BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

Hello there. I would like to thank those who have provided the tools that we can use here on debate.org so that this debate can happen. This is my first debate here, and to be honest, this debate is more of humerous practice than anything else. Now, as can be seen in the proposition, I believe that if you can only have one food for the rest of your life, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste. Now for the debate. Although it may be argued that chicken has less falvorful fat than does beef (1) and thus is more bland, think about it this way: Is blandness really a bad thing? If you eat meat without any seasoning, sauce, etc., then I'd say "Yes." However, since we season our food, it's better not to use beef, since its flavor has naturally been defined. It's easier for chicken, however, to be made to taste sweet, sour, salty, etc. And if you only can have one food for the rest of your life, you'd want one that could have a variety of flavors from a gustatory (taste) point of view. Think of it this way: Would you rather make a painting with white paper (one that is customizable, since it doesn't favor another color), or with blue paper? Footnote(1) http://www.livestrong.com...-
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

Okay, lean means lack of fat, but you haven't proved that 100% lean beef would have would still have "preinstalled" flavor. But it doesn't matter weather or not beef has "built in" flavor because the proposition doesn't say outside foods or spices are allowed, it just says chicken would be better than beef for the rest of ones life in terms of taste. So it would be beef with no seasoning versus chicken with no seasoning. Since beef already has flavor (assuming the fat isn't removed), beef has savory flavor while chicken is just bland and flavorless. Which flavor would you rather have for the rest of your life more, bland or savory?
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

This is what I see is a summary of Con's last argument: 1. Pro (myself) cannot prove that chicken is like paper (in the sense that it is more customizable).2. The leaner beef is, the more savory.3. Beef also can be bland if it's less lean.4. Herbs, spices, and sauces are different foods; thus one cannot have them in the proposition's scenario.5. People eat more hamburgers than chicken sandwiches (except Pro).6. There really are not any good websites about chicken but are for beef. In regards to Points 1–3, look at it this way: Foods can have various flavors through seasoning. (As to whether seasoning can fit into my proposition's scenario, we will see later.) And lean meat contains "little or no fat"(1), making it less flavorful, not more.(2) And even though some beef is more bland than other beef, they both still would have more, "preinstalled" flavor than chicken. Since there are different flavors (savory, sweet, salty, etc.), it's harder to change something that already has some flavor dictated. It's that simple. For example, it would be difficult to make an apple pie taste salty, savory, etc.; doing such with chicken, however, is considerably easier.In regards to Point 4, neither herbs, spices, nor salts qualify as "foods" but as things that can be used on them.(3) Thus, they may be used.For Point 5, it doesn't really matter for this debate whether people eat more chicken sandwiches or hamburgers. Even if used as an indicator, statistics showing more "beef" or "chicken" being eaten, as I've done, is better than specifics like "hamburgers" or "chicken sandwiches." Remember the proposition.Point 6 doesn't prove the proposition right or wrong.Thank you for your time. I hope that the evidence for and against will be thoroughly investigated, not just Con's upcoming last word. References 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. https://www.exploratorium.edu...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

You can't prove chicken is like paper, though. And like I said, the leaner the beef is, the more savory it is. So if you want you beef more bland, get less lean beef.If you only have one meat for the rest of your live, then you wouldn't be able to have herbs, spices and sauce because they wouldn't count as the same food and would count as vegetables.This entire debate is about an opinion anyways. So there is no way to prove which meat is better. Beef is more expensive too so it would not be bought as much. I never said Americans eat more chicken. I said only that Americans eat 50 billion hamburgers each year. Americans don't seem to eat that much chicken sandwiches except you. Regarding the website, they are not really any good websites for chicken, but they are several good websites supporting beef. That religious chicken website is small and looks generic.
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

If I were to summarize Con's response into a few points, I would come up with this:1. Food has a base flavor. If meat A's flavor is higher than that of meat B, then meat A has more overall potential as to how gustatorily pleasing it can become.2. Americans eat an average of three hamburgers per week. Chicken lacks such statistics.3. The fact that there is a website known as "Beef - It's What's For Dinner" further verifies that people prefer beef over chicken.If I left anything out and/or misrepresented you, Con, please let me know. Although these points may appear good at first, I will reference a wise saying from long ago: "The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him."(1)In regards to the first point, I disagree with the concept of base flavor. Rather, my view is that there are various different flavors that give food a manner of uniqueness. For example, there is sweetness, savoryness (the category beef falls in), saltiness, etc. Instead of having just one of these great flavors, with chicken, one is able to, by means of creativity, allow chicken to fall into all these categories, a feat more difficult for beef to accomplish. Why have only one flavor when you can enjoy them all?As for the second point, your reference had no mention of chicken, only how much beef is eaten. Statistics actually reveal that people do eat more chicken than they do beef in the US now.(2)And for the third point, citing websites supporting beef and chicken is somewhat subjective, but very well. Not only is chicken liked, but there is a website showing it to be beginning its own religion.(3)Thank you for your time, and I await your response, Con.References(1) Proverbs 18:17. Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.(2) http://www.canadiangrocer.com...(3) http://chickenism.weebly.com...
If you could only eat one food forever, chicken would be better than beef in terms of taste

Well, for one, just because beef has more flavor than chicken, doesn't mean it unable to be "customized", how about you think of this way: Beef has higher base flavor than chicken, which means it has a higher potential flavor than chicken. It depends on the leanness of the beef on how much of the savory flavor the beef has.Americans eat around 50 billion hamburgers a year and eat about three each week(1), but we hardly even see people eat chicken sandwiches other than you, Kilk1. If that many hamburgers are eaten each year, then why would anyone want to live on chicken for the rest of their life?There is an entire website called Beef - It's What's For Dinner(2), what kind of websites support chicken?References (1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(2)http://www.beefitswhatsfordinner.com...
The Statement 'God Exists' is Rationally Justifiable.

>>> If any of you wish to debate me, please let me know in the comments. & it would be nice if you can also include the line of reasoning you'll be going with. The statement "God Exists" is rationally justifiable, in the sense that, the Positive Existence of God must be either:- Deductively True.- Inductively True.- Empirically Unfalsifiable, though Rationally Expected.- Logically Unprovable, though can be Rationally Expected.My Postulates:> Everything is itself. Or: A = A.> Everything can not both be & not be. Or: A = not-(not-A).> Everything must either be or not be. Or: If A & not-A, then A True, Or not-A True.> Causality is - inductively - True. Or: for every event A there is a - inductively - necessary event B, such that, if B then A.My Case:- I will argue that whether the Law of Causality is necessary or not, there must exist & Uncaused Efficient First Cause.- I will also argue that an Uncaused Cause can not be Contingent nor Plural.- I will also argue that an Uncaused Cause is Empirically Unfalsifiable.- I will define God as the Singular Non-Contingent Essential Existence Ucaused Efficient First Cause.- I will also argue that, regardless of the correlation between Formal Logic & Cosmology, the existence of God can still be Rationally Justifiable.=> I will then conclude that the statement "God Exists" is rationally justifiable.* This set of arguments may be changed, to which I may add new ones or replace the current ones with other ones. However, the guidelines will stay more or less the same.The BOF:> My opponent have to prove that the Positive Existence of God is all the following:- not-Deductively True.- not-Inductively True.- Empirically Falsifiable, Or not-Rationally Expected.- Logically Provable or Disprovable, Or can not be Rationally Expected.=> By disproving the arguments I am gonna advance.First Round: Acceptence.- Rounds: 5.- Time to Argue: 72h.- Max: 10,000 characters.
61 6e 79 6f 6e 65 20 77 61 6e 6e 61 20 74 61 6c 6b 3f (HEX)

4E 69 63 65 20 65 6C 6F 3F 20 59 6F 75 27 72 65 20 70 72 6F 62 61 62 6C 79 20 62 65 69 6E 67 20 73 61 72 63 61 73 74 69 63 2E 20 49 27 6D 20 72 65 70 6F 72 74 69 6E 67 20 79 6F 75 2E D A D A D A 50 2E 53 2E 20 4A 75 73 74 20 4B 69 64 64 69 6E 67 21
61 6e 79 6f 6e 65 20 77 61 6e 6e 61 20 74 61 6c 6b 3f (HEX)

3d 5f 3d 20 49 74 27 73 20 61 20 63 68 61 74 20 6e 6f 74 20 61 20 64 65 62 61 74 65 20 3d 29 2c 20 61 6e 64 20 6e 69 63 65 20 65 6c 6f 20 42 54 57
61 6e 79 6f 6e 65 20 77 61 6e 6e 61 20 74 61 6c 6b 3f (HEX)

77 65 6C 6C 20 74 68 61 74 27 73 20 61 20 70 69 74 79 2E 20 41 6E 64 20 74 68 69 73 20 64 65 62 61 74 65 20 69 73 20 6B 69 6E 64 20 6F 66 20 64 75 6D 62 2E
61 6e 79 6f 6e 65 20 77 61 6e 6e 61 20 74 61 6c 6b 3f (HEX)

Sorry, my wheel chair comprehended it as f"955#"")"# well, here's mine 48 6f 77 20 64 6f 20 79 6f 75 20 64 6f 3f 20 44 6f 20 79 6f 75 20 6c 69 6b 65 20 70 6f 6e 69 65 73 20 74 6f 6f 3f 20 43 75 7a 20 69 6d 61 20 72 69 70 20 79 6f 75 72 20 70 6f 6e 69 65 73 20 66 72 69 67 67 65 6e 20 6c 65 67 73 20 6f 66 66 2e
61 6e 79 6f 6e 65 20 77 61 6e 6e 61 20 74 61 6c 6b 3f (HEX)

Oh why, thank you very much. This topic is far too easy. "52 65 61 64 20 74 68 65 20 74 69 74 6c 65 0d 0a?""66 92 39 02 35 19 35 23 02 83 95 29 9p 92 3m 2s."There, I countered your only point. I accept the challenge and await your opening statement in round 2.
Scientism is a reliigon

Alright but you has of yet not given a solid refutation of it so really that is just your subjective feeling at this point. My concept of scientism (the term I have come up with for this religion) is based on my observation of its adherents. This arguments is stupid The Instigator totally fail to set a define on his view of "Scientism" , Instigator avoid to explain a definition of this concept. when Scientism is a critical define in this topic. The Instigator trying to create more confusing topic by linked "God of the Gaps" with Science of the Gaps, WITHOUT define of the Wide-ranging possible meaning of "God of the Gaps" . he posted a link that - http://en.wikipedia.org... God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. this above create a undefined of his define on reliigon. is he is trying to link "God_of_the_gaps" as Christian theologians. which is stated in first round of his define on reliigon . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. ------------------------------------------------------ arguments will never be started. The Instigator totally FAIL to set define on his statement for this debate.
Scientism is a reliigon

I will now respond to my opponent’s objections from the last round.your self-concept on scientism is strongly disagreeable.Alright but you has of yet not given a solid refutation of it so really that is just your subjective feeling at this point. My concept of scientism (the term I have come up with for this religion) is based on my observation of its adherents.I only bring up God of the Gaps as a point of comparison to explain what I mean by Science of the Gaps and Science of the Gaps is an important aspect of the Scientism religion.My opponent’s main point does not prove anything rather he acknowledges that we rely on faith all the time. This is true but he hasn’t proven how you can tell false faith from true faith or what that even means. As for how we know the world around use exists, it can be empirically proven. Now if he is trying to argue we live in the Matrix or a dream or Descartes’ claim “I think therefore I am” which by the way was the first half of his proof for God) then we really can’t know anything and the scientific process would be completely meaningless therefore it would be faith anyway and scientism would still be a religion. Something like the Big Bang or primordial soup however cannot and that differs from faith that the sun will rise tomorrow or that gravity will still work the same is that the latter cases are based on past experience. Scientific claims must be consistent with the scientific process. Observing how the Earth rotates around the sun gives us a pretty good idea of how it will continue to work for a while. I thank my opponent for coming up with a rebuttal and look forward to the next and final round where we should wrap things up. He cannot introduce a new argument that I will be unable to respond to.
Scientism is a reliigon

The Instigator critical main point conclusion from round 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- Scientism meets all of these. 1.They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith. 2.They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support. 3.They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science. 4.Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist. 5.They proselytize in schools and debate other religions. Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science. ----------------------------------------------------- i will make it simple for you. your conclusion define your define of Scientism Scientism is cheating, they fool people. Scientism is a reliigon your self-concept on scientism is strongly disagreeable. ----------------------------------------------------- The Instigator critical main point conclusion of reliigon and your define of reliigon 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. --------------------------------------------- God of the gaps argument will be another difference topic to carry on this topic is about is Scientism is a reliigon. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Scientism is not a reliigon Main point A) Faith is belief of absence evidence. so explain what is the evidence that this whole world is not a dream in your mind? There is neither evidence nor proof that the external world exists independent of our experience of it, but most of us believe in it anyways, because that seems more reasonable to us.Scientism can only be proven within science. It cannot be proven to a person who believes primarily in faith. I have faith the sun will rise every morning for the rest of my life. Does that make it become untrue? It is only FALSE faiths that are untrue.
Scientism is a reliigon

I will try to respond to my opponent but he didn’t give much of a rebuttal. What he did say I am having a hard time making out due to poor grammar but I will try based on what I think he is saying.His first paragraph doesn’t seem to be saying anything that I can make out except restating what I said. Then calling me a free thinker, but don’t see how that will help him with the debate. overall, you claim that Scientism is a religion because they trying to fool others into convert them to believe of their belief to something which is not true as its not science proofed.I said that they use just enough of the scientific method to make it look scientific, however rely on faith for the rest. What I call science of the gaps.He says my argument is stupid but doesn’t go on to give explanation as to why. are you trying to be a "Scientism" or "religion" now by converting us of your belief ?I am really trying to understand what this means but I don’t. Is he saying I am trying to convert people to my belief? Well only within the scope of this debate. I am not giving an affirmative argument for any other religion but rather pointing out the religious nature of scientism.Now I realized that I might have to explain what I mean by “Science of the Gaps”. It is essentially a response to “God of the Gaps” and works the same way. [1]As my opponent did make a comprehensible counter argument my contentions still stand for this round. I look forward to next round and hopefully there will be more communication.1 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Scientism is a reliigon

This is not a new concept, we just need you to define your meaning of it before we can start kicking the ball. --------------------------------------------------------- Scientism meets all of these. 1.They believe the almighty Big Bang caused the universe even though they can"t prove it but rather take it on faith. 2.They believe that life can arise from non-life despite a lack of scientific support. 3.They usually go by scientist but they have usurped the term from legitimate scientists and not everyone who adheres to the religion even works in the field of science. 4.Again usually they go by scientist, however for the sake of this debate I will refer to them as scientismist. 5.They proselytize in schools and debate other religions. See the video of Bill Nye proselytizing this religion and condemning other religions. He wants parents to only teach their kids his religion. That shows how oppressive they can be. (It"s a shame too since there was a time where Bill Nye did seem interesting in the scientific method) Now Scientism does take bits and pieces of evidence and starts to use the scientific method (that"s why they can fool people into thinking it"s real science) but to fill in the holes they make a leap of faith and use science of the gaps to explain what they can"t using real science. ------------------------------------------------------- you claim that , Scientism fool people of something which is not real, and taking credit you also claim that that Scientism or religion is a scam, because wanted to control over people belief to make them believed in something. you are a freethinker too . ************overall, you claim that Scientism is a religion because they trying to fool others into convert them to believe of their belief to something which is not true as its not science proofed. could i say this is a stupid argument by based your belief? are you trying to be a "Scientism" or "religion" now by converting us of your belief ?