BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
brawn is better than brain

Well, my opponent is right about one thing. Brawn (more often than not) does indeed end up being very useful when it comes to scoring with a man/woman, however, this by no means proves that brawn is better than "brain." My opponent is right about one thing. Brawn (more often than not) does indeed end up being very useful when it comes to scoring with a man/woman, however, this by no means proves that brawn is better than "brain" as there are other things in life that don't concern "getting a hookup." I'd like to point out that some of our greatest achievements in society have come from people focused on their brain rather than their brawn. Hell, Albert Einstein, ALexander Grandbell, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Edison sure didn't "whore" themselves to the public with their looks (an image I certainly DON'T want to imagine). It was due to their efforts that helped our society in achieving new heights in the realm of science as well as new heights in the area that concerns "quality" in life (in other words, inventions). From this, we can conclude that contrary to brawn, it is brain which helps us move further on the path of knowledge as well as make life less difficult to live. Next, on balance, it is the "brain" which helps bring in the most income. As lets face it, it's a well known fact that high incomes directly correlate with success in college. And how do you succeed in college? Through making great use of your brain of course! A high GPA can't be won simply through pumping iron and having a pretty face. That will be the basis of my case for the time being. Now, to respond to PRO's case, I shall do so line by line. "~ brawn gets u lots of women if your a guy and lots of males when your a women depending on your sex brawn" Not necessarily. Believe or not, "getting the most and best action" is very much a mental game. You can be a bulk body builder or have big "boobs", but unless you have some people skills (brain department), fashion knowledge (again, brain department), you (as a male or female) won't get nearly as much action as my opponent would like you to believe. Brawn may help, but it's nothing on it's own. Even as a bulky body builder, if you're the type of guy/girl who is very anti-social (so much to the degree that you generally remain in your room or post on debate.org . . . nah, just kidding about that last part . . . or am I) Due to busyiness of college, this is all I shall posts for now, but I'll have more for round 2. Later
brawn is better than brain

brawn gets u lots of women if your a guy and lots of males when your a women depending on your sex brawn gives you the hot body nice looking face when your in town and a fem/mal looks at you they want to see someones beutiful face but when u see someone that is not good looking u want to laugh at their face and most people get bagged for what they look like so brawn is acually a good thing to most people + people with brains might get chicks but are very nerdy and sciency smart people.:( people who have mucles or big boobs might seem to be a show off but they are happier than other not always neccersarily but most of the time also people with brawn get the better easier life
wwe is better then tan

I con think that wwe is better then tna for many reasons like superior wrestlers like Hulk Hogan, The rock, stone cold steve austin, mick foley, tripleh ric flair ETC. better programs, like raw Smackdown and main event. Better promos. And they produced the greatest names not tna. The wwe put wrestling on the map. tna is just some crappy knock off of the wwe and its time people acknowledge who is the better brand.
Evolution Singlehandedly Debunks Christian Mythology

Evolution is fact and objectively verifiable at the micro and macro level. This is indisputable. This is not an evolution debate, Although I'm open to that. We are an evolutionary product of our ancestors, And our ancestry dates back throughout the phylogenetic tree. At the point humans (homo sapiens) emerged, There were approximately 2-3000 of our species, By estimates of leading evolutionary biologists. Regardless of the exact number, There were far more than 1 woman and 1 man. This is fact. There never was an Adam and Eve "first human couple", ever. Given that the above is objectively true, Without even using other areas of science, The Adam and Eve story is falsified. Since there never was an Adam and Eve, There never was original sin and the entire basis for Christianity violently collapses. This alone, disproves the Christian mythology.
Evolution Singlehandedly Debunks Christian Mythology

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that I agree with micro evolution. I will briefly state here why I believe that this is consistent with Christian theology. When God created all the animals on the earth, He gave them a genetic code with a great amount of variability. So for example, During creation week there might have been one kind of dog and as time went on, The great variability of it's genetic code began to manifest itself. So overtime, As the dog changed, We get the many species of dog we see today. The same goes for humans, Birds, Etc. This does not at all contradict the Bible. Although Christian theology does not agree with macro evolution, It does agree with micro evolution which is all I need to prove in order to win the debate. Now I will go through each of the points that you brought up. I would like to first begin by addressing the issue of fossils. Yes, They are rare but as evolutionists are constantly arguing that evolution takes millions and millions of years for one species to change to another, You would think that at some point within that time, You would get at least some fossils that show that transition. Creationists acknowledge that all life shares a base genome, But we disagree about how that relates to the process of one species evolving into another. You have still failed to give examples of bigger changes that are necessary in evolution. There are more significant types of changes that Darwinian evolution requires, Such as the production of novel structures that are highly complex but specified. "Could you please provide a solid argument against this, As you would need one to disprove evolution. DNA is a vital part of evolution and something that can be easily demonstrated. " This is a classic case of shifting the burden of proof. You were the one that made the claim of evolution, It is not my job to disprove it, It is your job to prove it. Your only real argument against the cambrian explosion is that it is indeed possible for such complexity to arise in such a short amount of time. Animals in every single major phylum were found in the cambrian explosion and the only changes you've mentioned withing species are allele changes and mutations. Those won't create this complexity even in 20 million years. I don't think that you have presented enough evidence for evolution in order to win this debate. My position is, "I have not seen enough evidence to believe that evolution is true. " The evidence would have to be overwhelming, Right now, It's just not.
gold

"The Great Depression of the 1930s ......... followed a long series of depressions which afflicted the American economy throughout the 19th century. Crop failures, drops in cotton prices, reckless railroad speculation, and sudden plunges in the stock market all came together at various times to send the growing American economy into chaos." http://history1800s.about.com... As this reference points out, the series of 19th Century depressions, all of which occurred during a period of a gold standard based currency, were caused by factors other than a few banks issuing paper currency, counter to Pro's claims. It is, however convenient for Pro to state otherwise without the need to provide any basis for those statements. Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S. GDP grew from 4.7 trillion to 6.5 trillion dollars. www.mutpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table.com That's hardly the deterioration that Pro has described. If it is, let's have more of that. The Monroe Doctrine, as I pointed out in the last round put the world on notice that the U.S. would not permit further foreign colonization in the Western Hemisphere. It's an awfully long stretch for Pro to claim that it was a return to US isolationism. Pro appears to believe that isolationism would be good for the US. If I may use Pro's rational, it's "common knowledge" that isolationism is a very bad idea. Regardless of the arguments that both Pro and I may make about the gold standard, history provides some conclusive evidence showing that the gold standard is a bad idea. Between the gold standard years of 1836 and 1927, the U.S. experienced 17 recessions and 5 depressions. (Wikipedia) Since we came off the gold standard, we've had 13 recessions and no depressions and also became the most powerful economy on the planet. We now have some stiff competition, but it's all from other nations who, like us, have wisely decided to abandon the gold standard. The principal arguments that Pro has used to support his contention are: 1. A gold based currency will restore peoples faith in the dollar 2. A gold based currency will eliminate both inflation and deflation from the economy I have shown that, evidenced by the increase in the strength of the dollar, and the decrease in the value of gold, there has been no loss of faith in the dollar that needs to be restored. I've also shown that inflation and deflation have other, far more important causes than the basis of the currency and, in fact, we've seen some of our historically most drastic movements in both inflationary and deflationary directions during the time when the country was on the gold standard. I've also shown that moderate inflation is actually associated with great economic growth, as evidenced during the 1950's. Pro has not proved any of his contentions.
gold

1. Capitalism has proven to utterly build a nations economy, common knowledge, no further comment need ed unless your a communist. 2. Straw man fallacy, I was suggesting gold and silver certificates to be issued separately, not smelter together. 3. Economy deteriorated from 1970 to 1980 when it hit a recession, economy fell apart but the federal reserve kept us going on borrowed time until 2008 when we went into recession. 4. 1807 was caused by the first bank of the United States which issued fiat, 1837 was a aftershock of the second bank of the United states (fiat), 1929 was as a result of the federal reserve (fiat) only 1873 and 1893 were actually under the gold standard. 5. Coinage act of 1965 took silver out of coin, economic recovery act of 1970 killed the gold standard. 6. Monroe doctrine promoted isolation, not working to please other economies at the expense of your own.
gold

Pro's statement that " the truth is that there are no benefits to a control economy where we are to trust the government with our currency, the invisible hand (from Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations") is the best, most efficient, most productive, and least greedy regulator for any economy", made without Pro offering any supporting logic or history to back it up is a personal opinion and, without that back up, is pure conjecture. This debate was originally about the pro and con about reverting to the gold standard. Pro is now proposing that, somehow, silver is also to be part of that standard. Is each dollar to be backed by a specific quantity or gold, or some mixture of gold and silver? If a mix is what Pro is supporting how will that create a stable currency, in that silver prices are quite volatile? Between 1976 and 2012 silver prices, per ounce have ranged between 5 and 50 dollars per ounce. The U. S. abandoned the gold standard in 1933. It's unclear as to what point Pro is trying to make by bringing up the Coinage Act of 1965 or the Economic Recovery Act of 1970. It's also important to note that the U.S. experienced five major depressions (1807-1814: 1837-1844: 1873-1879: 1893-1898: 1929-1941), all of which happened during periods when the US was under the gold standard and the last of which started during the gold standard. There hasn't been once since. The gold standard doesn't appear to be associated with great economic success. What, exactly does the Monroe Doctrine have to do with this debate? That doctrine, basically, declared that the US would not permit any more colonization in the Western Hemisphere by European powers, but allowed the continued existence of then current colonies.
gold

I think I mentioned this before, there is nothing preventing the US Treasury from holding large reserves of gold and silver for immediate relief, the truth is that there are no benefits to a control economy where we are to trust the government with our currency, the invisible hand (from Adam Smiths "The Wealth of Nations") is the best, most efficient, most productive, and least greedy regulator for any economy Comparing the Us dollar to other currencies is not reliable, just because someone else is doing worse is no excuse to not try to do better, I would also like to state that inflation has doubled after Lyndon B Johnsons "Coinage Act of 1965", and doubled from there from Richard Nixon"s "Economic Recovery Act of 1970", afterward a series of recessions which only got worse with everyone. A reduced inflation rate will decrease the amount of money lost to inflation in savings, resulting in more investments, I would also like to state that people paying money back with inflated dollars would not be appealing to the people who loan out that money, resulting in a higher interest rate, less loaning, you could argue that more loans is not good for the economy but you acted like it was earlier. For one I was suggesting to not back Federal Reserve notes, issue gold and silver certificates instead, Federal Reserve notes deteriorate eventually, our money is backed by gold, I am also advocating for a native dollar, more focused on native trade, the Monroe doctrine did not let us down until people stopped abiding by it. That isn"t making sense, elaborate please.
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

As this debate has reached its end, I would like to summarize today's debate as the proposition. Ladies and gentlemen, what has the proposition been telling you throughout this debate? First of all, our first argument was about justification, and how it is not justified to kill off another life for our own sake. Moreover, in our second argument, I have told you about the animal rights, and how it is not okay to kill our companion animals, and how cows and pigs are different from dogs and cats. Lastly, the proposition told you that it will bring about a significant change in our society, where less people will be eating dogs, and thereby reducing any immoral actions like this. The proposition is very proud to propose the three arguments, and I would like to give a huge thanks to Con for continuing the debate with such great arguments.
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

Apparently in the USA we do everything for our pets be eating them in 44 states. [13]As for the black market we can see through probition in the USA and the war on drugs that the black market thrives from banning those practices. Here is a lengthy link about why we shouldn't outlaw meat. [14] In short, by making dog meat taboo we only encourage the activity and make it more proftiable for criminals. Thanks for the debate.Source14. http://theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com...;
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

Thank you for your reply. Now that the proposition has finished with presenting the arguments, I would like to rebut to what the opposition team has been stating throughout this debate. So ladies and gentlemen, the opposition rebutted to my argument about how we have other options when lacking food. The opposition has stated that chickens and pigs could be a companion animal too. However ladies and gentlemen, we have to take a look at the current status quo where people do everything for their dogs and/or cats. For example, people feed dogs and cats better food than what humans eat, and buy clothes, shoes for them, and even take them to the vet more than they themselves see a doctor. Moreover, since the opposition has not clearly shown us how chickens and pigs could be companion animals, proposition takes this clash home. Secondly, the opposition has been talking about how the sale of dog meat in the US will only encourage a black market. Not only did the con not provide any supporting ideas, he/she did not prove to us clearly how such situation may happen. Thank you for the debate.
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

"I appreciate your arguments. Now I would like to begin with rebutting to what the previous speaker had told us. So the opposition has been telling us that when it comes to people starving to death, we cannot avoid eating dog meat. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that even if there are people starving to death, that doesn't mean we should lose our rationality and kill off other animals for our own sake. Moreover, the proposition believes that there are plenty of other choices apart from killing off our companion animals. For example, there are cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot." euniThanks for continuing to debate. If these people are starving to death, what other options do they have? Surely, they would eat all the cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot first. Nay, the choice clearly would be between eating the companion animal and starving to death. Second, I find it arbitrary for humans to eat cows, pigs, and chickens but not dogs and cats. Pigs and chickens can be companion animals too. [8][9] Considering the number of dog bite fatalities, I'm not sure dogs are the best companion animals for humans. [10] Impact, dog's companion animal status compared to other animals seems arbitrary at best. "3. Significant ChangeLadies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that there will be much burden on the government to deal with illegal sales and killing of the dogs. In the current status quo, there are so many individuals who eat dog meat. Despite so many opposing organizations and individuals saying that we should not eat dog meat, many people do so. We believe that if the government tells the citizens not to eat dog meat, then less people will do so, instead of leaving it up to them. Therefore, I think that it would brush the burden off the government's shoulders of having to deal with such immoral actions." euniMy opponent believes the above to be true, but provides no evidence. I don't think we should believe my opponent based upon his/her faith based argument. Many nations are losing the war on drugs. [11] This is because black markets create more profit for criminals. Despite our best efforts to end dog fighting, it is still happening and on the rise. [12] Yes, you read right, we are not only losing the war on drugs, but on dog fighting. An interesting fact is dog meat is legal in several states in the USA. Yes, that is right dog meat is legal in the USA. [13] Now, if we ban the sale of dog meat in the USA we will only encourage a black market. Thanks for debating. Sources8. https://www.pigs.org...9. http://www.chickenrescue.org...10. http://www.dogsbite.org...11. https://www.theguardian.com...12. http://www.ocregister.com...13. http://theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com...
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

I appreciate your arguments. Now I would like to begin with rebutting to what the previous speaker had told us. So the opposition has been telling us that when it comes to people starving to death, we cannot avoid eating dog meat. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that even if there are people starving to death, that doesn't mean we should lose our rationality and kill off other animals for our own sake. Moreover, the proposition believes that there are plenty of other choices apart from killing off our companion animals. For example, there are cows, chickens, pigs, and whatnot. Now I would like to present the last argument of the proposition bench. 3. Significant Change Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition believes that there will be much burden on the government to deal with illegal sales and killing of the dogs. In the current status quo, there are so many individuals who eat dog meat. Despite so many opposing organizations and individuals saying that we should not eat dog meat, many people do so. We believe that if the government tells the citizens not to eat dog meat, then less people will do so, instead of leaving it up to them. Therefore, I think that it would brush the burden off the government's shoulders of having to deal with such immoral actions.
This House Would not allow the consumption of dog meat

Thanks for continuing the debate. One interesting note my opponent made was using the word creature. My opponent actually wants to protect all living creatures should not be eaten, that includes plants and bacteria. We would starve. "a. A living being, especially an animal: land creatures; microscopic creatures in a drop of water." [6] "Before we move on, I would like to define some few key words in today's debate. This house regards to the democratic government of all nations. Consumption regards to any kind of digestion." euni Considering some countries are second and third world, I think this put an undue burden on them. I was willing to argue just in the USA, but if you want to make the argument much more difficult by protecting dogs in third world countries, so bit. To reiterate, this discussion is about eating dogs worldwide. I strongly disagree. There is too much world hunger. When human children are starving to death we can't worry too much about animal rights. "Total number of children that die every year from hunger 1,250,000" [7] Tragically, one and a quarter million human children starve to death each year. I love animals at much as the average person, and there is no way I can rationalize such a decision. We must put the lives of starving children above those of dogs. To impose such lofty goals on 3rd world and 2nd world countries is immoral. Despite my opponent's good intentions their proposal would cause more harm than good by causing more children to starve to death. "So what the opposition is basically saying, is that we could also kill the people who lack intelligence, like disabled people! " euni One more note about my opponent stating that I was suggesting cannibalism. Considering the circumstances, I think cannibalism is the morally superior choice. If a person has to choose between murdering and cannibalizing a disabled person or their children starving to death, what do you think the person would do? Any sane person would make the rational choice and feed their children. Thank you for the debate. Sources 6. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 7. http://www.statisticbrain.com...