BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food.

I would suggest to my opponent that my statement doesn't require that smoked food is unanimously better than grilled food. I simply stated that smoked food had more flavor than grilled food. To this end I would remind my opponent othe cellular makeup of meat and how it reacts to heat and time. If one covers chicken, pork, or beef with a spice rub and cooks it on a grill the meat protein will reach the critical temperature much faster than if the food is smoked. Therefore, the grilling "shuts down" the flavor receptors in the meat. On the other side of the example: fine steak restaurants focus on the meat alone so they grill or sear it over high heat locking the juices in and keeping other favors out.
Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food.

Looking at the debate today, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that, unanimously, smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food. However, not only is this entirely subjective and non-factual, but it is also impossible to prove. "smoking food takes vast amounts of time, skill, and quality product. Thus, it is not a preparation method that is well suited to fast food restaurants."Smoking food does take skill and time to correctly perform, so does grilling food. If fast food restaurants are not your pick, take a look at the more luxurious restaurants. I can guarantee you none of them have smoked food either. Why? Because it is not a want of the public. If the public truly wanted smoked food over grilled food, than restaurants, fast or luxury, would serve it. But they don't. "As for 61% of American favoring grilled chicken vs. smoked... the sample size was 18 people." Regardless of the sample size, this is the only evidence introduced into this round. If you had evidence that showed the contrary, I would be more inclined to believe you. "Stand alone restaurants who focus on quality over speed have seen growth in barbecue. "We're debating smoked vs. grilled, not smoked vs. grilled vs. barbecue. Americans enjoy both grilled and smoked foods. I'm not contending that. Both are delicious. My opponent however has failed to meet the burden of proof to show that smoking food is unanimously better. Both are great.
Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food.

Thanks to my opponent for choosing to respond and in such a unique and thoughtful manner. My opponent has based round one statements that fast food restaurants choose grilling over smoking is because of public desire to eat more grilled food and "In essence, because fast food restaurants do not carry of see smoked foods. .. " I would refute that statement by simply pointing out that smoking food takes vast amounts of time, skill, and quality product. Thus, it is not a preparation method that is well suited to fast food restaurants. Stand alone restaurants who focus on quality over speed have seen growth in barbecue. Famous Dave's, for example, has 182 US locations and plans to open 12 more in 2011-2012 fiscal year (source: 3rd quarter fiscal results posted at their investor web site). As for 61% of American favoring grilled chicken vs. smoked. .. the sample size was 18 people. When I comes to flavor only smoking food can allow the most important element of food preparation to occur to maximize flavor. .. low and steady temperatures. Grilling food is more convenient by far, but smoking food allows hard work to pay off. Those low and steady temperatures play well with the following fact: Meat protein starts to set or cook at 120 degrees F. . http://www.amazingribs.com... Once the protein sets, it can not and will not absorb any more smoke or flavor, especially the leaner meats. Protein is completely cooked at 140F. So therefore: since grilling meat uses higher heat with the goal of cooking faster, there is less time develop flavor and therefore grilled food contains less flavor than smoked food.
Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food.

I negate the following resolution: Resolved: Smoking food imparts more flavor than grilling food. Firstly, an observation. Because the resolution deals in absolutes, the burden of proof lies on the Affirmative to prove that Smoked food imparts more favor than grilled food. The burden of proof on the negative, myself, is to prove that either grilled food is more flavorful, OR that the two are equal. I accept the definition of the word "flavor" as presented by my opponent. When examining the issue of grilled vs. smoked food, a panoramic view of the issue is a must. In today's fast food restaurants, grilled foods are being more and more so used. This begs the question of "why". Grilled food represents what the public wants, as today's fast food restaurants cater to the needs and wants of the public. In essence, because fast food restaurants do not carry or serve smoked foods, but do carry grilled foods, the public generally likes grilled food more than smoked food. In addition, according to a informal poll conducted by "TheHotPepper. com", 61% of Americans favor grilled chicken over smoked chicken. (. http://www.thehotpepper.com...)
The Big Bang did not occur

Well... absent any supporting evidence, your opening argument is somewhat incomplete. I can simply riposte by saying that I believe in the big bang, and turn this into an opinion poll. But there are several reasons I believe the big bang model, most of which are rooted in fairly elementary astrophysics. 1. It was proved in 1924 that the universe is expanding. Elementary measurements of the red-shift in light coming from distant galaxies proves they are moving away from us. The big bang easily provides the energy for this movement of the galaxies. 2. Cosmic background radiation (CBR) provides evidence of the nature of matter immediately following the big bang. This was discovered in 1964 in Holmdel, NJ at the Bell Laboratories with their radio telescope. CBR is the radiation that escapes a group of extremely hot atoms as they begin to congeal, much as happened in the formation of matter after the big bang. 3. We can study the nature of matter as it was in the big bang inside particle accelerators. This study corresponds to what we observe in nature, giving us little doubt that the beginning of our universe was very similar to the collisions in a particle accelerator. Just a slight overview, but three completely different arguments of why the big bang is a extraordinarily probable cosmic event. This does beg the question however, if the big bang did not occur, what did?
Science is more dangerous than religion

People generally are argumentative and prefer winning a conflict than losing " who likes losing a debate? Religion, though, should not bear the full weight of the blame for conflicts. People may disagree over scientific beliefs, philosophy, political leanings and many more things. Trying to tone down religion to have a better society will not solve any problems. People will just find other things to disagree about. Karl Marx said something similar to what you claimed. He said that religion was the "opium of the masses". Communism, therefore, was against religion and the USSR banned any sort of organised religion. That didn"t make Russia a better place. Nobody can say that the USSR created a better society by getting rid of religion. In addition, not all religions preach being extremist and killing other people. Pakistan is an Islamic country but it most certainly does not agree in any way to the brutal murder of 132 children. Religion is not mutually exclusive with ruthlessness. However, science has no limits. As science discovers more and more, less of the things that ought to be kept unknown are not. Science is the sole thing that currently has the potential of threatening all other religions and beliefs, which has made more people anti-religion. Consequently, it is threatening the democratic nature of the world today " is the generally accepted law of freedom of religious beliefs going to last forever as it should in a fair society? Will people in the future be allowed to practise their religion freely? Already religion is banned in some public schools. Children should be allowed to decide for themselves whether science or religion is right. It seems that the government is trying to control people"s beliefs. And, as a side point, I disagree with your sentiment that the Holocaust was about religion. The Nazis did not differentiate between religious and non-religious Jews. Even now historians are not clear if Hitler"s hatred of Jews was just because of his racial beliefs or because of something else.
Science is more dangerous than religion

It's perfectly fine. I'll take that as an acceptance and I won't rebut that one. Religion noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Synonyms:faith, belief, worship, creed a particular system of faith and worship. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion" Looking at the definition, it doesn't seem like much. But religion is truly the downfall of our society. We go to church, we pray, we sing, we worship. But not everyone agrees with us. One of the most devastating things that shook the world was the Holocaust. It took over 6 million lives. All because of different opposing religions. People wanted to destroy multiple religions, because their religion was different. Religion has cause people to create big and small stereotypes. An example of a small, not-that-harmful one is "Oh you're Jewish you complain about everything". That doesn't really harm anyone. But there are bigger ones that can put people's lives in jeopardy. Just because of religion. It's dangerous. It's always there.
Science is more dangerous than religion

Science is diametrically opposed to religion - science is atheistic and believes there is no God. This therefore means that there are no real morals that a person must have by nature and nothing can be said to be right or wrong. So while religions have morals, science does not. Without rules and regulations about what is right and what is wrong, society completely collapses on itself. Therefore, the government of a society must enforce laws that the majority of the people believe is morally right. So the question of what is right and what is wrong is really a matter of opinion and is definitely subject to change, whether for good or for bad. Laws from religion is believed to be from God and is considered unalterable - so it generally doesn't change. However, laws made in a totally scientific and atheist society is fully legislated by the government which gives more power to the government than the religious society does. So in effect, religion is far more democratic than science and there is more equality in religion. And religion is not the only thing that can be extremist - science can get extreme as well. Take an example such as Hitler's racial beliefs about a 'master race': this load of tyrannical rubbish was based on Darwin's theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest. So, ultimately, science can get more dangerous than religion can ever get.
Prohibition should be reenacted

I'm agreeing with a lot of what you're saying. Alcohol is VERY harmful, in a number of ways. If anything, we should make it less accessible (meaning, bump up the price on it). And let's be realistic here...wealthy people are less likely to abuse their alcohol. And this makes me think of Europe. They don't have this problem on the scale that we do. It's because children there are taught from a young age to drink responsibly. Perhaps we should improve alcohol education in the US. And possibly lower the drinking age. Do you have a better alternative? Anything that eventually removes alcohol from our society? Or at least makes it less of a harmful thing
Prohibition should be reenacted

I agree with your point, and while mine isn't necessarily realistic, I would still say that I fully support increasing alcohol restriction, not just complete prohibition. The United States lost a ton of money during prohibition, and would likely lose around 20-30 billion dollars if Prohibition were reenacted. I still don't believe it stills justifies to say that just because it costs a lot of money, we will allow innocent people to be killed. If we counted all deaths attributed to alcohol in the US annually, it would triple the current leading cause of death in the United States, according to Amy L Sutton. Are all those lives not worth a couple billion dollars? I do agree with you, but I also believe that we could eventually disintegrate alcohol from American society. In order to save the lives of many Americans, researchers have proffered strategies to reduce alcohol consumption. In Xu Xin and Frank J. Chaloupka"s study, the two found that "Price increases can help reduce the risk for adverse consequences of alcohol consumption and abuse, including drinking and driving, alcohol" involved crimes, liver cirrhosis and other alcohol"related mortality, risky sexual behavior and its consequences, and poor school performance among youth." (5) Potential changes in the marketing of alcohol would alter the future of many Americans. Furthermore, a basic increase in enforcement of alcohol shows beneficial effects: "Effective enforcement of the law can substantially reduce youth alcohol access. In addition, strengthening existing laws to further restrict youth access to alcohol shows promise in reducing underage drinking and related problems." (6) An important member of American society, the young, benefits directly from decreased alcohol consumption. However, a crucial portion of alcohol awareness and limitations lies within the public image of alcohol: "Other strategies such as drinking and driving media campaigns, random alcohol screening, brief interventions delivered in the primary care, school districts, college, or inpatient setting can reduce harmful drinking and the resources expended may be cost effective." (7) As alcohol"s public image deteriorates, a decrease of deaths will reflect the changed representation of alcohol consumption. Many approaches to restrict alcohol usage exhibit very advantageous results for the American people. Just the advertisement of alcohol can cause future alcohol drinkers. This is definitely something we can stop, and it could slowly take alcohol out of the American system we know today. If you read through this website, it gives a much further in depth look a what just advertising can do. http://www.camy.org... I am tempted to say that you probably have won this, as I've kind of backed down on the whole "complete Prohibition" idea. I will still make my own case as to why alcohol should be disintegrated from the American society. (5) http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... (6) http://www.lhc.ca.gov... (7) http://www.camy.org...
Prohibition should be reenacted

I think we're both on the same page in one aspect: alcohol in large amounts has a negative effect on humans I would support banning it, except for one thing: money It would cost BILLIONS to keep alcohol out the United States, and control its consumption. Not only would it be nearly impossible, but the attempts to prohibit it would be a huge drain on resources. The cost of maintaining this prohibition would be astronomical. So yes, I agree that alcohol is dangerous. It would be nice if it was outlawed, but it just isn't realistic.
Affirmative Action in collegiate admissions should not stress race, but stress socioeconomic status.

First time debating here... I guess I will start off with giving basic arguments. 1. Race promotes diversity. Like minds think alike. Unlike minds think differently. It is genetic. When solving problems it is definitely better to have multiple approaches for the problem. Sometimes, some approaches work better than others. Having diversity does exactly this; when people of different backgrounds work together, there are unique approaches being discovered for problems in America today. This diversity is something that socioeconomic factors cannot relate to- it is purely genetic. This diverse advantage extends into the workforce. If there is more diversity in colleges, chances are that same trend will continue in the workforce, as college serves as a training for jobs. 2. Colleges choose to do so. No one forces colleges to use affirmative action. It is completely their choice. Colleges, like any other profit organization in the US, are primarily money driven. They like to make choices that maximize their profit. A solid amount of their annual revenue comes from the quality of students they produce and the reputation that it incurs. This is proof that colleges benefit off of the diversity of humans at their campuses; if not, why would colleges use affirmative action? Anyways, overall, it is the right of colleges to determine who they admit and who they don't, not anyone else's. 3. It is used for below the bar students. To be clear, affirmative action is not used against students who have good merit. In fact, affirmative action does not affect students who match or exceed university standards. It is only used for students who do not meet university standards. Colleges are and always will be a place for the best and the brightest, but opportunities should be provided for others as well. When colleges have some extra room for students who do not meet their standards, why not take advantage of the benefits of diversity? Is it really unfair to use affirmative action to deny applicants whose GPA and SAT scores do not match university standards? Again, its my first time debating here, so it would be great if you could post rules if there are any. Thanks!
Affirmative Action in collegiate admissions should not stress race, but stress socioeconomic status.

College admissions should not be based on race whatsoever. It spawns racism and hate between the applicants and is detrimental to our society. The socioeconomic status of an individual is a much better indicator for colleges to see what that certain person has achieved given where they are in America's food chain. Also, there is no real obligation for society to abide by affirmative action in college admissions because college is optional. College should be open for the best and brightest which should be stipulated by merit requirements and not race requirements.
Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

It's called accepting one's limits. By acting as you do, you're being rash - do you want to be on your death bed and have to tell your peers "my existential butt has a rash on it; long ago I made a mistake..." Uh, you do know that being nosy is why this is happening? Need I remind you that we're trading them guns for their oil? Did it ever occur to you that the U.S are nothing but liars and greedy monkeys lining their pocket while lining our graveyards with the people they deceived? Yes, they were most certainly being nosy. Their unjustified steps on their soil is what lead to 9/11. If George Bush wasn't such a monkey and our population wasn't full of needy neanderthals - none of this would be happening. Now the people will have to face their consequences for allowing a greater evil to be born. It's all the people fault - they need to face their bloody consequences, for all the blood they have taken granted will one day come right back at them. There's no standing up while you're between two evils.
Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

Though there is thought of ones safety in mind, that does not mean we are attached. When we see these things that make us want to " vomit it our hearts out" shouldn't we do something about it? Why must we sit behind computer screens or on our couches and let others fight out battles for us? I do not consider this nosiness, I consider this putting our big boy pants on and taking actions to prevent harm to the ones we love. The U.S were not being nosy and snooping in other world affairs, I believe that we were connected to Iraq in multiple ways. One being they are our oil providers, and two they were abusing the unalienable rights of the Iraqis. You say we "thought" he was bad, but did you actually know what he did? http://en.wikipedia.org... If you don't stand up for what's right, who will?
Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

You act upon fear of your own safety, this is not what humanity is. That's animosity. There are five stages in living: Animosity, Humanity, Insanity, Self-Humility and Nobody. You become so attached to yourself and your safety, that you lose face of reality. You become paranoid and lose focus on what really matters through patience, diligence and acceptance that there will be many things that go on in this world that make us want to vomit our heart out, but you must understand that we cannot fix everything and wanting to just cut to chase because you cannot face consequences that are inevitable isn't going to guaranteed that it will make things better - it may make things worse! Do you know why this is even a reality right now? The U.S couldn't keep their damned noses out of other people's businesses, so they killed Saddam Hussein, thinking he was bad - see what happens when monkeys get a hold of power and convince people they know what they are talking about because they wear military suits and talk like robots? No, they have no idea what they are talking about - talking like they do is the result of having no humanity and being made of 100% psychopathy. You need to wake up and understand the heart of war's existence. It's a mental conflict within ourselves that we project unto the real world. People live their bloody fears in a world that has no relation to their own undoing, but it's happening and people are suffering for these lunatics that do not understand how to deal with their anguish on the inside! If there was no idiots following war chiefs, there wouldn't be any wars! He who wants power, has not any; he who does not seek power, has it all.
Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

Throwing around Einstein's toys like we understand them is just selfish and foolish. They are people - when I imagine myself in their shoes; being trapped in a place full of enemies that are targeted by someone with bigger power, I can see that acting upon the fear against innocent bystanders by "securing our safety" would render us unjustified, immoral and not worth saving, for we did not save our own humanity.
Unilateral military force against nuclear proliferation

Unilateral Military force is required for nuclear proliferation based solely off the most blatant of reasons, that innocent civilians have the possibility to be killed in a terrorist attack by these bombs. Though America is highly secure we aren't a impenetrable fortress, therefore we can still be victims of a terrorist attack. There are many countries that support terrorist groups and not many are in alliance with us. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore we must take action to protect ourselves and our country by enforcing military action to reinforce our safety.
child molestation should result in life in prison or the death penalty

Your argument is an 'Appeal to emotion' logical fallacy. I'm sure the parents would want him or her to be incarcerated so he could not do this to anyone else, and punished. Both of which a mental hospital does. Second, one of the things mental hospitals CAN do very well, is rehabilitate people. If he could be rehabilitated, why shouldn't he be? The death penalty is only for people who have killed, and are beyond rehabilitation. Thus should not be used on a mentally ill person, who hasn't killed.
child molestation should result in life in prison or the death penalty

You've got to be kidding me right, a mental hospital!!! cmon, what if you were that Childs parents who was molested. I bet you wouldn't want that pedophile to go to a mental institution. Also how you were saying the death penalty is an eye for an eye punishment. I believe that murder is not always evil. IE. if a man came home to find his wife sleeping with another man, and lost his temper and shot the man, it would be wrong, but not evil. On the other hand. Child molestation is always evil