnerable -- at that point of time, many were out the streets looking for job, and in comes Hitler promising populist ideals and an idealized goal. Couple this with his charismatic public persona, and you have a nation quickly bowing down to his feet. While this is impressive in some ways, if the political and economic atmosphere of Germany were different (i.e. better), I suspect the outcome of the Nazi party and Hitler would be much more different, and insignificant. A counter example to your challenge of finding a "better leader" would be Alexander the Great. He is without a doubt of of the greatest military commanders, and his influence was immense (pushing Greek culture into foreign land, thus Hellenistic civilization).
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

Thank you Con, While my opponent is correct that evaluating any particular political leader as better or worse then another is tricky and depends on ones personal views. But I did provide a basis for which one could judge leaders, I defined leadership as the "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". My opponent conceded that Hitler was a great leader under this definition, what he went on to say though is that his other actions that led to the downfall of Germany disqualify him. Under the proposed definition this would not be of any great significance, he had in large part the support of the people up until the very end and for sometime afterword, this would make him an even better selection for best considering most politicians do not hold large popular support throughout a war. Since my opponent has failed to prove under my definition(which I guess we are accepting) that Hitler was a bad leader and has also not brought up a better leader under the definition, my argument still stands until such a time as he can prove otherwise
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

First, I want to note that evaluating whether a particular historical figure is the "best leader" of all time is inherently tricky and vague, given that 1. we don't have a clear definition of what constitutes a great leader and 2. even if we did, we don't have a specific way of measuring how much of a leader someone is. However, what we can do is approximate. To be frank, I'm uninterested in arguing with my opponent about how Hitler rose to power. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Hitler did astounding things to achieve his position and control over Germany so quickly and effectively - and indeed, I will agree with this assessment. He was particularly adept at deceiving the common people, eliminating any political enemies, and blaming any problems Germany had at the time on someone/something else except himself. That, along with some other factors and his strong willed political goals was a perfect timing for the morale low Germany was going through. However, what my point of contention focuses on is Hitler's conduct during the latter half of WW2. This is particularly relevant as a global war is as a good test for a leader as can be, especially when Hitler positioned himself to be the supreme commander of Germany's military. He had the erroneous central belief that strong will can guarantee victories - this was shown to be blatantly false given the outcome of WW2. Further, he was much too stubborn and suspicious of his subordinates, and a great leader that isolates his people can't be counted as such. Simply put, the characteristics that made him a great leader (strong will) also led to his downfall, as his terrible personality led to horrid military mistakes. Being one of the best leaders of all time does not entail making yourself the supreme commander of your nation's military, and then going on to aid it's downfall.
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

The argument- Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time Leadership has been defined many ways but for the basis of this argument I find this one most all encompassing, leadership is "process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task." (1). If we use this definition we see where Hitler obviously excels in this category, he is one of the greatest orators of his day, and had the German people eating out of his hand. You may be thinking that many men other then Hitler had this ability of influence but we see in Hitler the ability to inspire his people to switch from one distinct political ideology to another without bloodshed. He also brought Germany out of the deep depression they were suffering from in post world war 1 Europe. If we consider only that leadership is the ability of one person to influence others to support a common cause we see no equal to Hitler, no other person in history influenced as many people willingly into supporting one common cause without bloodshed. Having given reasons why Hitler is one of the greatest leaders in history, i ask con to either disprove Hitler was a good leader or suggest a more influential individual in history.
Hitler is one of the best leaders of all time

Thank you Con, I will address your arguments in order of appearance. You say luck is what brought Hitler to power and without the specific conditions of Germany at the time he would not have done as well, im sure this would be the case but most if not all great leaders come at a time that the people need them. Would FDR done as well without the new deal and the great depression?, would the founding fathers had much success if Britain was not taxing the colonies to death?, would Vladimir Lenin have started the communist movement in Russia if conditions for the people were fine?, the answer to all these questions is no. You cant say conditions for Hitlers rise to power were any easier or harder then any other great leader ever known. Another argument Con uses was that Alexander the great as a better leader, this may be true but not under the proposed definition. Alexander(as I will now refer to him) was born into power, he was the son of a king and inherited the throne when he was young. Alexander was a great military leader but he did not convince enemy provinces into joining his empire, unless you consider a siege convincing someone. Alexander took what he wanted by force without concern for the opinions of others. PS. I know alot of people have other things to do then debate.org but could you please bring your argument in a more timely fashion, thank you