BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
turkey at christmas

Con suggests that the health benefits are a superfluous reason to include turkey during Christmas. He supports this with his proposition that Christmas is a day for the gluttonous consumption of various substances, such as chocolate, and alcohol. He makes the unwarranted assumption that people don't include turkey at Christmas which is implicit through his rhetorical question, "Sorry Pro but who thinks about vitamins and minerals at Christmas?" He provides no evidence to actually negate my health claim rather than assert his opinion. I never mentioned that the health benefits of turkey is the main influence of why people include turkey, I mentioned it to enhance why I favor turkey for Christmas, and why it should included in Christmas dinner. "Some people have even said to me their not particularly keen on turkey but always have it at Christmas. Why do so many people insist on having a meat they don't really enjoy for their special meal of the year." This was one of Con's claim in round 2. He insisted that individuals have shared with him that they do not enjoy turkey at Christmas, yet then subsequently claims that many people continue to include turkey, a meat they really don't enjoy. My example was to demonstrate stubbornness with the individual A and B scenario and was rebutted with the following; "So Pro admits that route B(turkey) is not necessarily a better choice than route A(something else)." I did not concede there was a better choice, I was demonstrating the stubbornness of those who dislike turkey yet continue to include it because according to Con, many people dislike turkey yet continue to eat it at Christmas. This is stubborn. This is additionally hearsay and has failed to provide evidence to support his assertion. Abridgment: Con argued Turkey was dry and tasteless, thereby claiming it was an inappropriate item to consume at Christmas. I responded with various methods to enhance the taste and prevent dryness. Con asserts that the implementation turkey is becoming antiquated, yet asserts his opinion of why and never actually demonstrated that turkey was a traditional item to include. I provided some health benefits of turkey, to demonstrate its value and contributions during a day of consumption. Con attempts to negate this claim with the assumption that all who celebrate Christmas do so in a gluttonous fashion. Conclusion: Turkey is a tasteful bird, has numerous methods of preparations, deeming it a diverse meal, and is a healthy choice. I have provided substantive reasons as to why turkey should be included at Christmas, while my opponent asserts his opinion. Con has not sufficiently defend the proposition under consideration. Thank you for the debate.
turkey at christmas

"This is akin to driving route B, whereas route A is quicker and less miles, but the driver continues to drive route B but dislikes driving route B. " So Pro admits that route B(turkey) is not necessarily a better choice than route A(something else). Pro writes a long paragraph about the health benefits of turkey. "Turkey also contains a multitude of vitamins and minerals such as; vitamin b3, phosphorus, selenium, zinc, and vitamin b12. These are a few of the many vitamins and minerals found in turkey. " Sorry Pro but who thinks about vitamins and minerals at Christmas? Christmas is a truly special day for those who celebrate it. A day which people spend filling themselves with candy, chocolate, champagne, beer and unfortunately turkey. A day where diets and normally strict health routines should be thrown out of the window(unless its dangerous or life threatening to do so of course). Have you ever wished anyone a healthy low calorie vitamin filled Christmas? I certainly haven't. Christmas is a day of happiness and fun where problems, rules and diets are forgotten. I think the health benefit argument is invalid where Christmas is concerned. For me the day of fun, happiness and love must include a truly great main meal. A meal to be thoroughly enjoyed. The unwritten rule that so many people blindly adhere to is potentially holding us back in the quest for a truly memorable Christmas dinner. Its time to forget the rule. Christmas should have no rules. Lets throw the rule and the turkey in the trash can once and for all.
turkey at christmas

First of all, Pro points out that Christmas isn't the biggest day of the year for everyone which is of course true. But to a lot of people including many non religious people it is. Christmas is a huge commercial event these days rather than simply another religious holiday. For people who do consider Christmas as their biggest holiday of the year, why is it so often taken for granted that the dinner always has to be turkey? If your a lover of turkey as Pro seems to be then thats fine. But I know many people who always have turkey at Christmas and are too set in their ways to have something different but the rest of the year they hardly ever have turkey for dinner at all (we don't do thanksgiving here in England). Some people have even said to me their not particularly keen on turkey but always have it at Christmas. Why do so many people insist on having a meat they don't really enjoy for their special meal of the year. Secondly, Pro has suggested numerous methods and techniques of preparing the turkey without considering the possibility that the bird itself could be the issue. I spend every Christmas with my family and they always cook a turkey. They don't cook it badly as Pro has suggested. Its just that I'm not a fan of turkey. Personally Id much rather have pork or lamb for my Christmas dinner. Unlike the rest of my family I'm not a traditionalist. I'm the same with birthdays and other events. I like to mix things up a bit instead of doing the same thing year after year. Turkey at Christmas is a Traditionalist thing to do. To always stubbornly stick to the old traditions is to make big events such as Christmas routine and therefore boring. Right, think that covers everything for now, over to you Pro
turkey at christmas

Thank you for the debate. Allow me to address what Con has stated in their first round, but before I proceed to address his statements, allow me to clarify the resolution. Con disputes that Turkey is an acceptable item to include during Christmas dinner, and I favor Turkey at Christmas. I shall be defending the inclusion of Turkey during Christmas meals. "Christmas is the biggest day of the year," my opponent states. The definition of big is ambiguous in this sentence, however in this context, I can interpret "big" as denoting the most celebrated or anticipated day amongst the calendar. I contest this claim. It is the most celebrated Christian holiday of the year, hence could be considered the biggest day of Christianity to celebrate. It would appear that New Years is the most celebrated and anticipated holiday in American calendars. "So why do we ruin it by having turkey for dinner," my opponent ponders. He then mentions why turkey is considered to ruin dinner, according to his vapid statement, "turkey is dry and tasteless." I will deem this as his central focus of attack. There are several methods of preparing a turkey for a meal. Turkey contains a white meat, and a dark meat. The white meat is what tends to be more dry. Lets examine a few methods of preventing dryness during the preparation phase of the turkey. The most prominent reason as to why turkey is considered dry is because the most methods of preparing the bird extract moisture from the meat. Retaining the moisture is crucial, and below are a few subtle approaches to preventing excessive dryness: Avoiding overcooking the turkey is essential to preventing the meat to becoming dry and rough. Most turkeys are not pre-seasoned or dressed with sauce. Adhering a glaze or a sauce places emphasis on the degree of moisture in the bird, and can assist in preventing dryness. Abstain from penetrating the bird with a fork or knife before completion of the cook. Allow the turkey to sit devoid of carving for 20 minutes to allow the bird to retain as much moisture and juice as possible. Con's claim that Turkey is tasteless is, for the lack of better words, perplexing given that either his taste receptors are malfunctioned, and/or he lacks access, or refuses to implement, various substances that enhance the flavor of turkey, such as cranberry, brining the turkey, which also simultaneously prevents dryness, buttering the turkeys skin, and the abundance flavors that can be injected. "Lets replace turkey as the traditional Christmas meat with some other meat," my opponent then promptly concludes his round with. This is mere conjecture, which is appropriate but contributes no value to his argument. It would appear that Con has not adequately demonstrated why Turkey should not be included during Christmas diner. Con, you have possession of the metaphorical floor. http://zestycook.com... http://bbq.about.com... http://urbanext.illinois.edu...
Footballers are over payed

Here are the facts: Your average footballer gets paid around "250,000 a WEEK. You average surgeon gets paid "6,125 a week. Let's put this into perspective. A medical surgeon saves lives or helps cure a patient if sick or in need of aid. A football player kicks a ball into a goal for an hour or so. I don't think a footballer should get payed less than Your average police officer, let alone a life saver. In this world we have war and poverty. Half of a footballers pay Would make such a difference. It makes me insane to see these adverts on TV were They make people like me with a decent pay feel guilty that I dont give enough to these starving kids in Africa. (Just to say I am decent and do give to my selected charities) It also makes me mad that there are soldiers, sent away from there families to defend their Country and they don't get a quarter as much as these famous footballers get. Some soldiers Never come back and all footballers do is kick a ball in a net. People saving lives and dying for there country are not getting payed as much as these men Who play football for our entertainment. That is ridiculously unbalanced.
Female Circumcision

Even if these women wanted to be promiscuous, that should be left up to the individual. Who has the right to physically sew them up and deny them of their desires? It is also a double standard because the men in these regions are encouraged to have multiple wives/partners and the more promiscuous they are the more of a man they are considered to be, yet they expect women to do the opposite. These women are being deprived of their sexuality and some of them will never have a pleasurable sexual experience. It truly is sad. To wrap up this debate I would just like to restate my main points. Female circumcision needs to come to an end because it is an outdated practice that still exists mostly because of lack of education. The pain and health complications that are involved should be enough of a justification to do away with the practice. This practice is the ultimate violation of a humans rights and at some point it needs to end. It is always important to respect other cultural practices even when we do not understand them, but I truly feel there needs to be a line drawn some where, especially when people are being exploited the way these women are.
Female Circumcision

The causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities. Where FGM is a social convention, the social pressure to conform to what others do and have been doing is a strong motivation to perpetuate the practice. FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is in many communities believed to reduce a woman's libido and therefore believed to help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed (type 3 above), the fear of the pain of opening it, and the fear that this will be found out, is expected to further discourage "illicit" sexual intercourse among women with this type of FGM. FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are ï¿½€œcleanï¿½€ï¿½ and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean". Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice, practitioners often believe the practice has religious support. Religious leaders take varying positions with regard to FGM: some promote it, some consider it irrelevant to religion, and others contribute to its elimination. Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcises, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice. In most societies, FGM is considered a cultural tradition, which is often used as an argument for its continuation. In some societies, recent adoption of the practice is linked to copying the traditions of neighbouring groups. Sometimes it has started as part of a wider religious or traditional revival movement. In some societies, FGM is practised by new groups when they move into areas where the local population practice FGM.
Female Circumcision

This is true. There are women who view it as a right of passage into womanhood. Have these women been brainwashed in a way? Like I previously mentioned, these people can only understand what they have been exposed to. Also it is important to point out that while that women had a positive experience, every day six thousand young girls are forced into this procedure and they are not all as lucky as she is. Most of them will suffer the rest of their lives because of the experience. With that in mind it is important to handle this issue with the utmost respect for those who value it. It would not be right to abruptly demand they stop, but it would be acceptable to advise an educate these people so a movement can begin to change the situation. A large part of the issue is the lack of education in these regions. One approach that could be affective in helping the issue would be running campaigns. Another would be to offer counseling for victims and families in the areas. To begin with law enforcement would actually probably be counter productive. Thankfully the issue is beginning to be addressed in human rights conventions all over the world. World health organizations are now preaching anti-circumcision. According to The female circumcision controversy: An anthropological perspective "In the past 2 decades organized efforts for change have accelerated dramatically as international and nongovernmental organizations have become involved and African women have moved into leadership positions and are speaking out about genital cutting." These positions give them the power to speak out, and educate others of their own experiences. If things continue this way maybe one day the act of female circumcision will be nonexistent.
Female Circumcision

Yes it may not seem right but after researching I've also learned that their are different levels of the practice. After reading this article by an African Doctor who had her clitoris removed and she that it's a part of her right to becoming a woman. Here is a sample of her article to show her thoughts and the pro idea of this practice: "On the surface, female circumcision sounds like sexual abuse: it is the removal of a young woman's clitoris practiced by some African cultures as an initiation ritual. While FGC (female genital cutting) has been roundly condemned by many Western women, several African scholars will be arguing in favor of the ritual at the American Anthropological Association's annual meeting. Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu of Sierra Leone, a post doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, is one of the scholars who is pro-FGC, and even had her own clitoris cut with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group as an adult. Ahmadu says that her Western "feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage." Another proponent of FGC, Dr. Richard Shweder, says that Westerners conveniently ignore the fact that they produce their own kinds of genital mutilation in the form of the vaginal rejuvenation of women and circumcision for boys. Shweder says that, "'First World' feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence." Ahmadu also has an essay called "Ain't I a woman too?: challenging myths of sexual dysfunction in circumcised women", where she insists that women who have undergone FGC still experience orgasm and a great deal of sexual pleasure. I asked a friend who has lived in Liberia and works for a post-conflict justice association what she thinks about FGC, and she points out that "There are lots of versions of the procedure. The most severe being cut off the clit, the inner labia, and SEW CLOSED the vaginal hole." That sounds like straight abuse to me. But according to my friend, some modified versions only involve pricking the clitoris. "It's about degrees and when the practice, in its entirety is accepted, there are no ways to moderate the procedure."
Female Circumcision

It is important to maintain respect for other cultures and communities but as human beings we should be courtesy enough to look out for others rights. According to Female Genital Mutilation: A Guide to Policies Worldwide, "female genital mutilation violates nationally recognized human rights. "Article 1 of the Women's Convention takes a broad view of "discrimination against women" defining it as "any distinction, exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex" that hinders a woman's ability to enjoy her human rights equally with men." The people who make up these communities have only been exposed to what is around them, and most of the victims have never been exposed to the idea that this practice is wrong. Think about it, in these cultures the men hold all the power, and this practice is just one more mechanism that keeps women under the power of men. If they chose to reject the practice they will be shamed by their families, by their communities, and men will not view them as marriage material. These women are basically coerced into undergoing to procedure. How can we blindly turn our heads and say that we should understand and respect when there are no respectable . If the culture practiced burning babies would you sugest we respect it? It's not necessarily about telling them what is normal, it is about human rights.
Female Circumcision

Well I believe that Female Circumcision is a choice in a community and if that's what they practice then let them continue to do what they've been doing. Just because we don't feel that it's right, doesn't mean we should tell them to stop. It's a belief that they have been told so it's what they know. We may see it as wrong, but to them it's normal so who are we to tell them what is "normal"
Female Circumcision

Great attitude as this will be an informative subject, and thank you for taking! I am slightly confused though about the mention of involvement in children. Commonly these children are ages 3-4. Involvement of children is relevant because a majority of victims are children when the practice is performed. My position in this debate is that I am against the practice of Female circumcision. I am against it because of the possible health hazards, the torture involved the victims must endear, and because I believe it still exists because of lack of education that is available to the people in the areas where female circumcision is practiced. Victims are at risk for many health complications, and some cases result in death. When these operations take place, they are performed by a midwife, or the village doctor. The procedure is done with objects such as sharp rocks, razors, scissors, and other sharp objects that have usually only been cleansed in oil or water, if they have been cleansed at all. After effects usually consist of shock from terror or loss of blood, hemorrhaging, blood poisoning, infection, fever, chronic pelvic infections, childbirth complications, psychological issues, and lack of orgasm. Victims of female circumcision suffer emotionally and physically. Physically they must endure some one who is not a real doctor remove their genitals using unprofessional objects. Next they must suffer any health complications that may arise. It is common for victims to suffer from PTSD which is is a type of anxiety disorder. It can occur after you've seen or experienced a traumatic event that involved the threat of injury or death. They can suffer from PTSD for their entire life. Finally, i find it important to mention some victims will never experience an orgasm as a result of the practice. Finally I mentioned lack of education because if all of the people of the culture fully understood what this practice entails, it probably would not still be taking place today. They do not understand the extent of physical and emotional damage. They also believe the clitoral orgasm is immature and a man should be able to please his women through vaginal intercourse. Sadly education itself would not be enough because even if the people could understand this is a completely unnecessary procedure, the social pressures of what marriage material means to these cultures could still linger. In a culture where men hold all of the power it is difficult for women to have a movement. Hypothetically speaking if vast amounts of women decided to go against female circumcision, it is the men who can deny them as marriage material leaving them lonely for all of their lives. Women of these cultures need to have more opportunities and need to be educated so they can maximize the potentials of those opportunities. They need to have more worth than just the role of a wife/baby maker.
Female Circumcision

I accept and hope this debate will be fun and very informative. Please note that we are not in this debate not talking about FGM-Female genital manipulation. Proponents try and use that term witch has a stigma of involving children. I will defend only female circumcision and nothing else. Structure of this debate 1-acceptance 2-positions 3-rebuttals 4-rebuttals 5-summarization/rebuttals
Female Circumcision

*Please note. Only take this debate if you can follow the requested guidelines. It is important to respond within 24 hours of the posted argument. It is not limited to 24 hours for the entire debate to be completed, it is only 24 hour response requirement. Thanks and happy debating! Female Circumcision also known as Female Genital Cutting is a practice that should be banned world wide regardless of cultural and religious claims. In this debate I will cover the torture the victims of female circumcision face, possible health hazards, and the lack of educational resources available in the societies where this practice takes place, as well as any counter points my opponent may challenge. For those who are not familiar with female circumcisions it is important to have knowledge it is the cutting and/or removal of the genitals that is practiced in parts of the world, and banned in others. There are three different types of female circumcision. Type one being rated the mildest, to type three being the most severe. Type one is known as the "Sunna Circumcision." Type one consists of removal of the prepuce and part of the clitoris. Type two is known as the "Excision." This procedure entails of removal of the entire clitoris as well as the adjacent tissues of the labia minora. The third and final type is known as "Infibulation." Infibulation involves removal of the clitoris, the labia minora, and depending on the ethnic group involved, either the removal of part or the whole labia majora.