BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Winter is better than summer.

What we are debating here is if winter is intrinsically better than summer or if it is not. People's education on the matter and their steps to take during these two seasons notwithstanding. There are plenty of people who do things that place them at higher risk for illness or harm all year round, winter is no exception. And you keep using the word irresponsible for how people dress during the summer without addressing what is irresponsible about it. Cold weather has higher risk of frost bite, pneumonia, seasonal depression, vitamin K deficiency, all the while most of summer's problems remain in effect. Additionally, of the main causes for residential fires, heating sources account for the second most deaths in home fires behind smoking [1] . . . and people are more likely to smoke inside when it's freezing out. As for summer and health, there are exactly two things you need to do: 1. Protect yourself from the sun. 2. Stay hydrated. Whether you accomplish the first one through the use of clothing or sunblock is up to you. but the second point is simple of all, drink lots of water. I've spent a little over two years in the middle east thanks to two deployments with the U.S. Army, and I can tell you that 120F weather and up is no joke, especially when you're wearing heavy boots, calf high socks, long pants and sleeves, body armor, and a whole lot of metal. You know what? In all that time, not only did I not become a heat casualty, but only a couple of soldiers in the massive unit I deployed with did. The cause? Not drinking enough water. Hydration is your best friend in the summer. [2] Of course, we're talking extreme summer here. Summer in most of the US (certainly in the UK) doesn't get that hot except for a few extreme circumstances. All this while, we've been talking about harm to your body directly due to the season, but there's more than that. Roads can become iced over during the winter which is a massive hazard to drivers. Anti-icing measures can alleviate that somewhat in cities, but rural areas are largely still a risk. Not only that, but de-icing agents are harsh on your car. Often times salt is used which can pit the paint and encourage rust. And let's not forget that pipes can freeze in your home and burst and ice-laden trees can collapse in part or in whole and cause damage to buildings, cars, utility grids, and people. These things aren't a factor in summer at all! I'd say I'm sticking to my point that summer is better, and we haven't even gotten to the positive sides of each season yet. Sources: [1] http://www.nfpa.org... [2] http://phc.amedd.army.mil...
Winter is better than summer.

You are only pointing out the severe consequences of winter, which is potentially uncommon. The top health concerns of summer are not just those and there are much more severe concerns like nausea. Concerns like sun burn, dehydration and heat stroke may very well be prevented but not cured. It is difficult to get dehydrated in Winter- it uncommon. However, you can get hypothermia. With temperatures soaring Summer, dehydration and heat illnesses can effect you dramatically and can subsequently kill you. Heat-related dehydration is a big problem in summer. And if you're active — even if you're healthy — you're at risk. Thirst isn't always the best clue that it's time to take a drink. Considering your opinion: 'it's all a matter of where your from'- this still does not contradict to the fact that taking more and more clothes off is irresponsible. It is a thing that most people fall into as an act of stupidity. A lot of clothing in winter protects you. When it is summer, people take more and more clothes on yet still the heat flows into your body. It is hardly protecting yourself. This clearly shows winter is of better standard than summer.
Winter is better than summer.

I would disagree with Pro on the assertion that winter is healthier than summer by a metric of illnesses. There are any number of illnesses that can strike you all year round and the ones associated with summer are no joke, I'll give you that. Summer's top health concerns are overexposure to UV radiation (sun burn), dehydration, and heat stroke. These all can be prevented with a few basic steps: sunscreen, proper attire, and drink water - lots of water. Winter, on the other hand, can be rather vicious with it's health concerns. There is seasonal affective disorder, hypothermia, flu, and not to mention that summer's hazards are not out of the picture. It's actually fairly easy to become dehydrated during winter due to the cold covering for a loss of water and the dry atmosphere both inside of climate controlled buildings and out contributing to your body's loss of water. You can become overheated in too much clothing without being fully aware of it. And to top it all off, snow is effective at reflecting UV radiation, which doesn't simply disappear thanks to the temperature. You can still get sunburned. To address the problem of people dressing "irresponsible" during the summer months, that is purely a matter of opinion. But I would like to point out that if there were an effective, objective methods to decide what is and what is not irresponsible, it would be a function of what is best suited to maintain your health during situations of extreme heat. Here's were it gets a bit ironic. In most western societies, we respond to heat by removing more and more clothing until we are left with the minimum of whatever we or those around us consider decent. In hotter climates, on the other hand, a cultural proclivity towards loose fitting, layered clothing such as robes has developed. These serve to keep the heating effects of the sun at bay, while allowing the body's natural tempurature regulating system to work it's wonders. So as far as clothing is concerned, it's all a matter of where you're from.
Winter is better than summer.

Winter is better than summer. Although you get colds and illnesses in winter, you still get illnesses in summer that takes a long time to resolve. For example in summer, you feel really hot and subsequently fall ill and weak- there is not much you can do apart from stay cool and rest. Summer is really hot and you cannot dress up for that. If you wear too much clothes you get really ill and if you wear little clothing you look irresponsible. In winter you can wear a scarf, a coat, gloves etc. That protects you from the cold. Summer is beautiful but if you consider health, you would think winter is much better.
Winter is better than summer.

Sorry I had not been able to reply to your argument- had no Internet for ages! Those kittens are so cute and cats are my favourite animals in the whole world! Anyway, winter is the better holiday because of the temperature. Since it's cold, you use energy to warm yourself up. It will help with your system growing stronger. In the summer, you sweat losing hydration. There are a lot of sports to do in winter plus it is fun to play in snow. Some people don't like to go outside in winter so I find it brings the family closer together. There are naturally forming ice crystals to awe and admire in winter. It invites imagination and curiosity. Also no two snow flakes are the same and I find that rather fascinating. I adore the wonderful patterns the frost makes on the windows. I love either watching rain pouring down like a shower or rain pitter pattering on the floor. The wild wind makes the trees look like they are dancing. Winter is a place where wonder and mysteries take place. In summer people can be exposed to getting strokes and degustation more in the summer. Summer targets everyone with severe illnesses especially at kids. Everyone loves hot chocolate but you can't enjoy it in summer. In winter, you can appreciate the hot chocolate because it makes you warmer and it is yummy! In conclusion, winter is beautiful, safer and much more fun! Please vote for me. Pretty please!!!
Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society.*

I contest the earlier definition. Beneficial to society: Achieving greater greater tangible positive consequences than negative ones. 1. Fruits (such as pluots) which are a cross between two normal fruits are not genetically modified. These kinds of fruits have existed longer than genetic modification has, and are achieved through grafting. This debases my opponent's contention regarding improved flavor. 2. My opponent states "I strongly believe that transgenic plants should remain available for commercial distribution with the addition of a label to differentiate/highlight non-GM agriculture for ethical/medical purposes. " However, the resolution is that GM agriculture is beneficial to society, not that it should be available. 3. My opponent's link speaks of corn enhanced with vitamins, but there is no reason why vitamins cannot be administered separately in a pill. 4. "benefits to consumer health, cost, and also the flavor". My opponent has not stated any health or cost benefits, and I have refuted his flavor argument. 5. "trivial faults. " The risks of GM food are still unknown, and we have no way to know how dangerous it is. But for the time being the risks outweigh the benefits, and further testing and research must be done to determine whether GM agriculture is beneficial to society or not.
Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society.*

*Clarification- as I will state in my definition, beneficial meaning does more harm than good overall, not whether there are benefits or not. It is undeniable that Genetically Modified Agriculture plays a large part in the average consumer's diet, as even since 1996 (The year of my birth, coincidentally :B), the global area of GM crops under cultivation has grown at more than 10 % per annum. The estimated total global cultivated area of approved GM crops in 2005 was 90 million hectares, (222 million acres). Additionally, more than one-third (38 %) of the 2005 total, equivalent to 33.9 million hectares, was grown in developing countries. [1] ... I will begin by redefining my resolution, "Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society." I define "Genetically Modified Agriculture" as any plant with a significant amount of altered DNA through the process of genetic engineering. I define "Beneficial to society" in a Semi-Utilitarianist (Raw) sense. This means that "beneficial", refers to the amount of pleasure distributed throughout every sentient being, as well as encompassing health and environmental benefits. ... I will conclude by stating my contention. With thorough acknowledgement for the potential health and environmental impacts GM agriculture brings, I strongly believe that transgenic plants should remain available for commercial distribution with the addition of a label to differentiate/highlight non-GM agriculture for ethical/medical purposes. This is due to the many benefits to consumer health, cost, and also the flavor of the food itself that GM foods provide. By taking these products off the market, we are limiting our progress due to trivial faults. === [1] http://www.pnas.org...
Be it resolved that Genetically Modified (GM) agriculture is beneficial to society.*

Well, for some unforeseeable reason, I'm sure, my opponent forfeited the last round. If I may, then, allow me to complete my grafting argument. My opponent seems to agree that Grafting, which is "a portion of living tissue surgically transplanted from one part of an individual to another, or from one individual to another, for its adhesion and growth." [1] debases the flavor benefits of GM agriculture, because it can produce fruits such as "pluots". My opponent seems to agree that the transplantation of such tissues results in the modification of DNA. However, he does not believe that the pluot is a GM product because my opponent claims that the process of grafting does not involve genetic engineering. However, in this aspect, my opponent is clearly misinformed. For genetic engineering is "is the direct human manipulation of an organism's genetic material in a way that does not occur under natural conditions"[2]* Unless you are implying that the purposeful transplantation of tissue is not direct human manipulation, and that without human interference, the transplantation of genetic material occurs naturally in the process of grafting, both of which are completely senseless arguments, you are clearly mistaken. --- [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... *I am not imposing this definition, but if you wish to challenge it, please cite a source supporting your definition.
The video 'innocence of muslims' is a benefit for society

There is a strong tradition in the West of lively debate that stems from the public debates in ancient Greece and comes to us through the forums of Rome and the Universities of the Middle Ages. I am glad to see this same important tradition alive in the digital world. Increased access to information and greater communication should lead to greater dialogue and understanding, but it seems rather to lead to the appearance of "trolling" under the guise of anonymity and to the death of civilized discourse. It is precisely here, where I am glad to say Mr. Scott succeeds, that the film in question fails. Robust confrontation is necessary and even desirable, but for it to be profitable it must be accompanied by a strong intellectual foundation. I am glad in this sense that Salaman Rushdie has been brought into the debate. Simply to compare Salaman Rushdie or other opponents of the Islamist ideology such as Fr. Zakaria Botros, Kurt Westergaard or Michael Coren with the video in question is sufficient to set it aside abruptly and with a hint of embarrassment. What is at Stake The mere use of a freedom does not in and of itself constitute a valuable use of that freedom. To consider "The Innocence of Muslims" a valuable or beneficial addition to public discourse, putting it on the same level as Salaman Rushdie or other heavyweight opponents of Islamism such as Kurt Westergaard is simply to debase them and weaken their case. If we are to value challenges to ideologies that threaten the freedoms we treasure then we are compelled by reason to disdain such counter-productive "contributions" as this attempted parody.
The video 'innocence of muslims' is a benefit for society

Unfortunately that is where mine, and his, agreement seems to stop, aside from a few self evident points. He rightly describes the video, (I will use my own words) "a pile of crap". It is an awful video, with almost as much intelligence behind it as money. However, it is precisely because it represents one end of the quality spectrum that it must not be discarded for having only one effect (idiotic trolling). On the contrary, it should be praised simply because it expresses the freedom of speech (perhaps we shouldn't praise the message- though I do believe we should), but the video itself is an act of freedom. It is a flexing of rights. On the categories that my opponent created for determining if the video made constructive criticism, I disagree. I do not believe it needs to be constructive to be beneficial (though i do believe it is constructive) but destruction is just as much a benefit when applied in certain ways. What my opponent calls destructive is the videos attack on Islam, but to me that would be extremely constructive. Whenever one gets the chance to attack the illogical, the idiotic, the dangerous and the pure evil, they, as citizens of the Earth, have a duty to respect science and society. I propose that the act of the creation of the video was constructive because it attacked Islam. Islam itself being a wholly destructive force. When a force (the video) attacks another force of evil (Islam) I do not recognize this as destructive, no matter the quality of the video or its amateur arguments. Whats worse than being an idiot is being silent while other idiots roam freely and try to control your life; so I see the video as a positive force. It reveals the weakness and arrogance of Islam in thinking they are immune from criticism. It should also be noted that this video is not the only thing of its kind to attack Islam. Others have attacked Islam, too. And the attacks on Islam are not as low quality as this video. An example would be the great author Salaman Rushdie, who wrote a book that triggered much worse waves of violence and hatred in the middle east. I see this video as a way to diagnose the problem, and not the problem itself. You wouldn't blame an x-ray for revealing the cancer, just as we should not condemn this video for revealing how backwards and childish the Muslims are. And that is precisely why this video is a benefit for society, because it exposes (no matter how many times it has been before) the idiocy of the mass delusion: Islam. It is a constructive force, just like an x-ray machine. It certainly should not be blamed for the wave of unrest, merely exposing it to a greater degree. Once again I wish to thank my opponent for being extremely civil and intelligent to debate with. I now hand it off to him to make the closing argument and statement.
The video 'innocence of muslims' is a benefit for society

So, my friend, thank you. My opponent concluded with a set of premises: "To summarize my argument: Premise 1: While free speech is beneficial to society, not everything protected by free speech is itself beneficial. Premise 2: The video "innocence of Muslims" not only is not conducive to civilized public discourse, it is directly disruptive of it and tends to obscure the truth rather than expose it. Premise 3: The disruption of civilized public discourse and obscuring of the truth are not beneficial to society. Conclusion: Therefore the video "Innocence of Muslims" is not a benefit to society. " I shall take each of them, in order. Premise One- I would like to say, as was said to me, does not reflect upon the debate topic. I see many things that are said that are clearly not for the benefit of society such as the Westboro Baptist Church and their infamous, disgusting, signs. I would agree with my opponent on this premise, but it nonetheless does not refute the claim that the video aforementioned was beneficial. Premise Two and Three- I must say that I find this idea of being destructive rather scary. My opponent has already acknowledged his disdain for Islam- something we evidently share- and I wish to say that his second premise is the true topic of conversation. We live in a society where religion is at our heels, biting and nipping at us all the time. It IS a constant threat, and if my opponent sees this otherwise (he does) he must at least concede to one thing: religion IS up for debate and mockery like any other views which may, one day, be responsible (they already are) for mass murder on an epic scale. The reason this video is CONSTRUCTIVE rather than destructive is precisely because it challenges religion. If we remove religion from the chopping block, they are free to do whatever they may. That, in fact, is the reason we have Islamic Republics and Kingdoms: areas on the map where theocracy reigns and if you decide you dont agree with the laughable views you will be put to death. So, just as we may mock Hitler, we may mock religion. I say this Godwinnian argument for the sole reason that evil needs to be recognized, challenged and fought with all tools at every possible turn. One does not have the right to remove something from criticism, nor the right to determine WHAT constitutes criticism. I must agree that the video was in poor taste, and badly done at that, but is nonetheless beneficial to society simply BECAUSE it challenges, mocks and questions a religion whose goal it is to conquer the world. So Hitler may be mocked, Islamo-facism and the so-called religion of peace need to be torn apart.
God is Real, Evolution isn't

The Evolution Theory is called that, well, because it is a theory. It has been proven wrong. Evolution was developed before science had the evidence ability to prove the theory was false. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution. An example: A wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why does this happen, evolutionists mouths are shut. The wing stub of a bird did not make a bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stub would be too small for the bird to fly. This is where it hurts the theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their habitat. The bird with a half-sized wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Another theory is that evolutionists say that birds grew hollow bones to make flight less heavier. That is impossible. A bird can"t just decide to grow their bones hollow. That"s like humans saying "Hey, my feet hurt tell my brain to fly". Your brain cannot evolve flight. Also, if evolution was real wouldn"t we be able to evolve wings to survive in our environment? I mean, we went from a monkey to human, right? Think about it. It"s not possible. If a human evolve wings, than you have to tell me, that would be a world record or a great wonder. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. Meaning no two creatures or human would be identical. Another questions I would like to throw in is : How did life learn how to reproduce itself? Once again, the mouths of evolutionists" are shut. Which evolved first: blood, the heart,or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through? I mean, evolution had to start with only one of these, right? According to evolution we had to evolve to survive ,and I am pretty sure you can"t live without a heart. But if the heart doesn"t have any blood, the heart wouldn"t be able to pump; so how did we come to be? Finally, it"s time to tell you about creation, the true creation of the earth, galaxies, and everything within it. In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. He is the Alpha and Omega, beginning and the end. He is why evolutionists can try to back up there theory and say to meteors collided and made the Big Bang. It"s true God made the stars and meteors but the Big Bang did not happen. It all started with God saying what He wanted and it becoming that. One example that God created us is ,well, us. All of are organs were created at once, which means evolvement could not have happen. There is also a benefit in the Christian creation. In the Christian creation, you know you were meant to be part of a world full of wonders and that someone loves you decided that they want you to live on earth and eternal life in heaven. In the Evolution Theory, you are taught that you were a mistake and will soon just die. I don"t know about you, but I refuse to believe that I was a mistake.
God is Real, Evolution isn't

To start off, people have their own beliefs.We cannot make others believe what we believe to know. For some people it is horrifyingly uncomfortable to believe that there is someone bigger and more powerful than them; that someone can create the world with only using their mouth. The fact is that we all can find something in each belief of creation that we cannot prove but only to hypothesize. First, here are a few questions to think about for evolutionists which they couldn"t give a concrete answer for. Why has evolution stopped for the apes? Shouldn"t apes still be turning into humans? Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? Shouldn"t someone have had to create the galaxy in order to make evolution start? Shouldn"t someone have had to make the meteors in order for them to crash and make the "Big Bang"? Next, people who don"t believe in God would say it's a book and no proof. Well, it is a book that gives us proof ,and yes, we haven"t seen God with our own eyes but creation can prove that God is real.