BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

Meat is good for you. While many sausages contain filler, and for that reason should be avoided, a high quality all meat beef sausage is great for you and delicious. Our ancestors were carnivores. The human body is perfectly adapted to eating meat. Vegetables aren't food, they are food for food, and carbs are toxic in anything more than a tiny amount. You body can't even use carbs for fuel; they are simply stored as adipose tissue. If you want optimal health you need to adopt a zero carb, all meat, high fat diet. Have you ever met a vegan? They are all sickly and in poor health. But do not get me wrong! I think people should be allowed to eat vegan if that's what they want, of course. Because I believe in freedom. I believe you should be allowed to live your life and I should be allowed to live my life, however we see fit, so long as we do not commit aggression against anyone else. It is wrong to try to control other people's lives and to tell them how they must live. And it is wrong to ban sausages. This notion that nature is a pristine state and that any effort by man to ameliorate his condition by altering the environment is somehow immoral is completely incorrect. What would have happened were we to embrace this philosophy 500 years ago? None of us would be here today. Because it was absolutely vital to engage in deforestation, mining, and a whole host of assorted improvements of nature in order to sustain an ever increasing human population and achieve the incredible standards of living that people enjoy today. So I reject this idea that we should become luddites and constantly put the rights of trees and grass to grow undisturbed above the rights of actual living, breathing, sentient human beings who are intelligent enough to understand their plight. I care about people and I want them to live in better conditions and that means we need to do things like raise cows. Animals are not sentient. They are dumb beasts. Their conception of the world is incredibly narrow. Their actions are instinctual, not based on reason. Let's work on wiping out cruelty towards humans first.
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

frankfurter should be banned for three reasons. 0. Animal cruelty 1. Environment 2. Health 0. Animal cruelty Pigs and cows are living sentient beings that can feel pain just like us. Cows and pigs shouldn't have to suffer because of human gluttony. 1. Environment Its common knowledge that meat is not environmentally friendly. That a vegetarian or vegan diet is easier on the planet. 2. Health "the World Health Organization's cancer research arm on Monday declared processed meat a carcinogen, like tobacco, and said red meat is probably one, too." [1] There are plenty of healthy alternatives to frankfurter. As some point the line has to be draw. Rebuttal of Con "The U.N. doesn't even have the power to do this. As much as some might want the United Nations to be a world government, it isn't." Rebuttal: The United Nations seems fairly powerful to me. The ozone layer is no longer threatened thanks to cooperation along many countries. Heard that in an Inconvenient Truth Al Gore. "I thought that the ozone-depleting chemicals used in them were eliminated back in the 1970s." [2] "If people want to eat it, they should be able to eat it. Only the individual in question should have a say as to what they put into their body." Con Rebuttal: I beg to differ. First not everyone is mentally capable of making food decisions for their-selves. Should people suffering from dementia be served carcinogens? Nay! How about children? They are too young to know the healthier choices. Children could easily fall prey to peer pressure. All my friends are eating hot dogs, I will too. Also, prisoners should not have access to hot dogs, just as they don't have access to alcohol and cigarettes. There is so many ways to seek pleasure in this world that don't harm our health, environment, and animals as much as hot dogs. Like a leisurely walk in the park. Ban frankfurter. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com...
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

I Pro will argue for the topic. Con against the the topic. UN "1. (used with a singular verb) an international organization, with headquarters in New York City, formed to promote international peace, security, and cooperation under the terms of the charter signed by 51 founding countries in San Francisco in 1945. Abbreviation: UN. " [1] Ban "1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: " [2] frankfurter "a small, cooked and smoked sausage of beef or beef and pork, with or without casing; hot dog; wiener. " [3] I contend that the U.N. should ban frankfurter. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

Animals are dumb beasts. Their behaviour is instinctual. They have no understanding of the world, save from their sensory experiences, and they have no rights. Besides, they are delicious. So I say, eat meat if you want to eat meat. Eat vegetables if you want to eat vegetables. Eat donuts if you want to eat donuts. It's a free society. But don't try to push your beliefs on everyone else. Don't try to control other people or try to force other people to live the way you want to live. We're individuals and we can make our own decisions. And the last thing you want to do is give more power to the United Nations and transform it into a world government. People have a right to eat meat.
The U.N. should ban frankfurter.

There is this misconception that science is a process of carefully sifting through ideas so that everything which is published in scientific journals represents the most accurate up to date information. This is not the case. Instead what happens is, as Kuhn demonstrated in 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions' nobody really examines their core axioms. Instead, scientists (and everyone else) gets locked into their existing paradigm and they don't bother to question it until they reach a Kuhnian crisis point where there are just so many errors there is no choice but to throw the paradigm out and search around desperately for a new theory. Instead of a constant and steady progress upwards and onwards into the light, what actually happens is that the history of thought is a series of zigs and zags. Knowledge is gained and forgotten. Look, there's no shortage of recent scientific studies debunking the whole 'fat is bad for you' nonsense. http://articles.mercola.com... http://chriskresser.com... Over the last thirty years, governments and scientists doing questionable research promoted a false narrative. It happens all the time. The reality is that fat from animals is good for you. Butter is good for you. And a lot of the stuff published in these journals is crap. This whole 'a calorie is a calorie' argument is facile. Our bodies are a little more complicated than that bud. But we're getting side tracked anyway. Even if dietary fat were bad for you (it's not) that's no reason to ban it. We live in a free society. People should be free to do whatever they want so long as they aren't hurting others. Some people smoke. Some people eat fatty foods. Some people do drugs. Whatever. Live your own life and stop trying to control others. Let's be free.
This house believes that students should be assigned to classes according to their exam results.

I think students should not be assigned to classes according to their exam results. In these days, imaginative power and creativity are more being seen as the talent of most successful people. Students should be seen as their creative parts, not their intelligence. When AlphaGo and Lee competed with baduk, Lee realized that he couldn't win a super intelligent AI with his brains, he used his creativity to compete. Lee won a game at the time. Students should be graded by their creativity, not their intelligence.
This house believes that students should be assigned to classes according to their exam results.

I believe that students should be assigned to classes according to their exam results because it can improve a student's self esteem. The self esteem of a student has an effect on the amount of perseverance they put in into their work. For example, a student who struggles in math is usually partnered with a student with excellent math skills. Naturally, the lesser skilled student is likely to feel intimidated. When the student feels intimidated, he/she will not put his/her best effort into his/her work. When the teacher notices this, he/she is most likely to point out the student's flaw and the student will be embarassed and is unlikely to even try to ask questions or get good grades, so the student will forever get bad grades because of this. Instead, the student should be partnered with someone who has the same abilities as him/her. They both will be equally willing to try and learn so they can improve their skills without any unhealthy competition. Hence, they will get good grades and feel good about themselves. Thank you.
There are only two Genders

https://www.urbandictionary.com... "A group of many conditions that cause people to be born in the middle of the spectrum from male to female..." https://medlineplus.gov... "Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries)." http://www.isna.org... "'Intersex' is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn"t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male." All of these are valid sources that imply, if not state, that there is a spectrum between male and female, more than 2 genders.
There are only two Genders

The reason why they characterized these people as male is because they have a penis(obviously.) Males are affected because males aren't supposed to have enhanced sized boobs, they are supposed to be flat. I don't know how that proves that there are more than 2 sexes, Anyways, look up the definition of sex and tell me what it means, don't use Wikipedia or you can look at the definitions I provided in the second argument.
There are only two Genders

LOL! Do you know what Wikipedia is? Wikipedia is a website in which allows others to edit articles, using wikipedia as a "valid source" which invalidates your point.Anyways, look up the definition of sex. I'm going to use a valid source sex /sɛks/ noun 1. the sum of the characteristics that distinguish organisms on the basisof their reproductive function 2. either of the two categories, male or female, into which organismsare placed on this basis 3. short for sexual intercourse source: http://www.dictionary.com... sex seks/ noun 1. (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse. "he enjoyed talking about sex" synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, lovemaking, making love, sex act, (sexual) relations;More 2. either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions. "adults of both sexes" synonyms: gender "adults of both sexes" verb 1. determine the sex of. "sexing chickens" 2. informal present something in a more interesting or lively way. "the department set up a task force to help sex up the concept of conserving water" source: looking up "sex definiton" on Google.Conclusion: Don't use Wikipedia as a "valid source" when infact it's not. I'm not going to bother even clicking on those links because they ALL come from the same invalid source.
The pyramids are a product of intelligent design

To begin my opponent starts by stating, that all we know about ancient Egypt are unreliable texts. He states that, "we have no conclusive, scientific evidence to suggest that this civilization was capable of creating the pyramids" then he goes on to state "it seems MUCH MORE logical that the ancient Egyptians simply FOUND the pyramids". My opponent is suggesting that he does not have any conclusive logic behind his assertions. While this scientific evidence may not be conclusive, he is not being conclusive with his theory. My opponent is only providing one more "true theory" which "thousands of competing schools of thought. .. claim to be. " He has not backed up why aliens could not have created the pyramids or why a God could not have created the pyramids. He is only providing an alternate explanation which may or may not be true. Furthermore, my opponent has provided no empirical evidence to show that pyramids like the ones we see in Egypt and made out of the same material, limestone (which was later stolen) on the outside and granite surrounding the tunnels and the floors, are seen in any country on earth other than Egypt. Is my opponent suggesting this kind of evolution is limited to one country? The same conditions can be found in other places on earth and they do not have pyramids. Mars cannot be used as an example of this as natural conditions on Mars are not at all similar to conditions on Earth, it is a different planet. To sum up, let's say my opponent is completely correct: the pyramids formed through evolution in a giant pyramid and then the "unscientific, desert-dwelling superstitious primitives", Egyptians, came along and decided to dig into the pyramids and create the tunnels and hieroglyphs. This still means that the Egyptians were part of the design process to create the pyramids we know today. Therefore, part of the pyramids were a product of intelligent design. The "pyramids themselves" encompasses the entire pyramid, inside and out, the inside of the pyramid is still part of the pyramid. Part of the pyramid was man-made and product of intelligent design. My opponent states that he "will be rejecting the notion that any intelligence was involved with the creation of the pyramids" it is quite obvious that intelligence went into creating at least part of the pyramids. So here's what we know: 1. It is inconclusive that the Egyptian's created the entire pyramid. 2. It is inconclusive that evolution formed the entire pyramids. 3. Both my opponent and I agree that the Egyptians created part of the pyramid (tunnels, hieroglyphs, etc. ) 4. Intelligence went into designing portions of the pyramids.
The pyramids are a product of intelligent design

I have a single contention as to why the pyramids must have been designed and built by an intelligent creator. The pyramids were utilized by the ancient Egyptians as a burial place for their monarchs, the pharaohs. Utilizing bobby traps, false passages within the pyramids, and a hard to find entrance they attempted to protect the body of their passed monarch. Now onto my first contention. 1) The design of the pyramids MUST have been designed by an intelligent being. The basic layout of Egyptians pyramids is like this: . http://www.google.com... As you can see, it is a quite simple design, passageways leading from the entrance to the underground and up to where the queen and king's body would be. What is not shown is that the passageways throughout the entire complex are unnaturally smooth there are no "jagged edges" poking out. Hieroglyphs line the walls. The great chambers are massive (depending on the pyramid, who the ruler was) columns line the inside of it. Nothing in nature is formed with smooth passageways, hieroglyphs, therefore, an intelligent being must have been part of the process at some point, in order to build these great chambers, smooth out the passageways, and design these hieroglyphs.
The pyramids are a product of intelligent design

Today I will be arguing that we have no reason to believe that the pyramids in Egypt came about via intelligent design. That is to say, that nobody, including the ancient Egyptians or UFOs, made the pyramids. Rather, the Pyramids came about via natural processes, evolving over thousands of years from clumps of sand into the current forms they are today. Here are three points I would like to bring up showing why we should not conclude that the pyramids were made with any intelligence: 1. The only thing we know about ancient Egypt are unreliable texts. We have no conclusive, scientific evidence to suggest that this civilization was capable of creating the pyramids or that they did in fact create them. Rather, it seems much more logical that the ancient Egyptians simply FOUND the pyramids in their current state and attributed them to a false god, and then decided to build their civilization around the pyramids. 2. Just because something has the APPEARANCE of design, does not mean it was designed. Take for example the Earth, or the human body, which, like the Pyramids, APPEAR to be wonderfully designed by a Creator. Simply because they APPEAR designed however does not mean that science cannot come up with an alternate explanation to show how they got here WITHOUT design. It is more logical and rational and likely that these "designs" are simply products of thousands and thousands of years of evolution. . http://www.youtube.com... Proponents of "intelligent design" of the Pyramids have been around for centuries- some believe the Egyptians made the pyramids using slaves, others think that alien life forms arrived on earth and helped build them, along with a multitude of other theories. If you were to believe that they were "intelligently designed" you'd then have to choose between the thousands of competing schools of thought and decide which is the "one true theory" which they ALL claim to be. 3. We see examples of pyramids forming in nature Science has proven in many ways that the pyramids are a product of evolution over thousands of years and not intelligent design. Perhaps the most striking proof is the pyramids on Mars. On Mars, pyramids have formed purely from natural causes, see the photo of the "D&M Pyramid" in the Mars region of Cydonia Mensae at the bottom of Wikipedia article on Cydonia:(1) (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... This pyramid on Mars is known as the "D & M pyramid". Of course, many "intelligent design" theorists have jumped on board and claimed that this pyramid was also made with intelligent design, just like the ones here on earth. This of course is nothing but non-scientific rambling. Science has proven that the pyramids can come about by chance, and this is confirmed with the pyramids we see formed by chance on Mars. Thus, there is no reason to jump to the fantasy conclusion that the pyramids were made by intelligent design.
The Law of Parsimony favors Intelligent Design

Resolved: The Law of Parsimony Favors Intelligent Design Over Alternative Theories. I would like to thank my opponent, JJmd280, for his enthusiasm in regards to debating this topic. For the sake of clarity I will briefly summarize the rule of parsimony and Intelligent Design, and then follow with my numerically listed points. The Rule of Parsimony: Essentially, the simplest theory wins. That is to say, the theory with the same explanatory power and least amount of assumptions is to be preferred. Intelligent Design: Observed complexity is best explained by positing intelligence. 1. Certain users on this site – against the notion of intelligent design – are fond of oversimplifying Intelligent Design by simply saying, "God created." If one wishes to take this oversimplified version of ID, then one must admit it to be the most parsimonious explanation – with a whopping one assumption this simple theory garners the same explanatory power as alternative naturalistic theories. 2. The most common alternative theory cited to explain observed complexity is the Multiverse theory. This theory postulates that there are an infinite number of unobserved universes that exist. This would adequately explain the less than 1 in 10 raised to the negative 1,018 probability of life emerging by chance. The problem is they are postulating an infinite number of unobserved (and forever unobservable) entities, while intelligent design posits one unobserved (but potentially observable) entity. The rule of parsimony favors Intelligent Design in this regard. 3. It is has been said that the probability of life arising by chance is "billions of times more remote than the probability of a copy of Oxford Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop (1)." Alternative theories have to explain observed complexity using innumerous assumptions to explain unobserved processes. In Intelligent design we take what we know about how intelligent agents act when designing and are able detect design in our universe. Where the probability of naturalistic processes is so slim as to be impossible, intelligent design takes the trophy. Conclusion: My opponent must show an alternative theory to be more parsimonious than the one aforesaid. The alternative theory must have equal explanatory power and fewer assumptions. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1) http://home.iitk.ac.in...
The minimum wage should not be increased in the United States

The benefits of moderate and proportional increases to the minimum wage outweigh the risks.I assume that Pro's argument against minimum wage increases will be something along these lines: an increase in the minimum wage should translate into higher prices, contributing to inflation and nullifying the increase.In the real world, however, economic forces are much more complicated. However much theory says it shouldn't, study after study shows that base wage increases have a minimal impact on prices and that base wage increases are strongly correlated to economic improvement. Economists differ strongly on the relative value and importance of the minimum wage, but history shows that economic strength typically improves after minimum wage hikes and that jurisdictions with higher minimum wages enjoy stronger economies than jurisdictions with lower or no minimum wage law. "According to a poll of 500 small business owners conducted on behalf of Small Business Majority, 67 percent of these firms favor boosting the minimum wage from the current rate of $7.25 an hour and adjusting it annually as the cost of living rises" [1]Why? Because savvy small businesses understand that minimum wage hikes improve the economy, stabilize turnover, and contribute little to inflation.Small businesses in Australia account for 95% of GDP [2] compared to 46% U.S. GDP and Australia's minimum wage is twice that of U.S. ($16.88 USD) yet maintains unemployment at 5.7%, [3] and provides a statistically better quality of life than most US population centers(4 largest cities rank in global top ten). Look at Costco vs. Sam's Club. Costco pays 42% better average salary as well as better benefits, yet its grocery prices average 3.6% LESS because Costco employee turnover is 6% vs Sam's Club's 44% turnover[4] Happier, more experienced employees provide better customer service and bring in $21,805 profit per employee compared to Sam's Club's $11,615 profit per employee.Minimum wage earners only represent 5.2% of the US workforce, and that's mostly comprised of high school and college age people. [5] One might not suppose that adjusting the wage for this small sector would significantly impact the economy, but minimum wage increases ripple up into middle class salaries as employers retain wage hierarchies. This has the effect of pushing unused capital at the top of the pyramid down to the bottom where it is quickly spent, improving consumption and economic demand, which leads to higher employment. Minimum wage increases drive employers to improve efficiency. Rather than relying on a pool of cheap labor to take up the slack, employers seek out tech improvements, working smarter not harder.The higher the bottom rung is set, the more people prefer employment to criminal alternatives, boosting the market.Minimum wage laws improve work ethics, reduce absenteeism, and reduce turnover. In tandem, these effects result in significant improvements in efficiency across the economy. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com...[2] http://www.mccrindle.com.au...[3] http://www.abc.net.au...[4] http://hbr.org...[5] http://www.bls.gov...