BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

Traditionally man's actions have been inspired and motivated by beauty. Without this apparent added quality, paintings such as the Mona Lisa, which epitomizes art and culture,would not exist.Let us take a moment and think what is the most important invention, beneficial to mankind. Electricity? Light Bulb? Steam Engine? You would be right if you thought Electricity, followed by Light bulb which came in a close second.(http://tinyurl.com...)None of these inventions had a significant contribution on the basis of attractiveness. What Con says regarding Mona lisa, is an example of a single field - Painting. Or specifically - Portrait.Portrait too is a matter of perception. While majority are impressed by Leonardo Da Vinci's breathtaking portrait, some might not find it very beautiful. Also, one must not forget that the painting " which epitomizes art and culture" would not have existed if papper had not been invented. Thus Brains have had a greater impact on life and soceity than physical Beauty.Men work, and try to acquire as much power and money as possible to get a beautiful wife."The reason that the all-American boy prefers beauty to brains is that he can see better than he can think." - Farrah FawcettFarrah Fawcett, an American actress and artist, by saying this clearly reaffirms my point.Another article, A new research suggests men increasingly value intellect and character in a partner over a shapely figure. Apparently, traditional wifely skills such as being a good cook are also becoming less important to modern men, British scientists claim.(http://tinyurl.com...) a parent would naturally want to have good looking/beautiful offspring, to increase the child's chances of being successful. It seems more plausible that a parent would want their child to have acdemic success first and then the the good looks and beauty.which explains why sales in the cosmetic industry have been reported to reach up to $170 billion a yearIt is ironic how the link you mentioned refers to chemistry which reaffirms my point that one needs intellect first. All beauty related products which Con has mentioned is produced to some chemists intellectual thought process, which led to the invention of the mentioned products. Calculation of billions of dollars($170 billion) is done by economists and super computers all of which have been invented by people with brains.About the Halo Effect: Landy and Sigall’s 1974 study demonstrated the halo effect on judgments of intelligence and competence on academic tasks. Twenty were presented with a photo of an attractive female as author and twenty with that of an unattractive female as author. On a scale of 1–9, the well-written essay by the attractive author received an average of 6.7 while the unattractive author received a 5.9 . The gap was larger on the poor essay: the attractive author received an average of 5.2.Thus intelligent but not attractive person was rated higher than attractive but not intelligent person.
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

"To love beauty is to see light"- Victor Hugo Con commences his argument with the full acceptance that this is a controversial argument in which the odds are stacked against him In commencing, from Victor Hugo's quote we see that beauty is not merely a superficial construct, or as Pro puts it "an added quality" Beauty is the essence of inspiration. Con seeks to prove that the pursuit of knowledge itself is inspired by beauty. Since in this instance beauty refers to feminine beauty. Traditionally man's actions have been inspired and motivated by beauty. Without this apparent added quality, paintings such as the Mona lisa, which epitomizes art and culture,would not exist. 1) It could be argued that the world is governed by beauty. Men work, and try to acquire as much power and money as possible to get a beautiful wife, the biological reason being to have better looking children. According the Halo effect principle, the more good looking/or beautiful a person is the more automatically associate such people with favorable characteristics http://biasandbelief.pbworks.com... It therefore follows that a parent would generally want to create the best possible environment and circumstances for their children to grow under, as such it would follow that a parent would naturally want to have good looking/beautiful offspring, to increase the child's chances of being successful. (Please note that this paragraph serves to prove con's assertion that men acquire wealth to get a good looking wife,who will most likely provide them with good looking children) 2) From this formulation we see how our world is at its core governed by beauty,man seek it, women try and attain it, in order to have a better, richer and more powerful suitor, which explains why sales in the cosmetic industry have been reported to reach up to $170 billion a year http://chemistscorner.com... If we factored in other "beauty" related things/activities/products, such as gyms, diet pills and health supplements,this figure would balloon In point 2) "A beautiful person, especially the female gender in this case, can have a dull brain" First of all beauty doesn't immediately exclude intelligence. However since Pro is arguing in such a manner, Con points out, that in society beauty is valued over ones intelligence. It is general knowledge throughout most of school, intelligent children tend to be bullied, whilst the beautiful are adored and worshiped. The constant bullying these intelligent kids endure, results in a lower sense of self confidence. If you're constantly being put down by your peers chances are you would not believe in yourself or actually be willing to anything out of your comfort zone, which is contrary to beautiful people. With regards to point 3 it is not about using her body, its about the halo effect, it is about people's pre-conceived notions on beautiful people.
It is better to have Brains than Beauty

" Knowledge is Power" - Sir Francis Bacon 1)The brain is the container of knowledge. The basic difference between a beast and a man, is the latter's possession of an advanced brain which gives him the ability to think and allows him to differentiate between good and evil. 2)Physical beauty is an added quality. Life is enlightened for brains and not for beauty. A beautiful person, especially the female gender in this case, can have a dull brain and might just end up harming herself. For example, Marilyn Monroe. Marilyn was the biggest box-office draw of her time, her name sold a million movie tickets, and every red-blooded man in the world was in lust with her. But despite the power she exerted over men, including the most powerful of them, John F Kennedy, then President of the United States , Marilyn seemed strangely powerless when it came to staying in charge of her own life. She drifted from one disastrous relationship to another, sought comfort in drink and drugs, and in the end, when nothing seemed to work to numb the pain, she killed herself. I'm not trying to say that Marilyn was dumb, but her incapability to decide what was good for her is clearly brought out by the fact that she resorted to drugs and drinks for solace. 3) While Con might say, that a beautiful woman can use her body and good looks in securing high end jobs , a man, or a woman,for that matter, with a not-so-appealing face, might fail to impress their seniors, albeit he or she has the required educational qualifications. However, i personally feel that this is unethical. Would one accept sexual favors so as to get a simple job? What good would that do? The Head of the Department might give her an important job in the office but if she lacked brains and brought heavy losses to the office, she surely would get fired. P.S. For the purpose of this argument, i have taken the gender to be "she" for it seems more plausible that a woman would use her beauty for various purposes than a man with an attrac
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

And I don't know where you got the idea of less taxes from, the south had more taxes than the north Its just common sense, you've got industrial states that ran of the cost of women, children and men working in the mills as in the South you got black slaves that were giving a home on the plantation. Northern states taxed the Southern states to pay for the mills and however worked there too. http://media.maps.com... Delaware had abolished slavery in all but name by the time the war broke out Delaware didn't abolish slavery till the late 1800's being the second to last state to ratify the 13th amendment before Mississippi. Most of the states population remand in the Northern portion of the state where textile mills flourished. Farther South slavery was legal but was not common, making a slave population less than 4,000. http://innercity.org... http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net... http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net...
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

"The South left the Union to become a nation of less taxes and goverment." It is ironic how you confederates try to use libertarian ideology to back yourselves up. Freedom does not mean the right to be own others as slaves but the right not to be owned as a slave. And I don't know where you got the idea of less taxes from, the south had more taxes than the north [1]. No that wasn't what the war was about, it was about the economy and the south's economy was based on slave labour. "Northern states like Maryland and Delaware didn't secede but have slave population." Delaware had abolished slavery in all but name by the time the war broke out [2]. Maryland still had slavery, you are correct but the vast majority of slaves were in the south and the south was willing to die for its right to own other human beings as property. [1] http://www.taxhistory.org... [2] Kolchin 1994, pp. 81"82.
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

What this quote means.That the South didn't give up any fights agaist Northern tarift and fought for their rights nomader what will come their way. The South left the Union to become a nation of less taxes and goverment. Northern states like Maryland and Delaware didn't secede but have slave population.The United States hated the CSA because of their right to secede and how they wanted to save the union
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

This is a brief outline of my argument: In the south just before the war forty percent of the population were slaves and the white population of the south benefited hugely from this [1]. The north's main issue with the south was slavery, northern juries would systematically free runaway slaves [2]. This caused problems for the south and was the major reason for succession. While nationalism and patriotism was used by the confederates the real goal was the sustaining of the south's slave based economy. [1] http://civilwargazette.wordpress.com... [2] http://www.math.buffalo.edu...
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

The south's economy was based on slave labour and that was what they were fighting to protect 30% of the Southern white population was slave owning but buy the War between the States the population got the 12%. Till around 1862 making it around 6% till they were freed by the Confederacy. Two of the slave states realized that they were too close to the northern states to not be conquered if war broke out Maryland vote passed for secession but the it failed because Lincoln sent troops down to Annapolis to jail the seccessioist and Governer Hicks.Maryland's state song is also pro Confederate writen during the Baltimore riot Maryland, My MarylandJ.R. Randall The despot's heel is on thy shore,Maryland, My Maryland!His touch is at thy temple door,Maryland, My Maryland!Avenge the patriotic goreThat fleck'd the streets of Baltimore,And be the Battle Queen of yore,Maryland, My Maryland!Hark to a wand'ring Son's appeal!Maryland, My Maryland!My Mother State! To thee I kneel,Maryland, My Maryland!For life and death, for woe and weal,Thy peerless chivalry reveal,And gird thy beauteous limbs with steel,Maryland, My Maryland!Thou wilt not cower in the dust,Maryland, My Maryland!Thy beaming sword shall never rust,Maryland, My Maryland!Remember Carroll's sacred trust,Remember Howard's warlike thrust-And all thy slumberers with the just,Maryland, My Maryland!Dear Mother! Burst the tyrant's chain,Maryland, My Maryland!Virginia should not call in vain!Maryland, My Maryland!She meets her sisters on the plain-"Sic semper" tis the proud refrain,That baffles minions back amain,Maryland, My Maryland!I hear the distant thunder-hum,Maryland, My Maryland!The Old Line's bugle, fife and drum,Maryland, My Maryland!She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-Huzza! She spurns the Northern scum!She breathes-she burns! She'll come! She'll come!Maryland, My Maryland!Delaware vote did not pass but they state was not plaining on secession either because of being the first U.S state in the Country. https://answers.yahoo.com...
"The longer you learn about the American Civil War you learn that the South was right"

Look, lets keep this on topic. The south's economy was based on slave labour and that was what they were fighting to protect. Two of the slave states realized that they were too close to the northern states to not be conquered if war broke out and made the tactical decision to side with the north. At the end of the day the south was for slavery and the north was against slavery. The confederate states did have higher taxes and Delaware had one of the smallest slave populations throughout all the states.
Religious doctrine of inherent evil is incredibly harmful to mankind.

I submit, that religious and more specifically Christian doctrine of the inherent evil of mankind, is bad for mankind. The belief that mankind is inherently evil, as a result of sin, is responsible for division, family dispute, negative expectation and even war and genocide in some cases. It causes normally good people, to behave incredibly poorly towards others, and to expect the worst from others, and the future. Christians argue that evil is evident and to be expected, I argue that an expectation of evil causes believers to give greater weight to individual cases of bad behavior, at the expense of the majority, more prevalent good behavior of a majority of mankind. This negative focus is incredibly bad for mankind and becomes a self fulfilling prophesy, in that it creates negative actions towards others and most dangerously, the future. In essence, religious expectation of disaster and evil and degradation is created by the doctrine of inherent evil, and should be a major consideration, while contemplating whether religious and faith based belief is beneficial or detrimental for mankind.
stcornerap does not know jesus

You can say that all day until you are blue in the face, it doesn't make it biblical. So far you have given your opinions but haven't shown how any of them relate to God or Christianity. You boast of your superiority but but give no evidence of it. You brought me here to this debate, when are you going to start? So far I can't tell that you've said anything or given me anything to debate. I'm kind of wondering what the end game is. If it was to make me look foolish I think your plan may have backfired. Frustrating right?
stcornerap does not know jesus

Well you have guts, I'll give you that. Your argument is based on things that you do not know. Mine is based on what I do know. God has granted me sight to create a theorem that defines morality to His logic. You think I would have known this theorem that literally answers a philosophical question that Man has not been able to answer for thousands of years without God? What you are truly arguing is not even words of Christ. You just don't want Muslims or any other religion brought into the fold. Christ's and God's intention was always to save humanity. How are we saving it by telling so many are going to hell just because they don't the names right? Do you realize that you are being as stubborn as the pharisees that killed the Christ? Why do you think they killed him? He was saying that gentiles will eventually be brought into the fold, giving them less righteousness. I am saying that if people, not matter what they call their deity, will follow this theorem, then they will be saved. You don't need a unifying religion, just a unifying logic. I will say that anyone who follows me shall have salvation from the Lord your God. And he is coming.
stcornerap does not know jesus

Oh how little your mind is to think that you know the Truth, tell me, if good people have never known of Jesus, would they be saved? If not, doesn't that imply that God created people with only one choice to go to hell? Jesus or God does not need to be worshiped. They as individuals do not need their name in unity, but their spirit will travel across the world in many different forms. What you fail to realize is I once turned from Jesus because of YOUR hypocrisy. I will not stand for it any longer that you think you know better than me. Answer these questions first or explain their irrelevance. I will not let you deflect. You have no words of substance to use against me anyway, but I have the words of Christ against you. Let us be judged by our peers.
stcornerap does not know jesus

I stand by what I said. I think you're a good guy with good intentions. I also stand by the fact that it is your will that you proclaim and not God's. In terms of the Bible good people don't go to heaven, saved people do. You can be the nicest guy in town and not except Jesus as your Lord and savior. Or you can be a person who has lived a colorful life, turn to Jesus and be saved. We're not debating the world view, The atheist view, or the view of any other religions that uses the Bible , we are debating the Christian view and I'm afraid you just don't understand it properly. That's OK I didn't either and I still have so much to learn. Like I've told you before you're not going up against myself or my words, you're taking on God. You want to fit Him into your beliefs and not what He teaches and that's just not biblical. You are a self proclaimed prophet who thinks that the Bible can't be understood properly unless people read your teachings 1st. You believe that people aren't wise enough to understand it either on their own, through the power and ministering of the Holy Spirit, or by any other teaching method other than your own. It's great to have ideas but we have to test those ideas against God's word to make sure they are biblical before we teach them to others and say that they belong to God. It would be incredible to have an Angel of light appear before me and give me revelation, but if the words of that Angel did not match up with the word of God I would not preach the words of the angel I would turn from it. Just as I turn from your words because I choose to follow God and not you. You are upset because there is not much value in a prophet that no one follows. You have tremendous value, and I believe that God has great purpose for you, but that purpose is not to be a profit that preaches a different gospel and claims it as the Lord's. I don't really want to debate with you, I just want to plant a seed of truth. The truth that if you want to follow and serve the God of the Bible, you have to follow him you can't lead Him.
sport is still fun

I don't think anyone would disagree that sports at their very core are fun. I would argue however that they have become so commercialized and so competitive that the fun is put in the back seat. Take for example childrens little league baseball. I have umpired little league baseball for 9 years. Nothing reminds of the fun of baseball more than watching parents get in fist fights on the field. Or little kids cussing me out after they strike out. I think most would agree that the idea of "it doesn't matter if you win or lose" is far from the minds of parents and children alike today. FUN has taken a back seat to agenda. Thank you for this debate, even though I am not really sure what you were trying to argue.
sport is still fun

I would like to remind you that this is not about professional athletes and their attitude but more so about sport being fun. While your emphasis is on professional athletes being a multi million dollar industry, I am sure that no body would deny how much some of the professional athletes make. IN Fact they make so much money that they would not have to work or participate at all unless they still got some enjoyment with the sport. So I present to everyone my prodigious argument that sport IS still fun . I would like to end my debate by a couple of quotes and their meanings. One is 'Life be in it' this is encouraging more people to take care of their lives and be encouraged to participate in some sort of sport- to enjoy what they are doing and to have fun. I am sure that you have heard from many sources that the way to learn something and be good at it is firstly to have a passion and secondly to have fun in what you are doing. by having fun, you learn alot quicker. Sport is still fun. there would not be the amount of people involved in sport if it was not fun. many people think of Summertime as sports mean fun, fresh air, and fitness. Soccer is the most popular team sport in the world – what more is there to say? This sport that captures the imagination and fun of billions has also led to the creation of a new species – the soccer mom. Ferrying her children to their game, her most pressing thoughts are about whether she was responsible for bringing the bag of orange slices to the game this week as she sits there watching little 'johnny' having fun playing. The sports business journal writes to tell us that sport should be fun safe and accessible to many people. This is what is happening now . there is a deep difference in having a passion and having fun. Sport is still fun for everyone.
sport is still fun

I would argue that while for the every day person sport is something to be done at a your leisure, it is not motivated by fun for the pro athelete. This is not to say that they do not have a deep love for the game. They may be very passionate about the sport they are playing but for them the game goes so much farther beyond fun. Sports represent a multi-billion dollar industry that could be defined as entertainment. Why do people become professional athletes? because it's fun? I would contend that it has more to do with the glamour of being a professional athlete not with the fun of playing the sport. Consider as well how many athletes would not continue to play for a team to the same degree if they didn't get paid millions. I would argue that the moment their contract is gone they are to because they are a commodity, a business person, looking for a place to sell their product.