BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

First, I will confess I am a vegetarian and therefore do not in fact eat chicken. This will be more of a test of my research abilities. I must confess I was surprised at how popular this topic is on the web. I am glad my opponent has challenged baked chicken. I am more than happy to defend the honor of baked chicken lovers everywhere against the fried chicken purists. I must rebut the statement that we all like fried chicken. This is a broad and inaccurate statement. Just asking around my statistics class resulted in several people who are a)vegetarians and b) don't like fried chicken. Furthermore, claiming that people like fried chicken does not prove that people don't also like baked chicken. My first source is from Taste Test: Baked vs. Fried Buffalo Wings (Royer). This authors goal was determine which was better baked or fried buffalo wings. The verdict: Baked chicken makes a better buffalo wing. Why: "The buttery sauce melted into the wings, which would never work in a pot of bubbling oil—the marinade would simply dissipate and disappear." (Royer). So, fried food is not always better. Another problem with fried food is its more damaging to the body than baked chicken. Fried food leads to weight gain, cause ulcers, gallstones and heart disease because the act of frying can change the chemical compositions of the food, add fat/cholesterol. Baked food on the other hand decreases the amount of fat within the chicken and brings out the chickens natural flavors. A fried chicken drumstick has 905 calories, 52.39 grams of fat and a baked drumstick has 110 calories and 10.1 grams of fat. This means if you eat baked chicken you can eat more of it than you can of fried chicken without negative effects. (Waltenburg) Waltenburg, Deborah. "Baked Vs. Fried Foods for Weight Loss | EHow.com."ï¿½EHow. EHow. Web. 01 June 2011. <http://www.ehow.com...;. Royer, Blake. "Taste Test: Baked vs. Fried Buffalo Wings | Serious Eats."ï¿½Serious Eats: A Food Blog and Community. Serious Eats, 2 Feb. 2010. Web. 01 June 2011. <http://www.seriouseats.com...;.
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

Lets start my first debate off fun and simple. We have so many serious debates on here, I wanted to start off light. Who doesn't like fried chicken? We all like friend chicken. There are at least three fried chicken famous food chains, such as KFC, Popeyes, and Church's chicken. None of them serve baked chicken. I believe we could look at Boston Market, or KFC's grilled chicken as acceptions, but how much money does Boston Market make compared to KFC or Popeyes?
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

And I would have found it easier to debate if I had internet at my apartment. Congrats on the new sister. I still stand by baked chicken being better for you because its healthier than fried chicken because as I said before "Fried food leads to weight gain, cause ulcers, gallstones and heart disease". Baked chicken has as many recipes available online as fried chicken. Furthermore, taste is a matter of opinion and many people like baked chicken more than fried chicken(same goes for the reverse). I say your argument of vegetarian options is still void because I already proved baked chicken vegetarian has far more results than fried chicken vegetarian. And while I agree fried chicken is more bragged about plenty of fast chain food chains and regular restaurants provide baked chicken as an option. Anyway, thanks for the debate.
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

Well I have been very late with this debate, partially because I had little sister born this weekend, and today I went to an Irish festival lol. But yes I am proud to say that I had a very good opponent, who made good arguments with great proof from research. I will continue to stick with my opinion that fried chicken is better, my main reason being that fried chicken is flaunted more through fast food chains, frozen food products, and there are even vegetarian options. I know I'm lazy now and do not feel like researching, but I promise to put more effort into a debate if you wish to challenge me or if I challenge you. Maybe we can argue that string beans are better than broccoli lol. It was nice debating with you and I wish you well, it was a fun and pointless topic but I'm glad I made it up. Take care :)
Fried chicken is better than baked chicken

None of the vegetarian options taste like chicken. Mostly, this is because you cannot mimic the taste of meat with soy products and chemical additives. Furthermore, there are plenty of recipes for non-fried vegetarian chicken. Just because the recipes exist (which your google result proves) does not prove that fried vegetarian chicken is better. You can search for about anything and get a thousands of results. Look I searched shrimp jello recipes: http://www.google.com... "if it didn't, wouldn't there be more baked chicken substitutes for vegetarians or people seeking healthy solutions opposed to fried chicken?" Did you check on this statement before you said it? Because I checked it and I found About 5,510,000 results for vegetarian fried chicken and About 43,800,000 results for vegetarian baked chicken. Read into that what you will. Moving back to real chicken, you argue taste which I responded to right off the bat with Royers taste test. Furthermore, how can we ignore health and the potential health problems fried chicken can bring a person. We are arguing which is better. And I think we can agree hands down that baked chicken is better for your body than fried chicken. So, one check toward baked chicken.
Genetic Testing

The tests will help them. If they test positive for the disease then doctors can help them treat the disease. Like I said, tests are becoming better each time they are done, soon tests will be able to tell if you have any disease or disorder at all. And what do you mean" it ONLY reveals the possible diseases" doesn"t a pregnancy test only reveal if you are pregnant or not, it"s not an abortion as well. And doesn"t a math test reveal what you are good at and aren"t good at in math? It doesn"t give you the help you need right away. You must seek that out for yourself and the test helps point you in the right direction.
Genetic Testing

While that may be the case, there is no garuntee that the test will be accurate. The test may have made an error, saying the disorder isn't there when it actually is. It is also a lot of money to perform these tests. The price range extends from the hundreds of dollars well into thousands of dollars. Even knowing the results of these tests is not great in all terms. Knowing the results can cause the patient much greif and deppresion.
Does Human Suffering Prove a Good God Cannot Exist

For obvious reasons, I cannot possibly rationalize that a good, Moral, All knowing god could exist with such a common occurrence of severe human/animal suffering in the world. 1. With all of God's infinite power and strength, How could a good God possibly allow murder, Torture, And abuse to occur under his control. Such a God would either not be a good God, Or not be a rational god. 2. With all of the incurable diseases, Unwinnable wars, And unsolvable conflicts in the world, Why would a good god not intervene to provide a solution. 3. Why would a good God allow thousands of different religions to occur if there truly was only one god. A rational non conflicting god would only implement one religion into the world to prevent violence and disagreements among religious believers. It is for these reasons that I absolutely cannot accept that a good all knowing and loving God could exist
smoking illegal

blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah
smoking illegal

I live in New York. And I think that making smoking illegal is not only beneficial but the government's duty in many ways. First of, making smoking illegal protects the health of many innocent bystanders. At least the smoker has that filter at the end of the cigarette. The person (or child) he's smoking in front of doesn't have any filter. Allowing people to smoke jeopardizes the health of non-smokers. Secondly, making smoking illegal is the government's job. Let's face it, most people don't have much free time to go around reading a 260 page medical study on the hazards of cigarette smoking. What's the probability of getting lung cancer while smoking? How much smoking would we need to do before getting lung cancer? How addictive are cigarettes? What are the other health hazards of cigarette smoking? When it comes to something as complicated as the health hazards of smoking cigarettes, who has the time to find all this out? The government. And since they have the time to find out how dangerous smoking is, it's their job to protect us when they know that smoking directly results in emphasema, heart disease, lung cancer, and ulcers. Now about "economic downfall" and how making smoking illegal would cause "millions of tax revenue". This is true ONLY IF when smoking becomes illegal, smokers take all the money they spend on cigarettes, and put it under their mattress, and never take it out again. Because if they spend that cigarette money in any other way, or invest it buy depositing it into the bank, then that money circulates into the economy, creating jobs, and generating tax revenue. Secondly, we're not trying to ban everything bad for our health. This is not about banning beef. This is not about about banning hunting. This is about banning cigarettes. The things that harm not only OUR health, but the health of people you smoke around.
Is reading good for you

This debate is on wether or not reading is good for you. I explained how it contributes to society. But it seems like you are angry on how it destroys your eyes. You also point out other objects/activities destroy your eyes like TVs and computers. Many people would be angry at you for putting TVs and books in the same category because most people would agree TVs hurt your eyes and brain more. Your POINT 2 is disregarded because most people our days will have Kindles and IPADs to read. Or they are by a lamp or snuggled under a tree. Also why are glasses so bad? Well if people call you 'Four Eyes' I'd get it but our days most people have glasses and it's in the "norm' " pretty much and they don't really cause problems other than how they cost and if they break. :POINT 3: I agree with kids not allowed to read at a certain age but there's a difference between Asian countries and America and that difference is. . . We have junk TV and they don't so put it this way: would you rather them learn their ABCs or watch Ben 10 and Barbie? My other thoughts on bad eyesight is that later (duh, Ben everything will happen later because you know we're 'merican) we will have technology that will fix our eyes and maybe even progress them even farther. We are already getting started because I saw this one guy have a robot eye that can take videos. My own views on reading: I love to read and not only has it made me the way I am but it also made me realize that there is a god because I read the Bible and many myths and what I realized is that they are practically the same other than some settings or names so they aren't really that different. If you want me to give some examples just ask though they won't have anything to do with reading mostly Theism vs. Atheism. Back to you. . .
Is reading good for you

So you are arguing that reading makes better communication and I am arguing that the fact that it strains your eyes is quite dangerous and a reason why so many people have glasses/contacts. POINT 1. Public schools in general have desks and, for many kids who sit in the back of the rooms, have to strain their eyes anyways just to see the whiteboard/blackboard/Smart-board. The kids go home, do their routine--which may include watching TV, where they could be damaging eyes (that is a controversial subject)--and then the kids have homework which most of the time includes reading. This is another place where the kids hurt their eyes yet again. POINT 2. It is very easy to overlook (see what I did there) the fact that, if you are reading without enough light, your eyes will be effected for the worse later in life because of straining. This is a problem for a lot of people, adults and kids, and it is a factor for why so many people have glasses. POINT 3. Reading at an early age effects their eyesight later in life. Is it good when kids learn to read at an early age? Particularly girls, since not many boys find interest in reading at an early age, like to read aloud to themselves when they are very young and take eager practice to learning new words. This is where #2 (above point) comes in. If they do not have enough light and are practicing--sometimes hours a day--at as early as 3-4 years old, reading can't be very good for you. In other--Asian--countries most schools do not allow kids to be taught to read until a certain age, for different reasons, but for one because it starts to slowly destroy your original eyesight. CONCLUSION: children shouldn't be taught to read at as early an age as below 6 years old. (That's an opinion of course, but that's what we're debating here.) REBUTTAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT: You are arguing that the technology and engineering part of reading is good, the part which advances society, but the debate here is about YOUR experience with reading and if it's healthy for you. The reason that the debate is not about what you were saying is because I agree with you on that. SOURCES. http://america.aljazeera.com... http://health.howstuffworks.com... http://www.theage.com.au... http://www.theage.com.au...
Is reading good for you

The health issues you are describing are in fact debatable on how far they could progress to worsen, but truly reading is the biggest leverage you could have. What if you couldn't read it would be a way for the government to clamp on you. Just like what happened in history. Like for example: Egypt. The men that learned to write became wealthy and well respected. Would you be the scribe in a palace or an illiterate slave working in the quarry? Never mind that, another example is how kings tricked their people in doing what they want by changing the bibles contexts and the people didn't know because they didn't know how to write. My other argument is that reading and writing is a way to communicate between humans that is better than verbally. Without books how would we learn anything? I mean it could mean that we would turn into like the Greeks and how each port and city had different stories to a particular legend would you want the stretched story that is a little different or the absolute truth? Without Reading and Writing our lives, past experiences, future evolutions could be completely different because without reading how could we document new or old findings that could alter human expansion? And have others learn it as well. Without reading and writing you and I might have never came to this world.
Is reading good for you

Seriously, I started reading at age four and have read all my life, which lead to writing, which led to looking at words so often. Now I have to get glasses and the straining of eyes, at an early age, might be a factor of why. I think reading is fun, in SOME cases, but it strains your eyes and that is not good for you. .. but then again where else do you get great, creative juices? Con gets to argue that reading is good for you and why.
World War 3

I believe that World War 3 will not occur any time soon. What I would first like to mention is that believe it or not, the world leaders (including Kim Jong-un) know what they are doing. There is no reason that he would show off his weapons so much if he wanted to start WW3. Due to his recent threatening actions, countries are now able to prepare for if the slight possibility happens that war breaks loose; an example of this is the activation of THAAD. Also, there would be no reason for Kim Jong-un to even start WW3. If he does that he knows that his country would most likely not exist by the end of it.
The US should adopt stricter gun control laws

Current laws are not enforced concerning firearms. New ones will not be enforced efficiently either.People have the right to protect themselves from terrorists, murderers, rapists, and even our own government. Our government can't rid the world of 30-40,000 ISIS militants. How would they stop 350,000,000 angry Americans when the military itself would be related to these armed people by blood? I trust the American people to know when to act in such matters, not the corrupt government of the United States.We will get guns, laws or not. We will make them and stockpile them if we must. The government will never truely be in control, nor should it be. We are this nation, not them. We have our own checks and balances by being armed and outnumbering the U.S. military 300 to 1. And even within the military, most would defect with no desire to kill their mom's, dad's and family. The government will never win, so it can just accept it. It's not in control. We are.
The US should adopt stricter gun control laws

Current laws are usually poorly enforced. Criminals are often able to buy guns even when the law says they should be prohibited. We need to enforce the laws we have right now first.Guns do not kill people. People do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and focus on the role the media plays in giving glory to violence and the lack of respect for law and law enforcement.Denial of firearms is comparable to the "war on drugs". If people want the item, they will get it whether legally or illegally. It doesn't matter. With the war on drugs, meth and marijuana are illegal in most states, so guess what? People started making and growing their own. And then Mexican cartels saw a new underground business to pursue, so we now have illegal drugs from Mexico being snuck in, drugs being made in private homes, and people growing their own. It didn't make it better. It's worse. The same would happen with guns.Mexico would have a new underground business. People would begin making their own, and the market would yield great money for private individual makers. And now, we would have unregistered illegal guns everywhere with no way to trace them. Here's a web site showing just how easy it is to make a gun.http://m.wikihow.com...And here's another.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...Point? You will never stop people from having guns. The only thing you even have a prayer of accomplishing is disarming law abiding citizens. Congratulations.
Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

Eating Meat Is harmful To The Planet Eating meat is harmful to the environment. In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian. We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop. Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock . One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock. This madness needs to stop. In order to feed the world we need to switch from meat to vegetables.
Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

Great news, everybody! The glitch has been fixed! Anyways, for this round, I will summarize my argument, as well as Pro's argument, and what he must show when his round 5 argument comes. Con's case: The resolution is "Eating meat harms the planet". This is false, because A) Not eating meat reduces the amount of protein you would get in your average diet, therefore not eating the meat would harm us (<- new argument here). And B) What harm is eating a cow going to do to the Amazon Forest? None, obviously! Why would it? Pro's case: Pro talks about meat factories release smoke, and cause pollution, but this isn't the resolution. Unless Pro confirms the resolution as being "Manufacturing meat harms the environment", the resolution stands as it is. What Pro needs to do in round 5, is confirm what the resolution is. If it's "Eating Meat is harmful to the World", then his previous arguments mean nothing, and must make a brand new argument for round 5 stating why eating the meat is harmful to the world. If the resolution is "Manufacturing the meat harms the world", then he mislead everybody to think that was the resolution since Round 1. These are NOT valid reasons for the resolution to be "Manufacturing Meat harms the Environment" , and why: "Con misinterpreted the resolution" will not work, since the resolution was "Eating Meat harms the world" (I'm getting bored of typing that over and over again. ) since Round 1, as Pro clearly pointed out this is what we'd be debating. "My other arguments are this, so this was the resolution" is invalid, as this is special pleading to move the goal posts to Pro's advantage. We've already established in Round 1 that the resolution is "Eating Meat harms Environment". "I have stayed on the topic of the resolution" would be okay, but a sufficient explanation is required as to why Pro has debated off of the current resolution. If it's not sufficient, I will show why, and the victory will be mine.
Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

Again I would like to say thank you to Con for that brilliant argument. Response: In Con's argument he states that by just eating a cheeseburger it will not harm the environment. However a cheeseburger cannot exist without an intelligent life form creating it. Now how does the modern day world make a burger? The burger will come from a cow. The cow will need water, grass and other food. They will needed to be herded into different fields. They will need a factory to make the burger and will need a McDonalds to put the ingredients together and to sell the item. If Con hunted a wild , then killed the cow with stone/wooden. Before finally making a burger on a wooden fire this would not create enough fossil fuels to be a concern. However this is inefficient as he/she would use up more energy making the burger than he would get back by consuming the burger. Also who does that in a modern age. Argument: Now for my argument. If I ate a burger produced using fossil fuels then that would not cause a problem but there 7 billion people on the world. Most people in the western world eat meat that would have been produced using fossil fuels. This puts dangerous greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This causes global warming and harms the environment.