BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Music Battle

Thanks for accepting, Subutai. I hope this will be fun. http://www.youtube.com... Love is a deep and beautiful emotion. The power of love lies in nurturing, in compassion for fellow creatures. The interpersonal affection that hinges love together is powerful, and causes pleasure. The social species that we are, humans crave pleasure. And that pleasure is best gained through interpersonal affection. Affection towards someone else, or compassion, will bring one great pleasure, and reduce one's suffering. I've gone through many depressing stages in my life, stages that have been withstood merely due to the pleasure of being greeted by my companion (a dog), and the warm affection shown to me by my parents and close friends. E.E. Cummings wrote, "Love is the whole and more than all." That's why my song today expresses great beauty and significance, and has a perfect net of emotions all tangled together, seemingly loose and chaotic, yet expressing a radiance from within. Yanni's "Felitsa," about his late mother Felitsa Chryssomallis, is that song. It's so clear that Yanni brings every ounce of emotion he can gather into the song. Playing any instrument isn't something mechanical, with a fixed structure. It's something that allows for the free flow of oneself into one's body. I've played the piano and violin before, and I know this -- to have true skill with either instrument, you should be able to exercise every bit of one's body and one's mind. Playing a piano, for instance, isn't just about the movements of fingers. It's about every touch upon a key being light, and slow movements as one finds a rhythm. And Yanni brings that rhythm. The serene smile on his face reflects the happiness that lies in sweet reminiscence of his mother, alongside the hint of sadness at her passing. Yanni is truly skilled, and the song conveys every bit of that complex mixture of emotions, alongside the power of love, within its exceptional music. That's why it's my song for Round 2.
Music Battle

This is a "music battle," where each debater puts their selected songs or pieces of music, and the judges post RFD's on who has the the most beautiful music. There must only be one piece/song per round, and debaters are free to say a few words on why they think their song is great. Debaters are also welcome to comment on why they like/dislike their opponent's piece, or anything relating to their opponent's pieces. In each round (except this one), debaters must (1) post a link to their song, (2) name the song and its artist, and (3) if they want to, comment on the songs. Votes in this debate should not give any points to either side -- judges must only provide RFD's, without actually allotting points against "who do you think won the debate? "
India should attack Pakistan in future

So my dear friend, i know you have a good knowledge but its half. India didnt wanted Pakistan,Bangladesh,Nepal to become a member of LEAGUE OF NATIONS, but on the reverse side India wanted all this as one. Mr Jinnah was the mastermind behind this partision movement.His revue was to make a new MUSLIM country. But the FATHER OF OUR NATION Mr Mohandas Karamchand gandhi was on the opposite side of this, he knewed that there would be a bloodshed on the bodersides of Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab,Rajasthan,etc.Because there was an National uprising to get Independence between the people and they started making their own border without the governments clearance and there was a big bloodshed on the border.And all this happened because of one men Mr Jinnah. I know u have a good general knowledge then you must be knowing that Jammu And Kashmir is a partof Himalaya and India has a big part of Himalaya from the ancient times. When there was the movement of partision under process there was a problem that Jammu and Kashmir will go in whose terrotiry bur the king of Jammu and Kashmir Raja Harisingh choosed India. To oppose that after the Indepence Pakistan attacked India "Indo-Pakistani War of 1947" http://en.wikipedia.org... It was done without the reason but India as a big power repused that attack and other attacks after that. Those are Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 "http://en.wikipedia.org...; Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 "http://en.wikipedia.org...; And the most important that is" KARGIL WAR" in May–July 1999 in which the Pakistan helped Mujahidins by artillery support and some of the mujahidins were Pakistani soldiers as i was telling about coverfire from Pakistan "http://en.wikipedia.org...; So lets come to the Topic your question is "What could you possibly hope to gain by yet another war? What's the point of more bloodshed?" ANSWER: What if there is a country neighbouring you having Nuclear powers as well as terrorist activities? Its true that pakistan can use Nuclear power towards India by helping the terrorists. Many times it is been seen that the Pakistan gives coverfire to terrorists to enter India and now it is a daily morning news. http://newsblaze.com... If Ganhiji would be living these day instead of walking he would use his walking stick for defence. If India will attack Pakistan, and because of new rule there will be good democracy and they will know how to live in modern economic world like how the muslims live in India. They will be have chance to get involved in the modern world.The border between both the countries will get vanished and then we can be a SUPER POWER. "I agree your point that war is not the solution of all problem but sometimes war is only the solution of a problem"
India should attack Pakistan in future

Since India gained its independence from Great Britain after WWII, and Pakistan was divided off to give the muslim population a country of their own, the two countries have fought several wars. Some examples: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... Thousands of soldiers and civilians have been killed, hundreds of thousands more live in misery because of these wars. Kashmir has been a battlefield for half a century now. My question to my opponent: What could you possibly hope to gain by yet another war? What's the point of more bloodshed? This debate is over the premise that India _should_ attack Pakistan. Ignoring the philosophical tangents about the moral basis for that "should," it is self evident that India _should_ do everything in its power to end the conflict and the culture of hatred that creates the terrorists. India _can_ attack Pakistan; given their mutual history, it is very likely that India _will_ attack Pakistan. But it is ludicrous to say that India _should_ perpetuate this stupid and brutal conflict, in defiance of all sense, decency, and even self interest. Surely you are aware that India is fending off communist revolutionaries in its own central states? . http://asiasociety.org... And that both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, raising the potential costs of any military action? India should not attack Pakistan. I return the debate to my opponent; best of luck. C.
The Internet is more useful than frustrating

I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply "vote", which means, according to Merriam Webster, "the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc." 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.
The Internet is more useful than frustrating

First of all, I will refute sewook123's arguments. 1.Educational Difficulties Students can learn that some sites are not trustworthy; and therefore, not use them. In addition, checking for credibility is not a time-taking task. Almost all teachers teach students the consequences of plagiarizing. 2.Technical Difficulties We do not have to learn all of those functions and utilize them. The majority of those functions are not intended for every day use; they are intended for special jobs such as accountant, program developers, etc. 3.Dependence on the Internet sewook123 said, "According to the International Telecommunication Union, more than 60% of the world's population do not use internet"; however, "Slow internet connection or no internet connection frustrates millions everyday" conflicts with the former statement. Therefore, how come the Internet does not frustrate the majority, but frustrates you and other people who have Internet. My Arguments: 1.Online voting Nowadays, with the use of Internet, it has become easier to vote. People can vote online at their homes. 2.Shopping online Whenever people want to buy stuff without having to go to the store. Many people are doing that now, which means shopping online is very easy and convenient. 3. Source of Entertainment Sewook123 said many people are frustrated when a YouTube video is not loading or when a game lags. However, they rarely do; and since those two sites are one of the main sources of entertainment on the Internet, they provide entertainment rather than frustration. In conclusion, the Internet provides entertainment for those who are bored, online shopping and voting for those who are lazy.
The Internet is more useful than frustrating

Two years ago, I had been very excited when our family had an the Internet connection because the Internet is very useful in some aspects. First and foremost, students can utilise the resources on the Internet; and therefore, learners can turn in better work and improve their mark. Likewise, the Internet connects the world together; he Internet enables us to contact anyone with an the Internet. Nonetheless, the overuse of the Internet can cause brain damage. The Internet is very useful because it provides resources for students and makes communication between people easier. The Internet has made communication easier around the world. In the past, sharing a file publicly seemed very hard. However, the wide use of The Internet makes it easier to share files. The benefits of using The Internet also include the fact that more people are becoming socialized. Communication/email servers offer free video or voice calls on The Internet. As a result, office workers can communicate and send files to each other with ease. This also benefits family members because they can contact each other when they are really far away. Not only do The Internet has made communication easier, but also education easier. The Internet contains a vast variety of resources for students or parents to learn more. Although students can use encyclopaedias to help them research, The Internet is more reliable because it has more resources than the encyclopedia. According to the University of Florida, students can "relate their interests on a personal level", which encourages the independence students need. Therefore, students are motivated to do better in schools. Not only do The Internet helps students, but also helps teachers and parents. Parents who have little or no English skills can depend upon The Internet to help them. In addition, parents can be more involved in their child"s education by accessing online school resources such as library website and the school website. Students can also use The Internet if their textbook(s) do not make sense or if they need more information. In brief, The Internet is a powerful tool to help improve education for both students and parents.
This house believes, "Media is vicious" (India)

Media is a wide reaching tool that shapes opinions and mood, and in a democracy like India it is important not to be swept away by opinions which are planted by the media but see for yourself and formulate an opinion. The media is so powerful and influential that it has even been compared to god himself. However, media has come to misuse this power, fabricating news to suit itself. The debate will center around is whether media is vicious or true, honest and sincere in the way it works.
If so desired, Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation

Recap In the previous round I refuted the relevance of Pros argument and made two contentions of my own. In this round Pro did not acknowledge my rebuttals or my contentions, and continued what I have already shown to be an irrelevant argument. I extend my previous argument here. Rebuttal Pro begins with an example of the satellite states of the former Soviet Union. I fail to see how comparing the breakup of a massive empire compares to a country allowing one of its states to break free. More importantly however, Pro simply asserts that this happened but gives no reason why it is good. Without that, there is nothing for me to refute. Pro then gives us an example of South Sudan (who coincidentally has oil just like Texas) breaking free and gaining their independence. Again, Pro does not show why this is good so neither of these examples have any value. Pro then gives us yet another example, this time of Tibet who is currently struggling for independence and states that the support of the international community “must prevail”, which apparently confirms his resolution. However, simply stating that something “must prevail” does not confirm anything. Pro has not made any arguments to support even his own contentions, let alone the resolution. Conclusion This debate was clearly about the decisions that should be made by the US. I made two contentions that clearly show why the US should deny secession which Pro did not refute. If Pro disagreed with my interpretation of the resolution he should have addressed it in this round, yet he instead continued to show an argument that does not apply, and even if his argument did apply he still did not support it. With that I see no reason to go further. The conclusion here is obvious.
If so desired, Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation

With many thanks to my opponent for his eloquent and comprehensive rebuttal, I should like to apologise in advance for the brevity of my reply - I only have a very short window of time before the deadline is up, and it thought it better to write something, no matter how brief, rather than forfeit the round. So, my argument will be all-in-one, as folows: Consider almost the countries that have gained independence in recent years - many have done so against the will of their former masters. Take the satellite states of the Soviet Union, for example. There was huge resistance from Moscow to Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria et al from breaking away from the Warsaw Pact, but they weren't Soviet Republics. However, after the fall of communism, countries such as Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan broke free from Russian rule and were recognised by the UN. And just this week a new nation was formed, South Sudan, although this was no velvet revolution - most of Sudan's oil reserves are in the south (just like much of America's oil reserves are in the south, particularly Texas) and the (formerly united) Sudanese government fought bitterly against the south having independence. Nevertheless, the people of the south fought and won their right to self-governance and South Sudan was duly recognised by the UN. Of course, Tibet is still under the control of the Chinese, but the UN and the West have been calling upon Beijing to allow the Tibetans to govern themselves. This may well be against Chinese or Tibetan national law, but the will of the people to gain independence, with the support of the international community must prevail and that's why Texas should be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if Texans choose that as their destiny. Thank you.
If so desired, Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation

Due to strict character limits my arguments will be brief. US: the United States of America Resolution The resolution states that Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation if it so chooses. By the word “must” I interpret this to indicate that the US has no justified right, or reason to deny the secession of Texas, and will proceed based on this interpretation. Rebuttals Pros round 1 argument can be summed up by saying that Texans are proud of their heritage, unhappy with US decision making, and would be better off if they seceded. However this argument is inconsistent with his resolution. By stating that “Texas must be allowed…”, and that “the US must recognize Texas sovereignty…” , the debate is clearly about decisions that should be made by the US. On that note Pro has not yet made any case for the resolution other then emotional sentiment, which does not take into account the criteria from which the US should base its decision. Counter Argument: 1. The US has legal authority to deny secession Contrary to popular myth, Texas does not have any legal right to secede from the US. There are no articles in the Texas constitution stating such language, and in fact it only demonstrates that the Texas constitution is subordinate to the US constitution(1): “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States” In addition, the US constitution places restrictions on the rights of states to do many things such as coin money, enter into any treaty, emit bills of credit, etc…(2). These are all things that a state would need to be independent. Lastly, the Supreme Court also ruled against it in Texas v. White in 1869(3): “When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States”. 2. The US has justified reason to deny secession: Texas may have entered into the Union differently then any other state but its legal rights on the matter are no different. Without the states there is no United States. Allowing a state to secede sets a dangerous precedent that any state can secede if it so chooses. Aside from being a major distraction, this could have disastrous consequences. Our country will only succeed in solving its problems if it is unified. Conclusion While Pro has yet to provide support for his resolution, I have shown that the US does have a legal right, and a justified reason to deny secession of Texas. (1) . http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...;(art 1, sec 1)(2) . http://www.archives.gov...;(art 1, sec 10)(3) . http://www.law.cornell.edu... (par 6)
If so desired, Texas must be allowed to become an independent sovereign nation

Texas is the only state that was an independent nation before joining the Union and today Texans are still very independent people and extremely proud of their heritage. [1] These days, many Texans feel that their interests are not being properly represented at a federal level and that, as the second largest economy in the United States [2], Texas would be better off if it were to secede and become an independent republic once again. [3] That's why I affirm that the State of Texas should organise a referendum on independence and, if the outcome was in favour of secession, Texas should declare itself a sovereign nation state, and the United States of America must recognise Texan sovereignty and not interfere with the Texans' right to self-governance. Thank you. [1] http://www.cnn.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Oregon's "Death With Dignity" Act should be a national law

The state of Oregon has enacted a law in which terminally ill patients are able to request medication to hasten their impending demise. It is not physician-assisted suicide, nor are the patients required to take the medication, but it is an option to opt out of the painful death they are awaiting. The process by which patients receive the fatal dose is in place to prevent hasty decisions. First,the law states that, in order to participate, a patient must be: 1) 18 years of age or older, 2) a resident of Oregon, 3) capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself, and 4) diagnosed with a terminal illness that will lead to death within six (6) months. It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met. Secondly, patients who meet certain criteria can request a prescription for lethal medication from a licensed Oregon physician. The physician must be a Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) or Doctor of Osteopathy (D.O.) licensed to practice medicine by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon. The physician must also be willing to participate in the Act. Physicians are not required to provide prescriptions to patients and participation is voluntary. Additionally, some health care systems (for example, a Catholic hospital or the Veterans Administration) have prohibitions against practicing the Act that physicians must abide by as terms of their employment. Finally, there are steps to be taken for the patient to be given the medication. 1) the patient must make two oral requests to the attending physician, separated by at least 15 days; 2) the patient must provide a written request to the attending physician, signed in the presence of two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the patient; 3) the attending physician and a consulting physician must confirm the patient's diagnosis and prognosis; 4) the attending physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable of making and communicating health care decisions for him/herself; 5) if either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder (such as depression), the patient must be referred for a psychological examination; 6) the attending physician must inform the patient of feasible alternatives to the Act including comfort care, hospice care, and pain control; 7) the attending physician must request, but may not require, the patient to notify their next-of-kin of the prescription request. A patient can rescind a request at any time and in any manner. The attending physician will also offer the patient an opportunity to rescind his/her request at the end of the 15-day waiting period following the initial request to participate. Physicians must report all prescriptions for lethal medications to the Oregon Health Authority, Vital Records. As of 1999, pharmacists must be informed of the prescribed medication's ultimate use. I propose that this act be made a national law, because it's the humane choice, and the parameters for the law make it legally acceptable.