BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The average intelligence of a Fox News Anchor is = or < the average intelligence of a rock

Thanks for that argument, Pro.Establishing the BasicsLiving things are complex and organized compared with nonliving matter of similar size (e.g. rocks). They perceive and respond to stimuli in their internal and external environments. They have the capacity to evolve, and increase in complexity, especially with brain functioning. Generally regarded as more capable of these higher order activities, the human brain is believed to be more "intelligent" in general than that of any other known species. The news anchors of Fox News are all members of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Even the most primitive animals are more intelligent than rocks through their neural complexity, ability to respond to stimuli, and functioning; homo sapiens are the most intelligent animals; therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks. [1, 2]Fox News Anchors are More Intelligent than Rocks (and Average Humans)I established in the previous contention the syllogism: “Even the most primitive animals are more intelligent than rocks through their neural complexity, ability to respond to stimuli, and functioning; homo sapiens are the most intelligent animals; therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks.” However, to give myself a considerable lead, I’ll widen my margin of safety even further by demonstrating that Fox News anchors are more intelligent than the average human.Based on IQ standards in the United States set to an average of 100, the world’s average IQ is around 90. There are a few categories that place Fox News Anchors above the world’s average IQ and the US average IQ: college education, salary, real-life accomplishments, and school performance are positively correlated with IQ. Although we don’t have their official IQ, the statistics point to a higher IQ not only of homo sapiens, but of homo sapiens americanus. [3]All Fox News Anchors have college degrees. In fact, a few have attended Harvard (the most prestigious University in the world) like Bill O’Reilly. [4] This points to Fox News anchors not only being more intelligent than rocks, lower animals, average human beings, but Americans.Therefore, Fox News anchors are more intelligent than rocks. I will rebut Pro’s claims in the coming round to keep the rounds fair. Please try to be funnier in the coming round, Pro.[1] http://www.molecularstation.com...[2] http://eol.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'Reilly_(political_commentator)
Resolved: The average intelligence of a Fox News Anchor is = or < the average intelligence of a rock

I accept, and I will be arguing that "Fox News anchormen are capable of intellectual thought, reasoning, and logical conclusions based on evidence" and that "The average intelligence of a Fox News Anchor is [greater than] the average intelligence of a rock"Definitions Rock: Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. [1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]Average Fox News Anchorman: Mike Huckabee; Geraldo Rivera; Neil Cavuto; Sean Hannity; Bill O'Reilly; Chris Wallace; Shepard Smith; Bret Baier; Carl Cameron. [2. http://www.foxnews.com...]Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similarforms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths,relationships, facts, meanings, etc. [3. http://dictionary.reference.com...]I look forward to a great, non-semantic debate. Good luck, Pro.
The Soviet Union could have won World War 2 alone.

Yes, the only way the Wehrmacht could have won on the Eastern front was through a quick, short victory, utilizing speed and tanks in order to punch through and encircle, to divide and conquer. Obviously, they failed, the Russian winter stopped their advance in it's tracks and made supplying such a far forward force almost impossible, here the Germans lost their initial initiative which had elicited them so much progress in the early months of Barbarossa. The Germans were forced into fighting a war of attrition, which was the worst possible outcome for their military situation in Russia. The German's attempts to re-gain the initiative failed at Kursk as it did in Operation Blue, they had lost their only real advantage; 'Blitzkrieg' (as the allies coined it) warfare. The German industry and economy were not suited for a long war, and thus could not have survived, let alone functioned without the genius of Speer, the armaments minister of the third Reich. The Germans had a severe shortage of oil, thus being unable to power most of their mechanical forces, and having to not embark upon certain offensives for lack of fuel (it was worse in the West, where the Ardennes offensive failed primarily because of a lack of oil for the 6th SS). Russia on the other hand had thrice the population, and access to a wealth of natural resources within their own territory, such as the oil-rich Caucuses and the recently acquired Tungsten production in Finland. Their factories were often hidden away in Siberia, and thus were impervious to any German attempts to disrupt their industry. While the Russians were indeed receiving equipment from the allies, this was very limited and only covered utilities such as radios and canned meat, for the Russians still predominantly used their own, or captured German equipment in battle. After the eventual stalling of Case Blue, and the strategic ineptitude of Hitler, the daring of Stalin, in addition to his willingness to sacrifice millions of people, slowed the Germans to a halt, thus forcing them into a war of attrition that they could never have hoped of winning.
Whether students should wear uniforms

School Uniforms promote school staffs control over the students. Students are no longer given the tools need to succeed and are instead forced to conform in order to succeed. Wearing school uniforms can cause stress on a student to dress and act like everyone else in order to abide by the rules. Public Schools should not be able to enforce uniform dress codes because they are free institutions open to all. Uniforms cannot be totally enforced in public schools because it can then violate the open policy of accepting students. Students who cannot economically afford a student uniform can become discouraged from attending school and feel unwelcome. Student Uniforms do little to improve a students education. If students aren't distracted by their clothing choices they will find something else to get side tracked with. Student mandated uniforms will take away from student expressive individuality. Some students express themselves through their clothing choices and find common interests with others based on shared fashion choices. If a student can"t express themselves through their outfit choices their personal identity and individuality is compromised. Thought school uniforms would aim at increasing students success, the solution is too controlling and the benefits wont out weight the means. If all students are forced to wear uniforms what would be next? Administrative approved backpacks?
Whether students should wear uniforms

Referring to your hostile "environment claim" school uniforms eliminate baggy clothing which eliminates any concealment of weaponry. Bullying will happen regardless, I am not stating that uniforms will prevent this horrible act, but instead it will at least lower it by a certain degree. there are a lot of measures to prevent bullying and this is a great way to start the prevention of it. They do not enforce an unrealistic expectation in stead it helps students strive to be a lawyer or a doctor, someone with a certain type of professionalism. The stress of not having enough uniforms can be easily combated with my previous claim, buy them at discount prices. But this solution doesn't exist with modern day apparel because anyone would see that you bought something in the clearance isle and then you get bullied for it. Preventing schools from having uniforms is just taking a step back in the fight against bullying. Uniforms play no downside in the educational realm, and you claim it doesn't help, Statistics show that it at least does something and if that's all we got in this fight we should take it.
Whether students should wear uniforms

Being forced to wear school uniforms will do little to prevent bullying from happening. If a student isn't being bullied about their clothing they could get picked on for what shoes they wear or what accessories or backpack they have. School Uniforms don't create a safer environment but instead enforce a more hostile one. Students who violate the uniform dress code can be taken out of instructional time based on their outfit. Some students might also stress over having enough uniforms or how much money they spent on their uniform, these feelings exist with both regular clothing and uniform apparel. While uniform policies try to even the playing field among students, students find ways to break the dress code or modify their uniform to outshine each other. Uniforms don't even the playing field instead they create a whole other playing field that students still compete on. School uniforms enforce unrealistic expectations of unity amongst a large number of people. In the real world you don"t dress exactly the same as the person next to you. Everyone strives to be their own person in society and one way of showcasing your individuality is through uniforms. Students can begin to lose a sense of individuality by continuously looking like everyone else. Students should have the right to express themselves through their choice of dress as long as it abides by the safety dress code regulations. Uniforms can"t fix the bigger picture of creating a safer environment for students to attend.
Whether students should wear uniforms

School uniforms are not necessarily expensive, most schools allow students to purchase uniforms from outside the school, meaning you can always find discounts while back to school shopping. And I agree other efforts can be made to make students feel united, like joining a club or a team. But the reality is the whole student body can't participate in one single club or one team, the best way to include the entire student body in a unifying manner is to appoint students to professional school attire, which they will be using in their future careers as well. And uniforms are not stripping of them of their individuality instead it will be used to even the starting points in all students' character, and allow them to be judged on their actions in the school as in joining clubs or participating in school events, instead of how many name brand clothes you have or whether or not you are under the poverty line. Which in turn is preparing them for their future careers, because in reality you will be hired on how many internships or volunteer work you've done, your actions not how good you look in a suit. And my argument does not contain Red Herring because everything I said is relevant to school uniforms, its just one of the reasons school uniforms are promoted and bullying is a big reason, the topic of safety is commonly brought up and what it does is make gang identification is obscured. Group violence and theft are dissipated... Children are no longer identified by their 'colors.' Uniform dress alleviated the feelings of imminent danger for students who were afraid they might inadvertently dress in gang colors. As well as prevent bullying as I've stated before. Your argument on the other hand presents itself with the straw man fallacy because you misrepresented my conclusion by saying it strips individuality and then attacked it with the oncoming premises. Conclusion: School uniforms are Inexpensive, safe, and should be required by schools
Whether students should wear uniforms

While it"s true that less wealthy students can"t always afford to compete with other students, lesser fortunate students won"t always be able to afford the high prices of school uniforms. Other efforts can be made to make students feel more united that don"t include stripping them of their individuality. School uniforms negatively enforce the idea that all people are the same, should look the same, and should fit in with everyone else. Schools should promote individuality rather than enforcing conformity. Pro"s argument can be considered a Red Herring fallacy argument because their focal points are centered on bullying instead of school uniforms. Conclusion: All schools should not mandate or require school uniforms.
Money is killing us

Again Con is directing the dabates context away from its intention but i am more than happy to address a couple of points made by Con as side topics and then finish on my real point. Your opening paragraph describes some individuals, but not all, and your reasoning later on confirms this (individuals are influenced to behave a certain way) but not all individuals are influenced to behave in the same way as each other. So how do we figure out which way is actually correct? Who has the real authority over life? It can only be a being outwith ourselves that acts justly, a being that will correctly 'influence' us. It is down to us to either trust that being or reject that being. Each individual wrong decision to reject God takes us further away from him and his will (the will we truly seek) this has now lead us here to the point of greed and selfishness in SOME people, unfortunatly a lot of these people have a lot of materialistic power and can easily influence us in a completely different way. I know this is not a religious debate and i know that religion is such a huge topic but to me and to millions around the world God is the centre of every subject not money. As for your request, the planets growth is in reference to every aspect of its meaning to us, but we don't need money to allow the planet and by extension us to flourish. When we talked about people working hard, can we not work hard for the sake of working hard? Rather than just for profit? Can we not work hard for each other so that we can live, so we can flourish? We are a united nations with united leaders that can make any decisions they want together. For such an intelligent species why do we let money run our lives? What we need is a modern day Abe Lincoln to take us away from the dated illness that is poverty. Someone to make (good) radical changes, someone needs to step up, and if someone does maybe they can 'influence' us to act the same way, the way of peace, love and charity, the way of Jesus Christ. There are so many people working hard to act in this way in their every day life, who remain faithful, who fight for all of us. So not all people think and act as you describe, life can't be worked out with figures and paperwork. I have to circle back to my main point again and i will try a simpler way of putting it, a starving African child does not care for the economic growth of businesses, that child just wants food and water in their stomach. Can we NOT grant that? You think that is justifiable? And 1 last question, hypothetically take every luxury out of this world so that all you are left with is our planet with all of us and our resources and intelligence in it .(not money) and we still have to work. Is it possible to feed and give water to every human beingin this scenario? People have to come first.
Money is killing us

I see so pro is arguing that the human RACE is responsible for basic human rights. I was bringing up that human INDIVIDUALS value money and by extension themselves over all else. This is a core assumption in all economic theory. I ask that pro define "this planet's growth" because this good refer to economic growth. 1. The fundamental mistake that pro makes in their argumentive statement is referring to the human race as a single entity. Each human is distinctly separated from the other and as such every mass movement of the human race is started by individuals who then influence others to behave a certain way. I will try to explain why the poverty that is basic human rights is inevitable. 1. The simple and most blunt answer on why poverty exists is that: Most people don't care. Why? Because people prefer to increase their own "utitility". Utility is a term in economics that refers the the quantity of happiness a human can gain. Utility can take many forms including moral feelings from doing charitable work but for a lot of people this is simply not worth the "opportunity cost". Opportunity cost simply means with the exact same resources (money, time, labour, etc.) the next best alternative you can get. For most people the moral feeling from charitable work is not worth the cost because they could buy food, cars, books, games, movies, clothes, donations to a different cause, etc. 2. Now the more complex reason is that the people in these impoverished areas don't necessarily require donations and in fact are harmed by donations. Take Uganda for example, foreign donations in Uganda have crushed local Ugandan businesses and forced then out of business which is crippling the domestic economy of Uganda. So the solutions to these problems aren't clear cut and foreigners tend to understand them poorly and end up harming then more than helping. 3. The truth is that altruism doesn't exist in economics. Like I pointed out before what chariters are gaining is the moral feeling and societal respect that comes with being an altruistic person so only people who get sufficient satisfaction from this will go out of their way to seriously try to help the impoverished. 4. The world is divided. People in the USA care less about the people in Uganda then they do fellow Americans and vice versa. In this sense whenever a transaction between two countries is involved the respective negotiators are obligated to secure the most beneficial trade organization to their own countries regardless of the effects on the other country, it's a zero sum game. If I take more, you lose more, but I am obligated to take as much as I can. So there is a conflict of interest that altruism has no place in. I think I'd covered most reasons so I'll leave it at that and await pro's response and I thank anyone who takes the time to read this and ponder the topic.
Money is killing us

Thank you for the response 😀 reading your response it is clear that you are prioritising money in your arguments, I agree with a few things you said, people should work hard and earn to support their family, but my topic is not on this subject, it is on prioritising basic human rights (water, food, shelter, clothing) first, over anything, then the rest can fall into place. It has now been almost half a century since we put man on the moon just think of how advanced we are now, has poverty advanced? We are responsible for this planet and its growth not money.
Money is killing us

Hi, I'm a student currently studying economics and I hope I can make this interesting. 1. To address pros final question "is poverty justifiable? " to answer it simply yes it is. If someone refuses to get job and refuses to work one expects them to be impoverished, right? We set up welfare programs to try and help some of these people get started sacrificing a portion of out own hard earned cash. 2. To address the finer points of pros post I'll start with "actors and sports athletes make sickening amounts of cash". Like everything in an economy Labour/jobs have supply and demand meaning (number of people willing/capable if doing it) vs (number of people who need the services of said job). Actors and professional athletes are paid so much more because the standards and barrier of entry to become a qualified member of the labour market is extraordinarily high meaning it is very difficult to become either of them. Next is the amount of money generated by the businesses that require actors and athletes; they are huge. The NFL pulled in 13 billion dollars of revenue last season and star wars viii alone has pulled in 1.8 billion dollars at the box office. If you would like me to address the other points please state them in numbered format and I'd be happy to address them.
Money is killing us

More and more and more money is being spent and flashed about every year. Actors, sport athletes and so on are now earning sickening amounts of cash and yet poverty still exists. Why? As human beings who share the same planet and same life morals how can we justify poverty by using currency as an excuse? We created money, its only paper. I just think it is now the year 2016 and we still have poverty, money is prioritised wrong and is very much taken for granted. My question is, is poverty justifiable?
Best Death Wish

I apologize for not responding in a timely manner to the last debate round. It is finals time, so I am a bit preoccupied. My opponent's death wish requires an alternate reality. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but the bleak snapshot of the dystopia he describes would make suicide banal and common. Who wouldn't want to end his/her life when civilization has turned into some combination of spy v spy and the hunger games? Additionally, my opponent's suicidal character has a brief philosophical "insight" before pulling out what I imagine is a bugs bunny type stick of dynamite and hitting the detonator button. The character thinks that the only meaning in life comes from fighting an opponent- what a cliche. I don't think dear Alias has thought things through. There are so many lovely things to come in the life of a hero. At the very least, he should wait until he becomes bored with all of the orgies he will find himself at the center of. Further, if all he wants is to fight, there will always be an opponent. Hell, he can always join the other side.
Best Death Wish

Uh. Yeah, sorta. The things I find displeasing about your so lovely demise (I'll admit to that) but it lacked that. . . personal touch. The death you had in mind seemed to be one of revenge (or just plain nut-craziness) which is fine, but if you want to mess someone up you have to crush their innocence. Hide in the cake, with a bomb; wait, then Kaboom! Your guts are everywhere: the floor, the walls, ceiling, cups, plates, guests, and stupid people you hate. Your brains, in the cake, for a wedding. And hopefully also covering the flower-girl.
Best Death Wish

Okay, not bad. Mine though, is quite different. Enveloped in the cheers, they gather, wailing your name. "Alias! Alias! Alias!" "Death to Black Spy!" "Show us the loser!" Smiling, you grant their request. Lifting your hand high above the crowd, tightly clutched between your fingers. A pure black pointed hat. The people are roaring. Energy surges through them to light the astounding hatred for your foe. Decapitation; the glee experienced at the momentous perilous point of perplexed perfection. It is so as you understand nothing other than it's surface meaning, but then a darker realization reveals itself: meaning. This is what you have lost. Gaining superiority over The Federation means nothing to you now. You fought your foe for what seems like forever but now, alas, you choke at the notion of something better. Black Spy. What are you without him? A light in the darkness? No. That's what you were, what you now cease to be. For what, you ask; Is light without darkness? Triumph without Legacy? A smile grows over your colorless face- such a twisted grin of euphoria. One last stick of dynamite remains tightly clutched. . . between your fingers. For what, you think. . . Is white without black?