BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mcdonalds is better than BurgerKing

I'll just start off with a few videos to clarify: http://fastfoodreviewed.com... http://www.thesaleslion.com... http://2.bp.blogspot.com... Now there are multiple reasons McDonald's food and business is sooo much better than BK. When someone says McDonald"s, what comes to mind? It is the golden arches? Maybe Ronald McDonald? How about the Big Mac? Yep, MickeyD"s is loaded with brand images that are embedded into the souls of Americans from a very early age, and the company"s influence has been profound. Now let"s try it for BK. When someone says "Burger King", what do you think of? Personally, I think of that freaky looking "King" guy that appears to belong on some Rated-R movie. Seriously, who the heck designed that guy? Let"s put it like this, who would your child rather approach"Ronald McDonald or Freaky Burger King guy? What a head-scratcher that one is" Do you remember when the McGriddle came out? At first everyone thought a "pancake sandwich" sounded really weird, that is until they tasted them. The McGriddles were a huge hit, and are still a part of the menu today. I could literally list dozens of major McDonalds innovations over the years, but it suffices to say that these guys are focused better than anyone in the fast food arena on constant innovation. Regarding BK, can you name 1 major innovation they"ve had over the years?? (crickets in the background"..) Ever heard the phrase "Happy Meal"? Of course you have. So has everyone else, including children. For years McD"s has established strong relationships in their brand by marketing directly to children, and giving them the products they want"little meals with lots of color, happy faces, and a toy (hence, Happy Meal). But what about BK? Can you come up with the name of their "kid"s meal"? I sure can"t. Not only were these the first guys way back in the day to invent the fast food burger and then franchise their little gold-mine, but they have also continued to be first in most areas to this day. If you think back, it was only a couple of years ago that fast food restaurants didn"t take credit cards. Today, they all do, but as you might well imagine, guess who was one of the first to jump on board with credit card machines? That"s right, the Golden Arches wins again, back in April of 2004. http://www.thesaleslion.com... Over to you, Con!
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

I was just using myself as an example for electronics helping me out with school. What is the harm for kids in school if they are able to get their work done faster with electronics, and then they want to stay on them after their work is done? You also talked about how you can just do a web search and find the answers to your question. You can do the same thing in text books. It is the same thing. So is using the answer key in your text books make you lazy? You still have bot given a good example of how I contradict myself either, or explained how. An other thing about text books is that you can only have so many books in a school at a time, but with electronics you can have almost infinite amount of information on any subject. Also books are perishable, but you can have hundreds of electronic copy's on many different devices. There are just so many more ways that you can access information with one computer then you could with one book.
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

What I mean by lazy is indolent. What I mean by technology is computers, phones, tablets etc. that are being used in school or for school. I realize you have changed your argument of electronics making "us" (or everyone) more efficient to just you. "Electronics make me more efficient." You said that using electronics to get your work done allows you to finish quicker and work out because of your extra time. But that is just you personally, kids are distracted easily by their device and after they're done with the work, they'll stay on it for hours at a time and there is no extra time to go outside and be active. I never said that you said there aren't books, article and etc that have the same information as Wikipedia, I was asking because your argument is confusing to keep up with at times. And sometimes it seems you are contradicting yourself self, as I stated before
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

Can you please tell me your definition of lazy and what you mean by technology. It would help me figure out what exactly you mean by those words. Once again I never said "Are you saying that no one has made a book, article, etc that has the same information as Wikipedia, or Answer.com ?". We also need to stay on the topic of electronics in school. That is our main focus. Not electronics in society. I have been able to use electronics to get my home work done faster and still get get grades. On top of that I am able to work out and be very active because I can finish my work faster. Electronics make me more efficient.
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

My argument is simply that technology is negatively affect our schools. Electronics are making kids lazy and inactive. I'm a witness of kids sitting on the sidelines on their hone not even walking around the field. I understand that you think technology is the best way. But it seems to me that you think kids should look up things in a quick search in order to be "more efficient", but wouldn't that make you lazy? Counting on a web search to give you all answers quickly? So you wont have to take time to research. We all rely on our electronics to be there for us all the time. If kids become (more) dependent on electronics, what happens if they suddenly just stop working. Books will be out dated nobody is using them. Everything is replaced with the devices. What do we do? We're counting on our leaders, who are relying on the electronic. Again what do we do? There is a book for any subject you want to know about. Are you saying that no one has made a book, article, etc that has the same information as Wikipedia, or Answer.com ?
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

I would like to stay with the original topic of technology in school. May you please restate what your points is more clearly. I think you are misinterpreting what I have been trying to say. I never said anything that you have pointed out in your second paragraph. If you looked at my argument it was was that it would help improve by finding out information faster. I also do not see how I am contradicting myself. Pulling up the definition of efficient goes along with what I was stating. Technology in schools makes you more efficient because you can get more information faster. Take Debate.org for example, we are talking about a subject where we can send each other educated links with in minutes to help strengthen our arguments. If we were to only use pens, papers, and books it would take us a lot more time to send each other, and that would is less efficient. It would be taking time away from studying, or working on other subjects. Technology helps us communicate better in schools. http://www.theguardian.com... This is a great article showing how technology is giving a voice to people that could not communicate with pencils and paper. Then with your article that you linked does not really have a good argument about how technology in schools is bad. It talks about how it is making people in the work force do less physical activities.
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

You have a very valid point. But you are missing my point, lets drop just technology in school, how about once your done with school. You're saying books, the physical thing, needs to be replaced by Internet Explorer. You're saying a book cant teach a kid how the water cycle goes? Technology is the only tool to help people with their imagination? And you don't even need a book to be creative. You don't need anything. Technology is a basic easy way out. You can go on Google and type in a homework question and it'll pop up. No you didn't use your books or even type in the subject on your technology to find the answer yourself. You stated that "Computers in schools helps us stay more connected and involved with our education." My question is simply, how? You also said "It makes you more efficient." Dictionary.com defines efficient as 'performing or functioning in the best possible manner with the least waste of time and effort; having and using requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; competent; capable'. You contradicted yourself. Technology is making everyone lazy. People rather lay in bed playing a game on their device rather than exercise. http://m.jsonline.com... This article shows some negative affects of technology. And the list could go on and on. You said the more technology can do for us the better. If you want something or someone to do something for you.. Is that not being lazy? You stated technology doesn't make you lazy. You keep contradicting yourself. Technology is negatively affecting us all.
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

My counter argument is that the new technological advances that we have today are helping the world become more educated. If we keep teaching kids to use technology at a young they will be able to grow up and push our technology even further. Because of kids have a great imagination and creativity. If we can give them the tools to help further their imagination and creativity through electronics then we should help give it to them. Computers in schools helps us stay more connected and involved with our education. http://one.laptop.org... One laptop per child is helping kids, that had almost no connection with the out side world, connect and get an education with a very well made electronic laptop. Also with having the ability to connect to the internet you are able to get many different sources for a topic, not just the one source that you get from your text book. You are also able go to college from your computer now. That gives some people even more opportunists to a better, and more affordable education. Using electronic devices to looking things up doesn't make you lazy. It makes you more efficient. If we can get technology to do more for us the better. Because it will give us more time to figure out and work at more pressing problems that are going on. Technology has been helping us do that for thousands of years. The more technology that we can develop the better our ways of living can be. The only times I can think of technology being negative is when it is being used for war. Technology is positively affecting our education
Electronics positively affect school (and everyone else) today.

Electronics negatively affect schools today, because yes it may be "the-way" to be learning. and yes it may be "the-way" kids are being taught now, but no is it always the answer. First, a counter argument may go as far as saying making textbooks is harming the environment, or that we have to cut down trees, which provides our oxygen to get the paper. That is all true, but is cutting down trees really an MAJOR problem? No. Secondly, Nothing is wrong with using good paper and pencil. Using a textbook glossary or index to find information is doing no harm. Using a tablet or electronic device to let the Internet find it FOR you will make you lazy. The youth is our future, do we want a lousy future president? Do we want our whole entire future with technology thinking FOR you? Many will say "Yes, what's the problem?" We all want something until we get it. However, technology is not a bad thing. As technology advances and gets smarter and smarter what is a human for? To say the commands? Not to be syfy, but when technology is so far ahead it'll be able to control itself. Might takeover. Us people are what for? Technology is negatively affecting everyone, you will see an 10 year old with a smartphone. You will blame it on the parents spoiling then though. Be weary. Ashley, age 14
The argument from evil is successful

Excellent, thanks for the topic. Let's have some fun and attempt to improve our understanding. I did note one comment about the lack of definition for god. I will assume that we are referring to the classical definition of the "omni-god" including, most importantly, omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence. If any changes are desired feel free, but this seems right for our present purposes. Furthermore, I will attempt to refute the opposition by holding to this definition. In other words, I will not reject any of the three omni's in order to subvert the argument. Such a tactic would only serve to make this exercise fruitless. Let's have a good discussion.
The argument from evil is successful

I call an argument 'successful' if, after considering the argument, one should raise one's credence of the conclusion of that argument. I wish to argue that there is a successful argument from evil: that, after considering the experience of evil in our world, we should hold God's existence as less likely than we did before. R1 accept, No new arguments in R5, references can be included in comment thread. Feel free to ask about concerns or clarification in comments, email, etc. Enjoy life, Thrasymachus
Chiropractic medicine should not be recognized as a legitimate branch of medicine

Chiropractic medicine was founded by a Doctor Powell, on the foundation that spinal misaligment is the root of all human disease. This claim is completely unfounded from an empirical scientific standpoint, so the foundation on which chiropractic medicine is established on lacks a scientific basis. Study and study shows that chiropractic medicine fails to treat many of the ailments that it claims to treat. Many chiropractors reject the use of vaccinations and other scientifically valid approaches because they are more in favor of their pseudoscientific approaches in chiropractic medicine. This foundation of misinformation and misguided approach, in general, makes chiropractic medicine not suitable to be considered a legitimate branch of medicine. Thank you.
Dragons are better than pigs

No, I haven't seen 'how to train your dragon' :/. I don't get around to seeing too many movies, too bad I've heard it's a good one. Anyway, a movie isn't legitimate evidence for a debate. Pro's introduction does not state, or even suggest that this is a media focused round. Accordingly, the comparative framework I proposed must be preferred over Pro's framework. Furthermore, while dragons only protect people in movies, pigs can protect us in real life[2][3] as I show in my constructive. That said, Pro has some pretty glaring errors in his reasoning. Not only has he opted to drop all of my arguments, but he only refers to other dimension and planets as evidence; none of which is falsifiable. You're going to prefer my evidence and arguments which are based on falsifiable evidence over my opponent as it is more conducive to an educational discourse. Moving one, For your first example- Something real and tangible should always preferred to something that only exists through media. If you had a starving family, a pig is going to do them a whole lot more good than a book or a movie would. For your second example- Definitions are pretty unreliable and only legitimize your Komodo Dragon example; alien dragons, while a cool concept, haven't been warrant in this round. And even if you managed to provide some legitimate evidence in the next round, they still wouldn't have any benefit to people as there isn't anything we could do with them. That said the only standing example is the Komodo Dragon, and all of my prior arguments are still applicable with them; Pigs provide protection, employment and food. Komodo Dragons provide none of these things. For your third example- The same argument applies as to your second example. They don't have any benefit to people and thus cannot be considered better than something that does have a benefit to people. As an underview to the voters, the reasons you're going to want to vote Con at this point are drops, and impacts. Pro drops all of my arguments, and none of his have any real impact. Accordingly you cannot interpret dragons as being better.
Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people

Currently serious debaters avoid online debating, and for good reason. Plagiarism such as http://www.debate.org... , plagiarized from http://www.fiu.edu... and http://www.debate.org... , plagiarized from http://www.finitesite.com... is not being addressed. Multiple accounts: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... and http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... all from Spring, Texas. We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and scoring criteria that reflect those rules, and experienced moderators. We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating. The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly. Cell phones must not be used to verify identity. There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate. There should be voting after each round. More statistics should be available. It should be possible to display debates by category. More participation, and proper debating technique learned by all should be encouraged. Educators need to look more to the Internet for the delivery of "open courseware" utilizing "distance technology." Debating has moved from the courts into the auditorium. Its next move is the big one.
Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people

UAW. http://www.npr.org... Yes that's a pretty good job. Health care for life even after you retire. Here's an even better one. Must be a better union: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com... It's worth a thousand of those UAW jobs. I would much prefer that union where you get your own private jet also. You need it to go round trip from Detroit to Washington to ask for bailouts. It's too bad for the thousands of good workers who had to be sacrificed for a few execs though. Especially since the point of the bailout I thought was to save jobs. I guess that wasn't the real point after all. When the auto companies do well they might think about returning all that bailout money instead of giving it to execs. Where are the shareholders when all this is going on? They're not any smarter than we are. They are making bad business decisions to protect their fat paychecks: http://www.washingtonpost.com... And they think they are underpaid. http://extremeinequality.org... And it's not just the auto companies. http://blog.aflcio.org... Executive pay. But wait. That's small potatoes compared to the Bank Robbery plan which has given the banks thirteen trillion dollars so far. http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... How much is this for every man, woman and child in America? I can't even count that high. Almost forty thousand dollars. Government spending is going to ruin us. So of course we have to make that much first. We need collective bargaining just to be able to support the rich in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. We are not doing this for ourselves. We don't need yachts and vacations and stuff. It's the rich we are thinking of unselfishly. Collective bargaining makes this all work.
Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 serves the best interests of the American people

http://thomas.loc.gov...: `(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a). This permits campaigning and an open and fair process, based on the observation that people are more likely to sign a petition than to vote, as Jen Jason points out. She is not saying that employees who do not want a union were coerced into signing petitions. Coercion by employers is much more of a problem, which is why there is collective bargaining to begin with. Any coercion is already dealt with under existing law, with due process. Of course employers do not like this law because it does not give them anything. They are against all labor law. They would prefer to treat employees as they please and work them long hours under terrible conditions for substandard wages. If the workers do not want a union then no union will be able to be certified under this law. If the workers do want a union, they should have one. The circumstance of there being more than one union should not be used to prevent workers who want a union from getting one. Formerly, if several unions wanted to represent a shop, a secret election might guarantee that none of them would get a majority vote, even if the majority of workers wanted a union. This way, the first union to get a majority of signatures gets the job. This is not unfair at all but prevents the company from being unfair. Arbitration in labor disputes has been around for some time and was not created by this law. If arbitration is unfair then that is the situation that should be addressed. Similarly, this bill addresses only the certification process, not the termination process. Has it ever happened that a shop wanted to get rid of a union but couldn't? And again, this bill did not invent collective bargaining. If there is something wrong with collective bargaining, that is the situation that should be addressed. How many hours did you work today? Your grandfather woked sixteen. Your grandmother too. When they were teenagers. Do you have a health plan? They didn't. for a good history of labor read "Labor's Untold Story."