BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Johnny Cash was a better artist than Elvis Pressly

1. "Prove that someone can be a better artist (That is how can a human be better than another human ? ). " Johnny Cash was better because A. His career was longer B. When Elvis was still alive Johnny had his own show "The Johnny Cash Show" C. Johnny Cash had more success in his long career2. " Prove that art can be measured (not the same thing as in nr.1)" Yes art can be measured such as quality of the art. Would you Rather pay a million dollars for a drawing by a four year old or a painting by a very famous artist.4. "Mentioned but incorrectly plus he ignored his first three burdens. " You never defined how it should be measured you just said it needed to state how Johnny Cash is measured, and you never stated a specific way of doing so.5. "Prove that alternative ways of approaching the whole thing is likely to be erroneous. " You can judge both arts on music, action, personality and career success6. Compressions- 1. Longer career Johnny Cash had a longer career (1955ï¿½€"2003) than Elvis Presley (1954ï¿½€"77).2. Success- Johnny Cash had more awards, record sales and even had a tv show3. Personality- Johnny Cash was a simple man and it showed. He was kind to everyone and always put on a good show for all of his fans. He did things that most artist wouldn't do. He played at Folsom Prison, and San Quinton as well. He also during many concerts would turn his back on the crowd. This was something not many artist did due to the flying debre that may have been thrown. Johnny Cash was a regular man just like the rest of us and thats why he was so well liked, because we could relate to him. "He was friendly with every United States President starting with Richard Nixon. He was closest with Jimmy Carter, who became a very close friend. [49] He stated that he found all of them personally charming, noting that this was probably essential to getting oneself elected. ". http://en.wikipedia.org......Instead
Johnny Cash was a better artist than Elvis Pressly

And because you didn't fulfill the many burdens you had which are listed in round two. I don't have anything to do I mean, look: Burdens Of Proof: 1. Not even mentioned. 2. Not even mentioned. 3. Not even mentioned though he did measure art. 4. Mentioned but incorrectly plus he ignored his first three burdens. 5. Not even mentioned 6. No comparison has been made hence no case has been made either. For fun Ill present a case for Elvis Presley (Its Presley and not Pressly) "Elvis Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) is the king of rock 'n' roll. Presley brought a sense of showmanship, of being the center stage in a way that the big bands and 40's singers never did. And he brought sex on stage, with his pelvic gyrations and dance steps that shocked and titillated youngsters while horrifying their parents. (Rock hasn't lost that aspect either, though the cutting edge has splintered into punk, industrial, metal, and various other genres that continue to excite the audience and horrify their parents to this day)" . http://www.askdavetaylor.com... "Elvis Aaron Presleya (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977) was one of the most popular American singers of the 20th century. A cultural icon, he is widely known by the single name Elvis. He is often referred to as the "King of Rock and Roll" or simply "the King". "wikipedia. org "His music and his personality, fusing the styles of white country and black rhythm and blues, permanently changed the face of American popular culture. His following was immense, and he was a symbol to people the world over of the vitality, rebelliousness, and good humor of his country. " President Jimmy Carter Elvis is a legend and when it comes to legends there's no good or bad, only personal preference. Incidentally you've to fulfill your burdens or lose like an irresponsible Genghis Khan. Thank you 'n' rock and roll for ever ! ! !
Johnny Cash was a better artist than Elvis Pressly

1. Music- The music Johnny Cash wrote and played sounded like no other. "Ring of fire" was written with Mexican trumpets in the background this gave the song a very distinguished sound. "Walk the Line" opening melody is played backwards on the guitar, and the sound is unforgettable. Johnny Cash was the only artist to be in the writers, country and rock hall of fames. He has recorded more than 1,500 songs and they can be found on about 500 albums, counting only American and European releases he has placed 48 singles on the Billboard Hot 100 Pop charts, about the same number as the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys. He is one of the very few people in the history of music to sell more than 50 million records. . http://www.sing365.com... 2. Image- During his long career Johnny Cash was seen as a rebel, and a man who spoke for those who couldn't speak. "Bitter Tears: Ballads of the American Indian" was an album about the troubles of native Americans. Johnny also played his music at many Prisons. In the 1970s he earned the name "Man in Black" because he usually performed in all black. He also got his outlaw image in the 1960s when he drank and did drugs very heavily. He continued to struggle with drugs all of his life but never used as much as before. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Long Career- Johnny Cash had a longer career (1955–2003) than Elvis Presley (1954–77). Elvis indeed was more popular than Johnny, but popularity doesn't always mean you are better. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Johnny Cash was a better artist than Elvis Pressly

This round is basically a waste since my opponent has not yet attempted to fulfill his burden of proof. What is his burden of proof? Here's a list: 1. Prove that someone can be a better artist (That is how can a human be better than another human ?). 2. Prove that art can be measured (not the same thing as in nr.1) 3. Prove that you're measuring art correctly. 4. Prove that when measured Johny Cash and not Elvis is the better artist. 5. Prove that alternative ways of approaching the whole thing is likely to be erroneous. 6. Finally I imagine you'll be (if fulfilling your burdens) providing many links and comparisons. That is if you prove that one can measure art and the way to measure it, you'll have the burden of measuring and comparing the best and the worst of both artist. Incidentally there may be something I'm not thinking of but this is probably what you'll end up doing. Definitions: Better: "of superior quality or excellence: a better coat; a better speech." Art: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." Dictionary.com Thank you and I hope you too will enjoy this debate !
Johnny Cash was a better artist than Elvis Pressly

Born:February 26, 1932 in Kingsland, Arkansas Name: J.R Cash (Johnny Cash was his stage name) Johnny Cash was an ordinary man with a passion for music. His family worked in the fields of Dyess, Arkansas. When in 1950 he left Dyess, Arkansas for Pontiac, Michigan. His time in Michigan was short lived when he decided to join the U.S Air Force. This is where his music career started to take off. Johnny started a group called the Landsberg Barbarians. This gave him a chance to play live shows. I will state and explain my contentions in the next round an have my summary and rebuttals in the last round. Good luck to my opponent! I thank you for this wonderful opportunity to debate this topic.
Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that goes as follows: A cat is locked in a room where he has a fifty percent chance of dying in the next 30 minutes. If one waits that time, is the cat dead or alive? Schrodinger and Einstein, and the majority of scientists both in their era and since, agree that it is both. The cat exists in a quantum state of being both dead and alive, in equal proportions, until you open the door and find out.If there was, say, a 2/3 chance that the cat would die, then the quantum state would be that much more dead than alive. The same applies to any probability.Why does this matter? The way I see it, the evidence no one has yet found is less likely to exist than to not exist. This being applied to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, the evidence exists in a quantum state of existence and nonexistence, and is nonexistent more than it is existent.To go back to the example you originally brought up, this means God exists in a state of combined nonexistence and existence. Depending on the trust one puts in the Bible (aka Faith), existence could hold more or less sway than nonexistence, and vice versa. But no matter what, there is always at least a little sliver of nonexistence and at least a little sliver of existence.But back to what I said earlier: I am a pragmatist. I think that if no evidence has yet to be uncovered for any given claim, the probability is that none ever will. Ergo, there is no claim I view as true until I see evidence that supports it.Thank you for a very fun, engaging, and entertaining debate. Please, though, try to be a little nicer and a little less bigoted.
Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

My opponent is required to Accept this claim and respond to it alone as the full thesis of his argument, "Not being able to find evidence does not mean that there is none". It is abhorrent arrogance to suggest that there is no evidence simply because you personally have not seen or FOUND any. In such a case you, you have no right to assert that there is no evidence available. It is idiocy to attest that evidence is non existent because you are ignorant to it. My Opponent is required to address this Topic as his round one and two debate, so evaluate his arguments carefully, and we can anticipate that THAT alone is what he will respond to next. I have made my case.
Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

I am not a troll. I am voicing my honest opinion. YOU brought up God in saying, "I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists". Religion/God is the best/ most applicable field this debate could be in reference to. I specified a topic for the sake of clarity in my argument. My statement, with "God and "religion" replaced with whatever subject is chosen, would work just the same. I am a pragmatist on all issues. Please do not make assumptions. I can read very well, thank you very much, as you should have been able to notice through the fact that I responded to your argument. Dictionary.com defines 'bigot' as noun 1. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. I am not being intolerant of your opinion. I am debating it via an example. In fact. I would have to say that you are being intolerant of mine. Oh, and also: I am not a "tard". I am not on my way to becoming one, either. Retardation results from serious genetic disorders, most of which are noticeable from birth and of which, I have none.
Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

I am a pragmatist. I view everything in practical terms. I do not care about what happens in theory, I care about reality. There is a chance that evidence supporting God exists. There is a chance my entire life is a dream. There is a chance that a lot of things are true, but until I see evidence, I will not make assertions. God's existence is an assertion. A suspect's guiltiness is an assertion. God's existence is the claim to be proven, not the other way around. I claim that in practicality, no evidence for God exists, because none has come into my view. And for me, theory is just that- theory- and it has no affect on life.
Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none

Just because YOU Personally are unable to find evidence does not mean that evidence Does not exist. Someone can not claim that, " There is NO evidence" of something. That is an arrogant not ignorant claim. "To that which you are ignorant you shall not make claims." This refers to all scientific method in evaluating anything from religion, chemistry and literature, to things like thieves and germs. I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists simply because they have not done what need to be done. I also call BIGOT on all those who claim there is no evidence to something because they can't personally Source the information on the Internet. LOL
Stand Your Ground!!! PoW!

Well this is disappointing. I extend my arguments.While I have the time and characters."Z case" is the Zimmerman-Martin Case, I was low on characters.C[1, 2, 3...] are contentions and R[1, 2, 3 ...] are rebuttals.Here are the sources from the last round, so they're on the same page:Sources:[1] http://www.reuters.com...[2] http://www.miamiherald.com...[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[4] http://abcnews.go.com...[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com...[7] http://newsinfo.nd.edu...[8] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[9] http://www.floridatoday.com...[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...I hope these fofeitures aren't reoccuring. My arguments still stand.
Stand Your Ground!!! PoW!

Every man has a divine right to life and should not be restrained from defending that right in order to maintain survival. SYG is neither a license to kill nor a get out of jail free pass; it is a foundation for victims to at least provide some rationale in the role they played in the circumstance. of course, it will always be up to the fact finders (jury) to determine if such justification is legitimate with respects to the level of threat presented by the opponent; however, the laws which govern the land can not be so cut & dry to the point where victims of eminent danger are not at least heard and given equal protection under the law. There are still an overwhelming amount of prisoners incarcerated as a result of their inability to successfully justify their actions as a matter of self defense; however the legislation is still necessary because it levels the playing fields and offers protection to the other side of the spectrum. Under the umbrella of SYG, technically all parties are victims; it is not a matter of granting someone a right to kill another, it is instead a matter of determining if it is fair to hold the survivor completely liability of their actions which was in response to the actions of the opposing party. Not all cases are the same and any man would free himself of danger if possible, therefore the act of retreating is a voluntary response whenever available. In a scenario where a person does not intentional expose themselves to excessive risks, they should have the right to defend themselves against those who subject them to such risks in an attempt to threaten their lives. Of course there's going to be people who sought to abuse and misuse any justification for a wrongdoing (for instance insanity pleas), however that does not negate the significance of such legislation to protect those who legitimately deserve the opportunity to be heard, understood, considered and protected. Everyone should have their day in court and all cases should be analyzed with a fine tooth comb but this legislation is necessary because victimization is an actual concept in the world we live in. Society should not have to simply bear all evils and turn an eye to those who sought to ward off attack in order to survive. ALL persons deserve equal protection under the law; this encompass offenders, victims as well as those who become offenders in order to avoid becoming victims.
Stand Your Ground!!! PoW!

I will be debating against the necessity, benefit and effectiveness of "Stand Your Ground" legislation. Although, not explicitly defined, I assume my opponent does not wish to debate a specific resolution, but any of the many Stand Your Ground laws passed and pending in the country today, including the now famous 2005 Florida statues on Justifiable Force(1). Since there are over twenty states with Stand Your Ground laws on the books and more still in their respective legislatures, I don't think it would be prudent to focus on individual implementations as many differ on important details. Also since there is no single Stand Your Ground provision shared by these many diverse laws verbatim, I would like to define what we're talking about, at least in a broad sense. Stand Your Ground(SYG) legislation states that persons are justified in using force, up to and including lethal force, against another if the person reasonably believes it necessary to defend themselves from a perceived threat. This is similar to the more common Castle Doctrine(CD), but as SYG does not depend on the location of the altercation, persons in public places can still claim their actions legally justifiable under this law. No rules have been set by my opponent, however I ask that we refrain from presenting new arguments in the last around for obvious reasons and use the remaining rounds for argument and rebuttal. I also would like to state that I will not be arguing on any specific SYG case and may only touch on some anecdotally if they are relevant to prove a point. I ask that my opponent does the same. For example, I will not make claims regarding Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman or anyone else's guilt, character, motives, intentions, etc. I assume the burden of proof is on Pro to prove that this legislation is necessary, beneficial and effective. If my opponent agrees to these terms, then I will await Pro's argument in support of SYG legislation. I look forward to a good debate and wish my opponent the best of luck. (1) . http://www.flsenate.gov...
Stand Your Ground!!! PoW!

Should the "Stand Your Ground" provision within self defense law/Justifications be repealed, or is it a crucial right that should be afforded to all law abiding citizens in the mist of danger?...I believe repealing this law interferes with the right to liberty and deprives civilians the right to defend themselves against an attack on their lives. Furthermore, self defense justifications provide a foundation for victims to stand on, to at least be heard and understood in light of a legitimate threat...let's talk about it...at this stage in society, does such laws promote more violent or is a necessary response to the realities that exist within our communities to date??
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

Yes, Aboriginal do know their traditional languages and cultural but currently the date of Australian day doesn't recognise and celebrate that. It represents the starting of their culture being taken away from them. Lastly, Australian day is definitely not inclusive of all groups and cultures. Australian day only celebrates and recognizes the action made by European settlers. The fact the Australian day celebrate the day the date that Captain Arthur Phillip took possession of the colony of New South Wales is evidence enough that for many people think there was nothing important before that day. If this date continues to represent Australia Day we are just reverting back to our unjust and unfair ways. How, as a country can we celebrate how great our country is now on a day that represent so much loss and sadness for the people who have been living here for thousand of year before most Australians. If we want to celebrate the greatness of Australia we need to change the date to a day where every Australian, Aboriginal or not can celebrate the growth of the country and in doing this we can truly move forward as a nation. Reference: Australia Day - Invasion Day 2015, Creative Spirits, accessed 18 May 2016, <http://www.creativespirits.info...;
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

Aboriginal Australian's who live traditionally around us are able to speak their traditional languages as they wish and are able to also learn traditional languages in different schools Australia. If you wish to state that Aboriginals lost their traditional languages, you must also recognise that many indigenous Australian's are able to learn their traditional languages today, even after 228 since the invasion of their land. For example, their are 1216 people in NSW speaking the traditional aboriginal language Kala Lagaw Ya in New South Wales, and there are many hundreds more aborgines in Australia speaking more of the traditional Languages. The National Australia Day Council (NADC) is committed to playing a part in the journey of Reconciliation by helping all Australians to move forward with a better understanding of our shared past, and importantly how this affects the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today and how we might build a better future together. Today, Indigenous people are amongst Australia's national government leaders. These people are able to make decisions and suggestions that will benefit the Indigenous culture and people. We must not forget that Aborigines are also very successful people in our society today. Many Indigenous people today live in towns and cities. They are able to go to work and school, and participate in community activities. Indigenous people today live throughout Australia, just as they did in the past.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

I believe that as a nation we should have a day devoted to just celebrating the greatness of Australia and we should have a day of mourning on another day. We should not have to do both on the same day. Secondly,the invasion on traditional Aboriginal land devastated many indigenous families and communities. European saw Aboriginals as inferior so they thought a way to "eliminate" them was to slowly "breed" them out to nothing. A 1997 report launched by the Australian Government found that between the years of 1910 and 1970 an estimated 10 - 30% of Aboriginal children were separated or removed from their families and communities. This loss of a child had great impacts on families - parent of the children who were taken could not cope with the loss of the child so their would turn to alcohol to help cope, this would sometime lead to alcoholism. The separation of people also caused a loss a traditional languages throughout the generations. The Stolen Generations 2012, Australians Together, accessed 18 May 2016, <http://www.australianstogether.org.au...;. How many children were removed? 2000, The Stolen Generation.info, accessed18 May 2016, <http://www.stolengenerations.info...;.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians.

Australia day is a day to recognise the unique status of the Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders. January 26 has multiple meanings - Survival Day and Invasion Day - A day were many Aboriginal Australians were murdered over a period of time and deprived of their land, but also a time when Aborigines survived, and despite the hardship they faced, were able to continue on their unique culture for many years to come. Our national day should be mature so we can celebrate and mourn at the same time. We as Australians, must respect the fact that Australia day is not a time to make Aborigines engage in Australia Day events, or force them to sing the national anthem. Aborigines - just like us - have a personal decision how they may celebrate Australia Day. Australia Day would quite obviously be hard for Aborigines, and we as their fellow citizens should help them and be by their side through it. Just because we had an alliance and a very terrible history, doesn"t mean we can"t make a difference today. We are all equal and all share our beautiful country together. On Australia Day, we should honour what is great about Australia and being a citizen, while also remembering the sufferings and now, our commitment to make our country as equal as possible and will continue to do so forever.