BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Islamic Immigration to the USA.

I AGREE with that. However, did you know that 2 months after 9/11/2001 a school in California put students through a Muslim training program that made all students pick a Muslim name, dress like a Muslim, eat like a Muslim, and pray like a Muslim. When a student asked if she could pray to God through Christianity, the teacher simply replied that Christianity is a dirty religion. We've gone from Math and Science class to Liberal Arts and Muslim conversion!!!
Islamic Immigration to the USA.

While we should not have an open door policy, we should allow Muslims in the country if they pass through extremely thorough background checks. If they fail the bckground checks, they get deported. Every Muslim should get fingerprinted. Anyone who commits a terror attack murdering people should recieve the death sentence for it. Muslims who support Shriah law, or even believe that it is peaceful should get deported to their home country. However, under rules stricter than this but too through for me to mention, they should be allowed to stay within the United States.
Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

Clarifications:My opponent has failed to properly clarify the resolution. Therefore, I will provide the following definitions to ensure a clear and effective debate. Sight-singing: To perform music without preparation or the aid of an instrument.Solfège: A system using a set of syllables to denote scale degree or location of a note on a staff.Arguments: There has been a long-standing debate as to which sight-singing method should be used and which method produces the best results. However, scholarly research articles have not identified any particular sight-singing system as being superior to the others.For instance, let’s consider a study which attempted to identify relationships between the sight-singing scores of high-school students and the instructional methods employed by their teachers. This study found that students who reported using the solfège system scored slightly higher than students using the numbers system. Nevertheless, this result was not statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. Therefore, the authors concluded that, “No significant relationships were found among student sight-singing scores and reported sight-singing instructional methods.” (1) Numerous other studies have arrived at a similar conclusion. As one scholarly research article noted, “Characteristics appearing significantly more often among high scorers included: region/state choir, private voice or piano lessons, playing an instrument, membership in instrumental ensemble, sight-singing individually outside class, and director giving individual sight-singing tests...Sight-singing system used made no significant difference." (2) Clearly, research has shown that it does not really matter which sight-singing instructional method is used, particularly in secondary and post-secondary settings. Therefore, the use of scale degree numbers is not necessarily superior to solfège.Rebuttal: Contrary to my opponent’s claims, the solfège system is not inherently complicated. Beginning students only need to be familiar with the seven main syllables: do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, and ti. Learning this simple system takes only a very short period of time. My opponent also points out that numbers are used for many things in music. However, this does not necessarily imply that the use of scale degree numbers is superior to solfège. When a student begins using a counting system to describe pitches, there may be some uncertainty as to which usage of numbers is intended: rhythm, pitch, volume, or something else.Conclusion: As I’ve clearly demonstrated above, the particular sight-singing method that students use does not appear to have an influence on their overall success. Therefore, teachers should feel free to use which ever method they feel most comfortable with.References: 1. http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu...2. http://jrm.sagepub.com...
Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

I would like to debate with a music educator, a music major, or a professional musician concerning the method that is the best for teaching sight-singing and general musicianship. My position will be that the use of scale degree numbers is superior to solfege in teaching sight-singing for the following reasons: 1) Numbers are part of a student's vocabulary at ANY POINT prior to studying music. Solfege requires taking precious learning time to teach new material. This time can be better used to teach other musical concepts. 2) Numbers are part of familiar culture. Solfege was adapted from the Gregorian hymn, "Ut Queant Laxis" by Guido d' Arezzo. Guido's idea was great for his era; however, "Ut Queant Laxis" is no longer part of most anyone's culture at this point in history. 3) Numbers INSTANTLY indicate "high" and "low" pitches. Solfege only does this after the system is learned. 4) Numbers are used in identifying intervals (major third, perfect fifth, et, al.), and roman numeral chord symbols (I, IV, vi, et. al.) so they can be integrated with a study of music theory. Solfege does not lend itself to integration with any other musical learning.
Having a mega-penguin friend would be better than having a robot butler.

Forfeit, automatic 7 points. Just because I like to clarify some of my links from the first round, I will repost all my links because of the glitch. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://marvel-movies.wikia.com.... (3) . http://www.fastcompany.com... (4) . https://www.apple.com... (5) . http://www.techdigest.tv... (6) . http://wehuntedthemammoth.com... (7) . http://wallpaperest.com... (8) . http://www.thedailybeast.com... (9) . http://www.penguinscience.com... (10) . https://futuretimeline.files.wordpress.com...
Having a mega-penguin friend would be better than having a robot butler.

Note: I didn't realise that there were 4 rounds (Sorry, still getting used to this site!), so new rule- we just debate as we normally would.As, I'm sure you know, mega-penguins were ancient penguins that were (at average) 2 metres tall. Having a penguin as tall as an adult woud be awesome considering how small our modern penguins are, as cute as they may be. Having a cute, live friend to accompany you in friendly activities would give one a warmer feeling than having a lifeless drone (Provide that those activities do not require opposable thumbs). Studies show that companionship with an animal lowers blood pressure and regulates heart levels during stressful situations. (See: http://center4research.org...) Having a mega-penguin would also be ideal for carrying your things. If I ask said mega-penguin, he/she could carry it like an egg i.e a rucksack, books, takeaway etc. The mega-penguin would be a better carrier of your things because they would be more hidden if they are carried like their penguin eggs, reducing the liklihood of being robbed of your possessions. This is my argument, I look forward to your opinion on this.
Having a mega-penguin friend would be better than having a robot butler.

Didn't know what category to put, so I put funny. My sense of humour isn't that great anyway. So, my argument is that having a mega-penguin friend would be more awesome than having a robot butler.Both of them are passive-aggressive, protective over you and speak the same language as you.First round is acceptance.Then, we proceed to our argument, we will have one argument only, so it will have to be a good one.
Rap Battle

The (. .. ) means "to" as blank. .. blank. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Refutation: ======= "My rhymes. .. of rap intensity" Clearly they do not as you have lost the only rap battle you instigated. Evidence: . http://www.debate.org... "What you're. .. their just like profanity" You state this before the opponent had even started, therefore, anyone could have taken this debate and you would have no prior knowledge as to their background. "I'm. .. humanity" This is an assumption and should be disqualified. "Your so bad. .. with your buddies" As a matter of fact, I attend Suncoast Communtiy High School in Riviera Beach, Florida. Ranked #7 in the nation by Newsweek magazine. (. http://www.newsweek.com...) So therefore, I am in school and do study, as contradictory to your statement. Also if I was "bad" wouldn't I already be out drinking? "Cause as of now. .. your Buggie" You say your raps are selling more than Snuggies. I doubt this or else when I look up your name on google I would expect to see Alex Vallejo - The Rapper. All I see is the band Vallejo. (. http://www.google.com...). And regarding your buggie statement, at least I have a car. "When I hit you. .. like a ho*" As a matter of fact I did not say "whoa", I sat contently and read your argument and realized how vulgarity decreases the amount of intelligence seen in a person. "Do yourself a favor. .. (oh oh oh)" If you do not wish for me to "come back for mo" then please do not post a debate. The point of a debate is to have one person give one arguement then another to oppose it. Also, the fact that you have wealth does not pertain to this matter. As there has been a limit set on letters you can find the rest here: . http://www.debate.org...
Rap Battle

Lets do this battle!!!!! My rhymes, they're a legacy I give the game of rap intensity What you're doing it's insanity Your rhymes are so bad, their just like profanity I'm gonna beat your as*, you'd think I've lost my humanity Your so bad, go to school and work on your studies Or go out and have drinks with your buddies Cause as of now, my raps are selling more than snuggies Your scared, so go drive off in your Buggie When I hit you with these lines, I bet you went whoa! I'll make you my bit**, and slap you like a ho* Do yourself a favor, and don't come back for mo Cause just like Drake "I've got money to blow(oh oh oh)" What I spit, it's incredible And unlike yours my lines are actually credible I'm so high I feel like I'm on a pedestal It's that time of the month, so your cycle is menstrual Make you feel stupid, so people think your mental Unlike the others, I wont feel sedimental My lines are so good, they're insane Like the guy from Transformers, "I bring the rain" I'll get crazier than Saddam Hussein You'll be leaving here with an ice cold feeling in your vein Make a mistake, and I'll ride you like a choo choo train I've hit you with so many blows, I'm sure you feel the pain You should wear a helmet, it'll protect your brain Cause as Al Yanchovic would say it "I'm off the chain" And just like the dragons, you've officially been slain
The activities and events known as "eSports" should be considered a legitimate sport

Okay, here goes.My opponent has choosen to not only forfeit a single round of the debate, but all of his rounds. As per the rules, this round is to be for thanks, congratulations, and asking for votes. As Con has made no arguments prior, he cannot make an new arguments this round, else he forfeits all of his points, which he has done regardless by not making an effort to debate this topic.Please vote Pro, as Pro is the only side to have made any arguments, given sources, and spelled nearly everything properly. Thank you for your time in reading this.I'm going to go rest my hands.
The activities and events known as "eSports" should be considered a legitimate sport

Explation: eSports, and by extention, e-Athletes, is a rising, yet popular, sub-culture in America, and all across the world that involves either a single player against another single player, or a team against another team in which the objective is to win the game through teamwork, much like sports like Tennis, Baseball, Basketball, Soccer, Football, Golf, Volleyball, and many more. eSports has been on the rise as a popular activity, more recently than not, and, like other sports seen on TV, makes a decent amount of money for it's teams, organizations, and various other involved people. It fact, it's gained enough attention that some developers make their games with the express intent to be competitive. Examples of this include DoTA, League of Legends, Counter-Strike, (particularly Global Offensive), and other games that are hinted at eventually getting competitive game-modes, like Team Fortress 2. This debate will center primarially around the consideration of eSports as a legitimate type of sport. Below I will provide some basic defintions to give my opponent an idea of just what kind of debate we will be dealing with. Definitions:Sport is defined as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment. "Skill is defined as "the ability to do something well; expertise. "Entertainment is defined as "the action of providing or being provided with amusement or enjoyment. "Exertion is defined as "physical or mental effort. "eSports is defined (by the gaming community) as "a term for organized multiplayer video game competitions, particularly between professional players. "As I am pro and I carry the burden of proof, I must show that eSports contains all of these defintions in reasonable manners, however, Con must be able to disprove these as well, and must also show that eSports can not have these definitions fulfilled. Rule:1. Round one is for acceptance only. Round two is for arguments. Round three is for rebuttals. Round four is for thanks, congratulations, and asking for votes.2. All definitions set here are final and may not be changed, however, defintions for relavant words that I may have missed are allowed.3. New rules must be agreed upon before the debate begins and cannot be made mid-debate. Message me personally for discussion on rules and we can work out a more fair rule-set if you disagree with what I have given.4. Failure to follow any of these rules will result in a forfeit. They are not hard to follow, in fact, most are common sense, please have some and no issues will be had.
There is no compelling reason to believe that objective moral facts exist.

Analysis of the debate:BOP - since I am pro I have to prove that moral facts exist and that their is a compelling reason that they do exist my opponent being the instigator has to prove the opposite.first off my opponent hasn't argued that there isn't a compelling reason that moral facts exist simply they do not exist even then the arguments that moral facts don't exist aren't very good one asserts that morality is contingent upon beliefs which is hardly evidence to deny the existence of moral facts because people have beliefs which I said is not very relevant in the example I give I say how both the Jew and the Nazi have the underlying thought that killing is wrong it isn't subjective which then you say it's a fallacy to assume that because two people of opposite beliefs have the same thought is a fallacy because majority does not equal fact which admittedly is true; however, I must point out that it isn't an argument against moral fact but an argument against my reasoning.Second, in his first argument he concedes that normative contingency is an appeal to motive but dilutes that claim by saying their is no reason to believe in arbitrary position which is moral facts; however that is his position that moral facts don't exist and so his claim that normative contingency is a fallacy holds. He also admits that his only non argument is an indicator of a fallacy (false premise) but he calls it the problem of presupposition that's a nice spin on it; however, it doesn't escape the fact that it isn't an argument against moral facts nor is it a compelling reason to believe that they don't exist. Third, his final argument the one about subjectivity he claims he has been using it semi synonymously With moral fact then he clarifies that he hasn't been using it he says "Looking back on normative contingency, all subsequent moral facts are based on fundamental moral values like human life, sentience, or rationality; however, the offense of value subjectivity is to point out that values, by their nature, are the product of individual judgment, not an inherent property of objects. Even if the "value of life" is held to be true by all humans, it does not therefore follow that life is valuable; rather, what follows is that all humans value life. I trust that everyone sees the difference between the meta-ethical claim and the descriptive claim."Its an argument against values being based off of individuals and their beliefs this isn't an argument against moral facts nor is it a compelling reason to believe that moral facts exist But I digress I have not been very good at arguing for moral facts although I have pointed out why they might exist and why their is a compelling reason to believe in moral fact; since this is the case that neither me or my opponent have not proved or disproven moral facts I urge the voters to not vote on this debate and if they do explain how Cody's arguments disproved moral facts and how his arguments made a compelling reasonn why they don't exist. It has been fun debating about god I mean about moral facts. Thank you for this debate Cordially, HPG
Wikipedia is an Acceptable Source of Information

A. I did not use a Wikipedia page in my argument, which is really what we were arguing about using as a source. B. I thought you might try to say that I conceded by using wikipedia, but if you say that I cannot use Wikipedia as a source then you concede the argument. Thus I request that people view my argument as permissible. a. Flags, wikipedia does flag articles but only ones that are clearly biased. It admits that there is a good chance of bias in most new articles, sorry I am wrong about most total articles. b. Wikipedia does not weight professional input any greater than the average users input during the peer review process, therefore you cannot claim it is on par with academic journals. c. I did not drop the argument about sources, I just discredited it quickly by saying that the sources are what should be cited when using a wikipedia page (and also referred to for the information). The sources do not need to have any credibility either and if you are citing wikipedia then you most likely didn't check the credibility of the source the information came from. Also, a wikipedia page is someone's interpretation of a source... like I said last round, a third-hand source. In Conclusion My opponent failed to read my argument and I have discredited wikipedia, in fact wikipedia discredits wikipedia (the only reason I would EVER cite wikipedia EVER).
Wikipedia is an Acceptable Source of Information

Oddly enough I will cite wikipedia in my efforts to discredit wikipedia, I will be referring to the following two wikipedia pages for the basis of my argument. 1.http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.http://en.wikipedia.org... The first article is about using Wikipedia for research. Yes it is true that old articles that have had time to be reviewed by many different users can be accurate but as the article states, "Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as displaying a single viewpoint; and, after a long process of discussion, debate, and argument, they gradually take on a neutral point of view reached through consensus. Others may, for a while, become caught up in a heavily unbalanced viewpoint which can take some time, "months perhaps "to achieve better balanced coverage of their subject." This quote shows that wikipedia can be incorrect and/or biased for, in wikipedia's conservative estimates, months. You may be correct in saying that wikipedia is only slightly less reliable than encyclopedia britannica but I would like to see evidence that the articles within encyclopedia britannica are biased towards one persons viewpoint. Wikipedia users who create the articles are often driven to create the articles in the first place due to their enthusiasm in the subject, usually a biased enthusiasm. The second article is Wikipedia's general disclaimer that they post a link to on every article. In bold letters Wikipedia makes sure to note, "Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here." If this doesn't discredit the information found DIRECTLY on the wikipedia pages then I don't know what does. Sure, Wikipedia offers sources but it does this because the information found on the page is an interpretation of someone else's information, a third-hand source sometimes. Speaking to their peer review system here is what Wikipedia has to say, "Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have no legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever. Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them." The bottom line is the peer review system is imperfect, at best. With a peer review system that cannot be trusted and what seems to be a good chance of bias in most articles, wikipedia is clearly not a reliable source. Wikipedia even admits to this.
Wikipedia is an Acceptable Source of Information

My argument regarding the reliability of Wikipedia is going to revolve around two key points.I. ErrorsStudies have shown Wikipedia to be "as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica" [1] In a study between the two encyclopedic sources it showed that Wikipedia had 162 errors while the Encyclopedia Britannica had 123. [1] They did a controlled study with a wide variety of articles and in the end the number came out to be 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 errors per article for Wikipedia. That being said, Wikipedia is massive and errors are to be expected. Even the Encyclopedia Britannica has errors. As of 2007 Wikipedia featured "2301486 articles with 55550003 links between them" [2]. All in all, Wikipedia is "as accurate" as the Encyclopedia Britannica and you would not have complained about me using that as a source. II. SourcesWikipedia is unique because for every page they have a list of footnotes, sources and references used to compile the information on the page. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't do that. Take for example these two pages about the generic topic of asteroids...Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org...Britannica - http://www.britannica.com...As we can see, the Britannica page doesn't have any sources at all. No notes or references of any kind. Yet on the Wikipedia page we see Notes, References, See Also and External Links. There are 60 footnote references linking to other sources of information that were used to generate the information on the Wikipedia page. Sixty! Wikipedia generates its information from a large range of sources and is then fact checked on a regular basis. As we can see, Wikipedia is clearly a good source of information. It is sourced, fact checked and has been declared "as accurate" as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia is an acceptable source of information. [1] http://news.cnet.com...[2] http://mu.netsoc.ie...