BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teleological Theory vs Deontological Theory

Teleological Theory vs Deontological TheoryI will be arguing on the side of Teleological Theory, Con will be arguing for Deontological Theory. “Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:”“(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.” “(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.”(1) This debate should be impossible to accept. Please comment if interested.Format: 4 round 10,000 charactersRound 1 for con is acceptanceRound 2-3 Arguments and rebuttalsRound 4 Final rebuttals and closing statements (no new arguments)Burden of proof shared. (1) http://www.ucs.mun.ca...
"Pop music", by definition, cannot be music

My opponent again either cheapens the idea of art or disregards it as separate from the concept of music. However, as my opponent has quoted, the first definition of music is "[a]n ART of sound [...]" (emphasis mine). He contends that pop music, simply by employing the use of musical qualities, is thus defined as art. While, I note that this requires skill, it is a scientific skill, and not an artistic one.It appears that my opponent's belief (and as evidenced by the second definition) of what music is, is so loose that, mere sounds created by a voice of a human that exclaims frustration after having stubbed his or her toe could be defined as music and thus art. In this example, the sound is created by a voice that uses rhythm (perhaps they used several atonal grunts in 1 second intervals that produced a single line in 4/4 time signature at slow tempo), which expressed physical pain and discontent. Of course it would be quite contrived to claim that this is actually music, because it does not meet the definition of art, but my opponent's use of the term "music" conforms with this example.Thus, the only way one can make the assertion that pop music is actually music is to hold the definition that music is not necessarily art. That is, one must then assume that music is not exclusively a sub-classification of art.However, when one attempts to hold this definition, the idea of a societal outlook must be significantly altered. At this point, one must contend that someone attending a university for a degree in music should petition for a bachelor's of science or bachelor's of business administration rather than a bachelor's of fine arts to be awarded for his coursework. After all, they are not simply studying fine art. A musician should thus be defined as a type of scientist or businessman.Also, my opponent states that "that is there [sic] job and they need to make a living". In order for this to be meaningful, one must presume that a job is simply assigned to a each human, and they have no choice in that matter, nor can they make a living through multiple jobs. In fact, and as I stated in my previous response, most musicians "make a living" through other means. An example that illustrates a common professional musician's means of personal finance can be seen through the case of musician Dan Swanö (1). Dan has released many records while playing in the bands Edge of Sanity, Bloodbath, Katatonia, and Nightingale. He has played on records distributed by a Sony Music Entertainment-owned division, and has produced records for the bands Opeth and Millencolin among others. Swanö still maintains a day job at a local record store where he lives. Again, this is the norm, not the exception.Additional reading: (1) Dan Swanö, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Pop music", by definition, cannot be music

1. an art of sound in time that expresses ideas and emotions in significant forms through the elements of rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. 2. the tones or sounds employed, occurring in single line (melody) or multiple lines (harmony), and sounded or to be sounded by one or more voices or instruments, or both. These are the top two definitions found in the dictionary....in simplicity they are saying that music has to express any form of idea or emotion into a couple of minutes with rhythm, melody, harmony, and color. Pop music supplies all of that and therefore saying that Pop Music, BY DEFINITION, cannot be music is wrong as pop music supplies all of that. Know saying that most other artists in different genres of music is absurd as that is there job and they need to make a living. They may love there music so much that they do stuff with good intentions but, at the end of the day these artists need to make some money!
"Pop music", by definition, cannot be music

My opponent has stated that all musicians intend to create a profit by selling their music. This is simply untrue. Most musicians, even professional ones, simply create art because it is a mechanism for the artist to express his or her ideas. This is unrelated to the purpose of making money, and the prime reason why many independent musicians (again the vast majority of musicians that exist) give away their music, allow themselves to be recorded during shows, and tour at a financial net loss. This is where the term "poor, starving artist originates." My opponent confuses sincere artistic expression with simply anything a song "says". If someone's attempt is to create a profit, they must sell it to an audience. In order to do so, they must create lyrical content that sounds sincere enough for someone who is simply not thinking about it to think that it speaks to them. However, only certain themes are sellable to a large audience, and with the intent of engineering profit, it limits the lyrical content used in pop music. This is why we do not hear instrumental or complex musical arrangements on the radio. This music will not sell. Lyrical content is typically limited to love, partying/having fun, and showing off money. This is why one cannot hear most musical genres such as death metal, punk, progressive rock, and experimental electronic music on the radio as well, despite the existence of many listeners and musicians of these styles. Simply put, music must be created with the primary intent of sincere expression. If it makes a profit, it must be something mostly unintended, otherwise it cannot be considered art. It is a science.
"Pop music", by definition, cannot be music

My opponent so far has shown some valid points in this argument but, there analysis of the idea is wrong. In my opponents argument they brought up that "Pop music" was aimed at getting a high profit, and engineering a profit was a science not a art. My opponent comes wrong here in two ways... 1. If Pop Music is aimed at just creating a profit how do you justify that other types of music produced are just aimed at receiving a profit. My opponent just looks at individual people who create music just for profit....wait, all musicians aim at creating a living from this and it is there JOB therefore it seems illegitimate to argue that just Pop Music is aimed at creating a high profit. 2. Music in one way or another is an art. Making a profit in the highest way possible is only 1 part of a musicians thought process as they create or/and sing a song. Each song has to have meaning and the artists have to have a want to sing the song and put emotion into it or it will not say. An art, by definition, is The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. Signing pop music with the right lyrics, good beat, strong tune, and good background songs all impact the creation of a pop song. Any song. So coming up with all this to express their thought, their emotions through 3 minutes definitely takes some skill. Therefore as seen in the past two examples it can clearly be shown that Pop Music is, by definition, an art as even though profit is considered in the creation of this music the artist pour there heart and soul into each and every song.
"Pop music", by definition, cannot be music

It's not because I dislike "pop music" that I say that is it not music. After all, I don't say that every piece of art I dislike is not art. In other words, I'm not speaking about the subjective aspect of art, but rather the objective aspect of it. Let's think about this logically. Here are my premises: 1. Art is exclusively an expression of emotion or ideas. 2. Music is art. 3. "Pop music" is an auditory product intentionally created with the primary focus of maximizing profit. 4. Engineering profit is a science. 5. Science is not art. Therefore, "pop music" is a misnomer. It cannot, by definition, be art because it is a science.
Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

The Lord of the Rings has been for years the standard of fantasy novels. J.R.R. Tolkien in his book not only wrote a story but also he showed the meaning of of friendship, with Frodo and Sam, and Gimli and Legolas, and the meaning of love with Aragorn and Arwen. Sam no matter what Frodo said, what he did, would not leave him. Gimil and Legolas, their races are ones of bitter hatred and yet they become fast friends will fight by each other sides to the death. Aragorn and Arwen, elven and man they Arwen gives up her immortality to be with him against her fathers will. Tolkien by writing this book not only created a series that would be loved for centuries but created a world that will live on forever in the hearts of the readers. He did not just take the current world and add to its history, he created his own world with its history. The creativity to do such a thing is immense. The poetry in the book, from drinking songs to ballad of Gil-gallad are all beautiful. There are two complete Elven languages, a set of history books which I believe set it above the use of languages already created and history as in Harry Potter. The will to go on, to fight, the fact that if you can't carry your friends burden, you can carry your friend. All shown in the time of war for U.S. still shine bright today, and is why I think the Lord of the Ring is better than Harry Potter.
Lord of the Rings is better than Harry Potter

The Harry Potter series is one of the most profound series for young children, teenagers, and adults. The story can captivate both younger and older audiences, pulling you into its whimsical, magical, and by the end, dark story telling. Harry Potter has a modern setting which many viewers relate to. During the first part of the series, readers learn of the poor situation Harry is in. Abused, used, and alone. Then the moment of revelation comes, when Harry is taken away to a magical school. From an ordinary teenage kid, to a wand wielding, magic casting, and broom riding hero. While Lord of the Rings is a fantasy about elves, dwarfs, and other mythological creatures governing themselves and battling for their kind, Harry Potter is about a boy, with no experience of the magical world, slowly adapting to this strange world, just as the readers are. The quirky magic used in the series will always be engraved in my memories, like the Nine and Three-Quarters Platform. While Lord of the Rings does a great job of telling you a story of fantasy and awe, Harry Potter will not tell you the story, but allow you to learn about this world along with Harry and his companions.
Abortion

Apologies accepted. I shall not post any further arguments as it would be unfair on my opponent. Therefore, my argument in Round 4 shall also be my concluding statement. Abortion should become illegal except for/legal for socioeconomic factors (if a person cites this, (s)he will be granted a review on the subject and be ruled accordingly), health, mental health, rape, incest or fetal defects. I hold this to be true due to prior Rounds. I wish my opponent and the audience a happy New Year, and hope the audience enjoyed this debate. May the best man win!
Abortion

I apologize that i asummed that this was an domestic debate. i also apologize that i cannot post a full argument due to insuffieicient resources. considering that i dont have enough time just cross-apply everything i said in the last and first round to this round and i will post further i n the last round. and this is not a foreit. I just do not have a computer at hand and i am doing this by my phone. so i apologize to my opponent and i will post another argument next round. and on the sources, i also apologize its just that i have been debating all year and this was acceptable, maybe online debating is different. Thank You
Abortion

Thank You Con, First off I would like to point out that my opponent is using his opinions, not facts. He does have a right to his opinion I must say. Prefer my definition. Definition-Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy and does not refer to why that pregnancy was lost. (source-. http://www.medterms.com...) My opponent talks of the abortion happening in the 2nd or 3rd term. This is impossible by this definition because doctors would not abort a baby in the 3rd term because if they did, this would indeed be a violation of human rights. But therefore it is not a human rights violation by the interpretation of this definition. My opponent also talks about human rights. He says "Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. " In this statement is where my opponent contradicts himself. He says that it should only be legal in unusual circumstances. But an abortion is and unusual circumstance. A women does not just want to get an abortion. It is a very hard decision for the women to make. Of course she would not want to do this but she may have no other choice than adoption and some women don't want this either because they don't want someone else to raise their own child. This is where my opponent violates human rights. If any of these people would happen to vote con they would be taking away the right of the female who is in need of an abortion. Like I said earlier a female may not want an abortion but it may be the last tragic resort. I am not saying that abortion is neccesarly a good thing, just that it is neccesary in today's world. In the 70's 13 year olds were not getting pregnant. In today's world they are getting pregnant. And the age keeps dropping lower and lower. Of course this female would not want to get an abortion. But she may also be too young to have a safe birth whether it be a regular birth or a C-section. Therefore telling a female that she has to give birth to a child she cant care for would be a human rights violation on the female and the child. The female because she is being told that she has to do something that she doesn't want to do(an act of dictatorship by the government). And a human rights violation on the child because they are not properly cared for. So therefore on the issue of human rights the judges cannot vote con because they contradict on every level of human rights. This is why abortion should stay legal. First, It is the women's body and the government shouldn't have a say in what they do with their body. Second, If abortions are illegal then females will go to back alley abortionists. This is very dangerous and can cause disease which my opponent claims regular abortion causes. And it does not cause disease. So therefore we need to keep abortion legal. And Thirdly, keeping abortion legal is the best choice. It lets women have control of whether or not they want the child based on if they can take care of them or not. It also PREVENTS DISEASE.
Abortion

As said in the title, this debate is about abortion. I am con, so will argue against. The challenge is open to whomever takes it. This is my point of view: Abortion is an act of murder, wherein a human being is removed from the uterus of the mother, resulting in the death of this baby. Abortion is a violation of human rights. It violates the unborn baby's basic right to live, and should be illegal, except in unusual circumstances. This would include, but not be limited to, rape, mother's life in danger, SERIOUS disabilities, confirmed uncurable diseases present in the fetus. My opponent can argue for abortion in any case, or upto a certain period (2nd term, 3rd term) of time. It's up to him/her.
Abortion

I greatly appreciate con for allowing this debate to take place and making sure there was as much clash as possible. But on another noTe, I urge you to vote pro. We cannot let the governments be dictator-like and tell a woman what she can and cant do. this is one of the main issues, and herefore definitly a reason to vote. the other reason is back alley abortionism. They use hangers. RUSTY, DIRTY, NASTY HANGERS TO PERFORM AN ABORTION. We need to prevent this(which causes disease)and make abortions legal just for the woman. I AM NOT JUSTIFIENG IT. Just saying that it is the best option. this is why i plead for you to vote pro. and as my opponent said. MAY THE BEST MAN WIN!!!
Christianity is Satanic and against the Bible they Babble from.......

Christ never gave more than a word of thanks. Christ always prayed alone.So why do Christians? 6 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. 7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. 9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
It is reasonable to believe the Big Bang Theory is correct

Thanks for inving me to this debate. A small correction: I did not say there is no evidence for the big bang, I said that there is no convincing evidence for it. I accept the definition of Big Bang but not that your statement that "What came before the big bang, whether it be nothingness or another universe or a big crunch is irrelevant." I don't think that it is irrelevant, but it is very relevant in fact and I will use this to argue for my side. If you think it's irrelevant you will be free to argue for that so I don't think there's any problem. Ok, I will await for Round 2 , you will present the evidence that shows Big Bang happened, then I'll post my arguments. glhf [1] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
It is reasonable to believe the Big Bang Theory is correct

Gamemaster claims that there is no evidence for the big bang. I disagree. By "Big Bang" I mean a rapid expansion in the very early universe which gave rise to everything we see today. What came before the big bang, whether it be nothingness or another universe or a big crunch is irrelevant. In the following rounds I will attempt to present the evidence scientists have amassed and gamemaster will attempt to explain why the facts I present are NOT evidence for the big bang. This round is for acceptance of the challenge only. I ask that arguments being in round two.
Resolved: Supreme Court should overturn "Diaz v. Brewer" (2011).

The Constitution contains nothing pertaining to domestic partners or homosexual couples, and the parts describing general quality are far too vague to create a serious conflict with Brewer's law. My opponent used the non-domination theory to explain his sole contention with Brewer's law, and since that theory is not part of the Constitution and is fundamentally opposed to laws of any kind, I believe it to be irrelevant to a discussion of what should be made into law. My opponents was burdened with proving a single violation of the US Constitution and was unable to do so. As I was burdened only with proving that Brewer's law in no way contradicts the US Constitution and was able to do so, I believe I have made the stronger case. This has been a stimulating debate for me, since I am a pro-gay rights individual in my personal life. I only hope that next time we will be able to complete the debate without forfeited rounds. Thank you.
Resolved: Supreme Court should overturn "Diaz v. Brewer" (2011).

BOP: I'll explain the process of Supreme Court in order to explain why my opponent has a burden of proof and a need to create a case. Supreme Court doesn't just rule a legislation constitutional by stating "the legislation doesn't violate the Constitution." Supreme Court iterates a reason via the document in order to explain why the legislation is constitutionally sound. My opponent argues against my arguments, but provides no argument of his own to explain why overturning Diaz v. Brewer (2011) would have a constitutional basis. My opponent is also looking at the Constitution and the situation at hand too literally because he's saying that the Constitution has not placed any rights in relation to domestic couples. He's looking at this case too narrowly, unlike me, who's also looking at the other angles at which Gov. Brewer's legislation can harm the rights of gays and their couples.9th Amendment: The only thing that my opponent has proven is that the basis of the protection of rights under this amendment is really arbitrary. This means that this part of the debate can go his way or my way. The reason why it goes my way is because not only has my opponent not disputed my basis for the 9th Amendment in the scope of its existence, but I'm utilizing a right that is "current" in the scope of its existence. The rights at which are claimed are protected by the 9th Amendment don't have to be current either. The right to privacy was never spoken as a Constitutional Right protected by this Amendment until Roe v. Wade, and before that, the right to privacy was never considered to be "current." At some point, current rights were considered to be new rights, and these new rights were simply considered to be important. All I really needed to do is prove that in some way, a right has been harmed, and because the non-domination principle sets the basis for the fairness in all the options given to people, it is an important right. 14th Amendment: My opponent misinterprets the 14th Amendment. It's not talking about current law. It's talking about the entire system of the establishment of laws. I've already explained this with the Supreme Court cases based on the 14th Amendment like Brown.