BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Classical Music Battle"

The piece that I have chosen is "Les jeux d'aux a la villa d'este", composed by Franz Liszt. This is a link to this piece being performed by Claudio Arrau, who received piano lessons from of a pupil of Liszt Liszt was a Hungarian pianist that lived in the 20th century, and he was mainly renowned for his virtuosic skill. At present, his compositions are rising in popularity, and therefore, appearing more often in concerts. Liszt also had some qualities aside from his playing and his innovative compositions. To name a few, he, as a teacher, formed a great number of international pianists. As a musical transcriber, he wrote reproduction of works of other composers to the piano in a very pianistic way (The finest example this is his transcriptions of the Beethoven symphonies). Not to forget, as a person, he visited presidiums, watched people in misery and did many concerts for people who could not afford to pay a ticket. Liszt was one of the first musicians to believe that a genius had the obligation to give back to nature what nature has given to him. Before looking further into the piece that I presented, I find it of some relevance to outline the fact that it is part of the album "Troisieme Anee de Pelerinage"' and that most of the pieces in this album have are considerable economy of means and are not very lively compared to what Liszt wrote in his youth. Of, course, that is not the case of Les Jeux. It is in the middle of the album and it provides a dreamy feeling that isn't present in the other pieces. Such a flight from the atmosphere of a mature album like this is extremely unique and passes a whole new insight into the album. The name of my piece translates into "Fountains of villa d'este". Liszt was a frequent guest of this villa situated near Rome, and he loved to walk through the big gardens of it, which, as one may notice, were full of water fountains. At some point in the score of the music, Liszt added a quotation from the gospel of John "But the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up into eternal life", a very interesting embellishment to the poetry of the music. The writing of this music is also exquisite. While other romantics like Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms barely used tremolandos in their music, this piece relies heavily on them and uses them in an incredible fashion. Just as surprising is the impressionistic style of the piece; after all, this piece had no predecessors and was written years before the start of the french impressionism in music. For these reasons I've chosen this music.
"Classical Music Battle"

In this debate, each side may present a musical piece that: 1: Is definitely labeled as "classical music" and isn't from the century we live in. 2: Has an average duration that isn't any more than 10 minutes. This round is only meant for acceptance. The discussion will begin at round 2, where each side will present the piece they've chosen (thus submit a link to a performance/recording of the music) and outline the great qualities of the piece (historical importance of the piece may not be used as an argument, and no one may compare the pieces in that round). At round 3, both sides may finally compare the pieces, each one arguing for their own piece. The max space for each "argument" is 6000 characters Each side, when publishing their arguments, may not tell the audience to vote for them. The main point of this discussion is to exchange ideas. No one should accept this challenge just because they want to win. Good luck for Con.
"Classical Music Battle"

Before I proceed to my arguments, I would like to correct a few mistakes that I've made on my speech in the last round. I've said that Liszt was from the 20th century and that is wrong, he is from the 19th. Also I've said that Liszt believed that a genius had the obligation to give back to nature what nature has given to him, and that was not very accurate. What Liszt really believed was that a genius had to use his gifts, that nature has given to him, to do good to the society. I apologize for these mistakes. There isn't much that makes "In The Hall of the Mountain King" a special piece in Grieg's literature if you let aside the fact that it is extremely popular. This piece may be funny and easy to understand, but it's quality is about the same compared to the other pieces in the Peer Gynt. To be clear, I have nothing against Peer Gynt, it can be very good point of entry into the world of classical music. But the piece that con presented is not as good as it could be. There are pieces that are short just as con's piece and bring more exhilaration. For example, Tchaikovsky "Trepak" from the Nutcracker, and Offenbach's "Can Can". They are also better at displaying the capabilities of an orchestra. As I said previously, the piece that I presented has a major role in the album it is from (Troisieme Anee de Pelerinage), since it flees from the solitude and elegy of the pieces around it and provides a moment of dreams and abundant beauty, as if Liszt had become young again. It is the soul of the album. The same cannot be said about con's piece, as there is nothing that really points to it's importance in the Peer Gynt aside from the fact that it's just another cool piece there. Other points of interest in my piece are: the very interesting implementation of a quote from John's gospel, the intensive use of tremolandos, something that Liszt contemporaries rarely used in their music, impressionistic style of the piece and, to put it now as a close, an amazing display of what a piano can do. The only points of interest in con's piece is it's popularity and the fact that the tempo of the piece is constantly rising, from start to end. Also, I can't say I am very happy with the fact that con has chosen a piece that is very far from the time limit that I've selected as a rule (which is 10 minutes). Time isn't everything, of course, but choosing a piece with a very short time against one that is almost in the limit is like fighting a heavyweight as a lightweight. When con commented in this debate that his piece was going to obliterate mine, I though he was going to choose "Scarbo" from Ravel or something like that. Nevertheless, I have liked this experience and I thank con for the debate.
Guns

You have shown no need for it to be a gun you use to protect yourself. In my house we have nunchucks. But if not, as most people, you can kill someone with a kitchen knife. And a gun can be used against you, easy. They just have to get to it first. If you had it locked up, you are likely to not be able to get to it in time.How about my own what if?What if someone forgets to lock their gun cabinet and their young child finds the gun, and accidentally shoots himself with it?Over 7,000 children get rushed to the ER every year because of guns.
Guns

Guns have only one reason to exist: To kill.Even in protection, they are meant to kill. Is it worth a person's life, just to prevent a petty crime? Most criminals have their whole life in front of them, and can change.Other protection exists in life, for example pepper spray. Though it may be less effective in some situations, it is still safe. Having very little risk to long term accidental harm.Childhood accidents due to guns are a real problem. Nearly 1,300 children die due to guns a year.Also, having guns means we also have a culture of violence. Should we not work on non violent solutions to problems, just as well tell our children to do?http://www.abc.net.au...http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
NDP Government proposed ATM Fee Cap

I'm sorry. I made a mistake thinking you were talking about the American banking system. The use of the term ATM. I was under the impression it was referred to as an ABM in Canada.I won't defend pricing regulations in general because each particular situation is different. I will just stick with discussing the regulation of prices on Canadian banks. The banking industry in Canada is a little different then in America, but certain similarities exist. The Canadian banks have used the government to eliminate their competition[1]. The Canadian banks were literally handed billions of dollars by the government[2]. The banks have created an oligarchy for themselves[3]. There is no way that the banks can just use the government instead of fair competition to kill their competition, and receive over 100 billion dollars and then be expected not to be regulated. In their "bailout" hey received $3400 per person in bailout money. They already got $3400 from you for providing nothing. The least they can do is have some low ATM fees. Sources[1]http://lois-laws.justice.gc.ca...[2]http://www.cbc.ca...[3]http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(banks) I urge my opponent to please put up a well thought out argument in his final round, So that I have something to respond to.
NDP Government proposed ATM Fee Cap

I must add this argument applies to Canadian government. We Canadians do know that the US financial system has its share of problems, and with our relations with our neighbours to the south we both feel economic impacts together. I think we are on a much better system north of the border as other countries look our our economic policy as an example. My argument is not tackling the depths of our financial systems. It is simply the issue of government control on businesses. Should coke be regulated at one dollar a can from a vending machine? It just does not make sense that if I were to own an ATM machine (which I don't by the way) I can't choose how much I want to charge to provide the service. ATM's are simple convenience, and optional to use. No one ever told you you have to use the machine and pay the fees. It is your own choice to carry cash, or use whatever method of payment you wish. It should be a free market where price is driven by supply and demand. If people were not willing to pay atm fees, would the price not drop? The cost of using the ATM is what it is because it is the balance that produces the most profit to the provider. Any more expensive and less customers would use the ATM, any less expensive the same number of customers would use the ATM and reduce profit. People need to make their own proper choices. It should not be up the the government to regulate a free market. I pay zero bank fees because I have made that choice, and every other canadian can follow suit if they wish.
NDP Government proposed ATM Fee Cap

It is fair to cap bank fees. Let's discuss why. 1. Bankers have conspired with the government to create an oligarchy. A group of the biggest bankers in the country meet in absolute secrecy in 1910 on Jeckyl Island to create the federal reserve system[1]. The purpose was to take control of America's financial system and destroy competitors. We can tell what their goals were by examining the results of their actions. Before the federal reserve act the countries largest banks had control over 29% of the whole banking industry after that they had control of 90% of all banking institutions[2]. If these banks are going to use politicians to gain control over the entire industry and the countries monetary system the least they can do is accept some regulations to repay the favor. [1] http://whale.to... [2] http://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com... My opponent offered very minimal arguments in round 1 so I will do the same. I'm looking forward to his replies.
NDP Government proposed ATM Fee Cap

Government regulations on ATM fee's, making them capped at a Maximum of $0.50 is not fair. Everyone should be able to choose how much they charge for a service without politicians interference. I personally never use ATM's due to the high cost, and I wish everyone would follow my regiment on bank fees (but do what you like). However I still think that kind of control is not fair as everyone has the choice to either use, or not use a service for a given price.
College sports should be privatized

It is a very HOT topic as of now with the many lawsuits brought again professional and collegiate sports. *In 2013, the NCAA generated 10.6 billion dollars **Out of this, 96% is returned to schools to assist in Academic Enhancements. Scholarships, Sponsors who also give money to schools, and Student assistance funds. (4% is divided among staff and administration expenses. ) Academic Enhancement funds help pay for academic support personnel and improve academic facilities. Student assistance funds are designed to assist student-athletes who have exhausted their NCAA eligibility or are no longer able to participate in sports because of medical reasons. If the NCAA became privatized, sports scholarships would become obsolete. Why would a private company help fund your tuition. This would surely decrease enrollment in schools. * 353 men are allowed scholarships between D1 - D2 schools among the 16 D1 sports, and 24 D2 sports. 363 women are allowed scholarships among the same number of sports in D1 and D2. There are roughly 340 D1 Schools in the NCAA There are 280 D2 Schools in the NCAA. To help with the math: 120,000 male D1 , 123,000 female athletes. 98,000 male D2, 101,000 female athletes. Roughly 400,000 students would be have to pay all of their tuition. It would be safe to assume not all of them would choose to enroll in these schools, as tuition would go up even higher without the NCAA assistance. It would become increasingly difficult to enforce the importance of education on young adults and try to recruit them to a sub-pro private sports team. One of the largest expenses of an athletic department is marketing. Schools love the exposure so will pay extra to go to bigger cities, or pay to have big city schools come to them. Commercials, radio, and other advertisement are all part of the cost. The exposure is more valuable to schools. *www. statisticbrain. com **. http://espn.go.com...
College sports should be privatized

I will take the following position: College sports should be privatized rather than as a part of institutions of higher learning. Recent debate on paying college athletes is controversial, especially given that in many states football or basketball coaches are the highest paid state employees, or that only a few programs generate profits, and those profits remain within the athletic departments rather than benefiting the schools. I have no objection to students forming clubs and do not suggest exercise or health centers should end. I will argue that college sports should function just like the NBA, NFL, and MLB. This provides a solution to questions about whether colleges should pay athletes or prevent possible future financial problems like former NCAA football players suing schools for health problems related to concussion. At a time when students pay higher tuition and states are cut back in their financial committees, it is difficult to justify having taxpayers, students, the state and federal government devoting any resources to financing sports that provide little, if any benefit to education.
French is better than Spanish

I think Spanish is better. Why? First of all - it's really easy. Words are quite similar to their pronunciation, they are easy to remember and easy to pronounce. Also, French isn't so difficult to pronounce how it looks, but Spanish is simply simplier. Next - it's easier write the Spanish word than French. You have to just remember how to pronounce them and you can easily write them. You have got here just some simply rules - like 2 'll' are pronounced as 'y' and then don't pronounce letter 'h'. And that's all. Simply, isn't it? Finally, check out how many Spanish speakers are in the world and how many French speakers. 410 millions native speakers, 60 millions people who have got it as second language and 10 millions people who have got it as foreign language. French has got just 110 millions native speakers and 190 millions people who have got it as second language. Anyway, another reason why Spanish is better than French, is that French has got about 50k words, while Spanish has got about 500k words!
French is better than Spanish

I think Spanish is better. Why? First of all - it's really easy. Words are quite similar to their pronunciation, they are easy to remember and easy to pronounce. Also, French isn't so difficult to pronounce how it looks, but Spanish is simply simplier. Next - it's easier write the Spanish word than French. You have to just remember how to pronounce them and you can easily write them. You have got here just some simply rules - like 2 'll' are pronounced as 'y' and then don't pronounce letter 'h'. And that's all. Simply, isn't it? Finally, check out how many Spanish speakers are in the world and how many French speakers. 410 millions native speakers, 60 millions people who have got it as second language and 10 millions people who have got it as foreign language. French has got just 110 millions native speakers and 190 millions people who have got it as second language.
Most important for history

You raise a legitimate point in saying that India's leaders were elected by their caste. In India, caste is a societal position that determines what you can do in politics and the economy. That is one specific example. However, also in India, is the fact that internal entrepreneurs are providing the backbone of India's economy. The economy, after having been in a slump since the Brits quit India in 1946, was reinvigorated by the aforementioned entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs formed the backbone of Indian society. Your standing in society is determined by your potential economic output. A well placed business initiative can change the very fabric of society. Anybody remember the development of the smartphone? That little device made it so much easier for people to communicate. And... now we have people texting, and the periodic attempts to make chatspeak (otherwise known as Lawl's Syndrome, or 1337sp3k) an actual part of the English language. And who can forget the internet vigilantes who bring down people who commit various crimes. The internet, an creation of capitalism, a form of economy, can change a society almost overnight, as Bill Gates and his PC proved. Now, more than ever before, have you been able to communicate and compile information so quickly and efficiently, all the while listening to music, without a crowded study or space-consuming CD player. The development of such labor-saving devices allowed society to change, with most of the focus going to the internet as the new method of communication, as now conferences are possible from distances of thousands of miles. And with microeconomy brewing on the internet, with the culture now being affected by capitalistic creations such as games where you buy items to maximize your playing experience, like Farmville, or trading on TF2, for example. The TF2conomy alone has an estimated value of $50,000,000 USD, from inside Valve sources. The economy prompts the creation of... creations, which influence the society, which influences politics. A video you see on Youtube outlining something that can be fixed has people writing their elected representatives. All this was possible from the economy, and the incentives to produce. Your move.
Most important for history

I would like to argue that, as opposed to one affecting the other two, historical trends tend to move more like a chain. I believe, society influences politics and politics influence the economy. Then, the economy can lightly influence society during periods of economic extremes. Allow me to elaborate. Let us look at India years ago. The economy played little factor in the election of government officials. Instead, people were elected based on their caste(or SOCIAL position) to play a role in politics. Now, that leader may have developed a good economy or a bad economy for his people. Look at China. China was always patriarchal. How many of its leaders were women. This is societal beliefs impacting the government. Clearly, in China, different emperors did well and had good policies which affected the economy and others negatively influenced the economy. Again, society affected political, political affected economics. I believe that the economy does not affect politics hardly at all, but instead politics influences the economy(IRS, EPA, etc.). I did state that the economy plays slightly into society in cases of economic extremes. The great depression showed a negative extreme in which many members of society were destitute. This created changes in society. The changes were only slight, however, because societal factors such as religion did not change. However, societal factors regarding education did change. Remember though, this was temporary. In most cases, I believe that society changes very little, but societal changes are multiplied as they go through the other two factors. In other words, the slightest societal change impacts politics significantly, and those political changes affect the economy even more. It is the snowball effect. Look at it in the case of the today. Abortion and gay rights have become increasingly big issues in our government. Thus, those played a factor in the election of Obama, and Obama played a factor in our economy. To conclude, I would like to bring up this point: Society elects its leaders. A nation's leaders represent the society of that country. Counter arguments next round
Most important for history

My AP US history teacher just stated that Society, Politics, and Economics are the driving forces for almost everything that happens in society, politics, and economics. He then asked which is the most important. I believe that society is the most important and my opponent will choose one of the other two and argue it. First round-accept and choose your stance. Second-arguments Third-Counter arguments There will not be room for rebuttal for the counters so ensure that you are clear. 5000 character limit.
Abortion should be legalized

I guess that my partner is not doing anything... Well, I will try to cover most of the points.FrameworkOkay, we accept that BoP is shared. This is the last round of our team debate, famousdebater, ThePhrophett, and me, and uniferous. I thank my opponents for not forfeiting. We do not believe that my opponents are correct, but the results are from the votes. I thank them for a good debate, and we will try to defend our case as much as we can.Defense (from my opponents rebuttals)1. Fetus is not a human beingWe did offer a reason later than life exists in the beginning when we tried to rebut your arguments, and we offered that science proved that. Yes, we said to read the source, sorry about that, it was just because if we did, we will go above the charecter limit by a few thousand charecters. We will try to explain most of the points in this round if we have the charecters.We did explain that the embryo was living, and the fetus was living, by the rebuttals of fetus is alive, and our argument. Also, we are stating this by meaning that embryo is alive.Okay, we quoted his source. Pro gives no reason why this source fails. The evidence is in the source. That is a reliable source. Yes, we told you to look in the source, because we had no charecters. I will try to explain somethings in this round.Well rest of my defense got deleted and there is only one hour left, so lets just do a sentence each.2. FrameworkOur opponents concede this argument3. Abortion prevents murderWe have proven that the fetus is living, which means this argument is not dropped.4. Promote DiscretionPro almost states anything about this, and the argument is not all dropped.We believe that our opponents failed in their rebuttals.__________________________________________________________________________Just one for thing to add: Pro's final round he said that because all are not true, the fetus is not alive. This is false. children can not reporduce. Does this mean that they are not-human? I don't think so.ConclusionBecause Pro fails to rebut our arguments, vote for Con. Sorry for the briefness in the end.