BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast food restaurants should have narrow doorways to stop the obese from getting in.

Thanks for taking this debate, Mr. Killerfiggin, or may I just call you Evil? In his response my opponent wrote: "We can expect to see an increase in the number of roaming fat people, seeking places to feed. This is unsightly and undesirable. In addition, congregations of the obese on the streets may make it difficult for pedestrians to navigate." How true. How very, very true! However, this is a problem I have already addressed in a previous debate: http://www.debate.org... As you can see, my proposal to empower law-enforcement officers to bludgeon to the ground any obese people that obstruct the pavement received popular support and this policy should be adopted in conjunction with the reduction in the width of the entrances to purveyors of junk food. My opponent continued: "There is an unfair discrimination against the legitimately large: Sumo wrestlers, pregnant Siamese twins and people with excessive luggage will all be unjustly inconvenienced." This is a good point and something that, by coincidence, I thought of myself down the pub at lunchtime - well the sumo wrestlers and luggage anyway, I admit the pregnant Siamese twins failed to occur to me! But over a pint, I thought it through. All these people could be allowed in through the service entrance round the back by the bins. Them, as well as people in wheelchairs (although you'd have to be careful with them because some obese people might hijack a wheelchair and pretend to be disabled and try to sneak in that way.) My opponent's next objection was: "There is the danger that an overoptimistic obese person might carry on regardless and get himself stuck halfway in the door, thus depriving slimmer patrons of their meal." That's easy solved. The staff could pour cooking oil from the fryer over them and prise them out that way, and if that doesn't work, they could all charge at them with a huge battering ram (which all fast food joints would be required by law to keep for that purpose.) Then my opponent wrote: "There is danger that they might simply roll through the walls instead." And went on to speculate that morbidly fat people would take to the streets and riot. I doubt this would happen. We have already established that the obese are not only greedy but lazy as well. I mean, when did you last see a morbidly fat person use the stairs instead of the lift or walk instead of drive? No, even if they had greed as the motivation, they wouldn't have the energy or stamina to see it through. I'm not sure my opponent is right to when he says this proposal is ahead of time, I think the main political parties have been considering making this official manifesto policy for some time, it's just there is a powerful fat lobby in Parliament, think the Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP. http://www.cuppatea.org... For those who are unfamiliar with British politicians, Ann Widdecombe is the one on the right. I look forward to reading my opponent's response.
Fast food restaurants should have narrow doorways to stop the obese from getting in.

I have to say that Mr Eggleston's suggestion is an unwise one - although undoubtedly he had the best of intentions, he has not thought through to the consequences of such legislation. There are some immediate problems with the implementation: * We can expect to see an increase in the number of roaming fat people, seeking places to feed. This is unsightly and undesirable. In addition, congregations of the obese on the streets may make it difficult for pedestrians to navigate. * There is an unfair discrimination against the legitimately large: Sumo wrestlers, pregnant Siamese twins and people with excessive luggage will all be unjustly inconvenienced. * There is the danger that an overoptimistic obese person might carry on regardless and get himself stuck halfway in the door, thus depriving slimmer patrons of their meal. * There is danger that they might simply roll through the walls instead. However, I have some deeper concerns about the marginalisation of the obese. Cutting off such a large majority of the population from its favorite food source is going to have repercussions. The last thing the country needs is waddling, sweating rioters taking to the streets - people and small public monuments would undoubtedly be harmed, and the larder creatures glancing off buildings could cause structural damage. There are undoubtedly laws that need to be put in place restricting the freedoms of the fat - I myself am in favour of banning obese women from the wearing of fashionable clothes intended for skinny models. However, such laws must be introduced slowly, to allow cultural acceptance to develop. I think this particular one is ahead of its time.
Fast food restaurants should have narrow doorways to stop the obese from getting in.

Let's take the following as given, shall we? 1 - Being obese is unhealthy. 2 - The items on the menus of fast food restaurants are generally high in calories. 3 – Most obese people are overweight because they are greedy and lazy. 3 - Watching the obese scoff down their grub like pigs with their snouts in the trough is unpleasant and puts normal people off their meals. I have deliberately limited the parameter of this debate to fast food restaurants as I understand that obese people still need to eat something, even if they are slimming, and may wish to visit a normal restaurant and order a green salad or a bowl of cabbage soup - which is fine (although if they choose to order some massive great pile of fatty food instead, they should be made to consume their meal behind a screen in order not to offend their fellow diners). If you go into a bar or pub and you are already drunk, the landlord has a moral and, indeed, legal duty to refuse you service. This is good for you because it is unhealthy to drink to excess and also good for the customers because drunkards are usually very unpleasant people to be around. However, when the bar tender refuses a drunk more alcohol, an argument normally ensues. Similarly, if an obese walked into a fried chicken restaurant and ordered a large bucket of chicken and a super-sized portion of fries just for themselves and the server said: "I'm terribly sorry, sir, but I think you've had too much already. I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave", the obese might start an argument as well. However, this problem can be solved at a stroke – make fast food restaurants have narrow doors to prevent grossly overweight people getting in in the first place. I look forward to reading my opponent's reply (GSOH required for this one b/t/w!)
school uniforms should be allowed

Thank you for making this debate.I believe school uniforms should be allowed and enforced at schools, especially at private schools. 1) Benefits of Uniforms1. Uniforms may increase a students self esteem because they do not have to worry constantly to be better dressed than those around them. Many kids are discouraged by the fact that they don't own, or cannot afford some of the clothing other kids can. Uniforms put all kids at the same level, and takes that much more stress off the students that cannot afford the latest "fashion".2. Uniforms improve learning by not allowing kids to be distracted. Clothes can be a huge distraction when you are in the clasroom, especially if you are bored. Kids always want to know what others are wearing and even judge other students over it. Uniforms eliminate this problem and helps kids to stay focused in class. 3. Uniforms show that everyone there with you is part of your school. It shows you are all part of a team. It promotes school spirit and shows that everyone there is "on the same side".4. Uniforms support conformity. Although some may think this isn't that great of a thing and that kids should express themselves, in the end, life is truly about conformity. Humans strive to be like each other and don't want to be the odd one out. Uniforms support this and put all students on equal terms instead of wealthy students coming in with their fancy jeans and shirts and the less fortunate students coming in with ratty looking clothes. 5. Uniforms help the school faculty to quickly identify who is part of the school and in the end could actually help in keeping strangers and potentially dangerous people off the campus. I await my opponents response. http://www.eduguide.org...
More likely than not, Joseph Smith was either a con-artist or insane, not a prophet of god.

It must beautiful because a Mormon has stumbled upon this...I accept and propose the position that ore likely than not, Joseph Smith was a true prophet of god, not a con-artist nor insane.(btw, capitalizing "More" after hyphen seems peculiar; and I believe it is "Either position needs..."; also in this context God would need to be capitalized otherwise you would write "a god", "the god", or "gods".)
More likely than not, Joseph Smith was either a con-artist or insane, not a prophet of god.

Many argue that Joseph Smith was a con-artist, or insane, resulting in the disdainful derision of the members of the Mormon church. My aim here is not to insult the religion, but to prove that they are ignoring the evidence for this claim to preserve their world-view. It would be beautiful if a Mormon stumbled upon this, and accepted, but I welcome those playing the devil's advocate as well. Burden of proof is shared. Either position need only demonstrate a higher likelihood for their argument to win. I will point out grammar errors, so I invite you to do the same. Thorough citation is an absolute must. Citation must also come from reputable sources. I'll be taking the pro position- that, more likely than not, Joseph Smith was either a con-artist or insane, not a prophet of god.The con position will be- More likely than not, Joseph Smith was a true prophet of god, not a con-artist or insane. Structure- First round is for acceptance. Second round is for opening arguments. Third round is for rebuttals and closing arguments. Failure to adhere to this structure, by either side, will result in a forfeit. I've made this debate (almost) impossible to accept. If you are interested in taking the debate, comment or message me. If you think changes to the resolution need to be made, explain why in the comments.
Cats are the greatest animal known to man.

Thanks for creating this truly incredible and thought provoking debate, Yraelz. Best of luck to you! Your claim is a matter of opinion. One could just as easily say that that ant is the greatest animal, as it is able to lift more than ten times its body weight. Or perhaps the dog because it is the most loyal and protective companion. Or the gold fish because it can change its size based on environment, it requires little maintenance and does not drown when kept under water (like the cat). Elephants can trumpet far louder than any lion, so maybe it is the greatest animal known to man. For the sake of argument, I will say that MAN is the greatest animal known to man, as they too are classified as Animalia. (I might've gone with primates, but I like a challenge.) I will now address your points as they are numbered. Point 1: The cheetah does not travel more quickly than a human that is skydiving vertically from an aircraft, so obviously man is the quickest and fastest in that respect. Point 2: Humans can roar even louder than a lion through a megaphone, but that's not as impressive as communicating through speech. Humans do not even have to raise their voices to express great outrage, which I find to be superior to the roar. Point 3: Humans can catch tigers with great success, as there are many in captivity all over the globe. A tiger may be able to kill many creatures with one fell swoop, but a human need only squeeze a trigger, which requires hardly any movement at all, to put down his prey. Point 4: Humans are more intelligent that cats, as we retain and recall more memories and information. We can even record information. Cats cannot. Point 5: Humans thinks for themselves and actually have cats as their dependents. You state that cats are independent, but that is not true for those cats that rely on humans to take care of them. How many humans rely on cats for care? Perhaps there are some seeing-eye cats somewhere of which I am unaware. Point 6: Humans are evolving too and are in fact more highly evolved than cats. Point 7: Human babies are the cutest animals ever and they stay cuter for much longer. They progressively learn and adapt and become cuter through their development. Far cuter than kittens! Cats are not the greatest animals known to man because man knows himself to be the greatest.
The Fairtax plan will benefit the economy and the majority of Americans (a)

FairTax at the Micro-Level "Most of my income goes to my house, a vacation home, foreign travel, real estate and other investments, my children's education and savings. All of that would be tax free under the FairTax." Unless you own a business and collect the sales tax, your house, vacation home, and other real estate would be subject to the fairtax. The only way that you could purchase real estate tax free is if you pay quarterly tax reports to the government. If you tried to avoid the tax on your personal home, you would probably be audited even if you did own a business. And a lot of upper-middle class professionals do spend most of their income, even if you don't. They spend it on expensive cars, classy dinners, name-brand merchandise, and jewelry, all of which would be subject to the fairtax. Avoiding the tax on these things would not be a simple task. "FairTax at the Macro-Level" My opponents simple calculation is entirely bogus due to the disproportionality of wealth in this country. If your deduction was correct, the fairtax rate would have to be 70-80%, but none of the studies that you cited reached such a high rate, suggesting that calculation of the fairtax rate is much more complex. Independent Studies All of those studies ignore the expansionary effect of the fairtax. A higher savings rate would eventually lead to more investment, which means more jobs and a higher average income, eventually resulting in more spending power and faster growth of GDP. I apologize for not putting more effort into this argument, but I only have 2 minute to post. However, I do not feel too bad as my opponent has been ignoring all of my arguments. Essentially, his only argument is that non-compliance would be too high under the fairtax, and I will do a better job in my next argument of showing why non-compliance will not be as high as my opponent seems to think and that the fairtax would be enforceable by the federal government.
Cats better than dogs

THANK YOU ALL FOR VIEWING, Now Lets us resolve this....well I would say cheallenge but is this even a contest people?? Surely not! lets dive right in!For most of my argumentation I will use pictures to demonstrate and make points....Everyone can agree that god is good and even if you dont beleive in god, if he were real he would be good...but the question is whether or not god is better than Tic Tac Toes or specifically just Stac...dont get what I mean? vs
National Retail Flat Tax of 10% on all retail items

I had a feeling your argument would have gone the route it did, but the resolution is on the tax itself, not the state/cost of the federal budget. The fact is, in 2010, a 10% tax would barely cover Social Security payments ($701 billion), so how could the government afford any actual legitimate expenses? First you would need to get rid of Social Security, and that can't happen for a few decades, thus, the status quo is superior to the 10% flat tax, at least for a few decades. The real debate would have been around the expected revenue, as the number I quoted is 10% of every dollar of income. Obviously, not every dollar is spent on taxable goods, let alone spent at all(savings, investing). The debate would have been that 10% is too low. http://www.gpo.gov... (table s-3)
National Retail Flat Tax of 10% on all retail items

I ran out of time on my last argument but I will just give my argument It is true that a 10% would be a lot less than what the federal government usually get, but this could finally lead to cuts the government and the budget saving money. With this flat tax it would be a lot simpler and their won't be a 47% people not paying income taxes. There no longer will be a 99% vs 1% there would only one percentage called the 100%. It would tax people on how they live not their paycheck. Would be taxing illegal immigrants, tourists, and everyone else that buys from the United States. Vote pro because it is time to change the tax system to a better place. Sources http://www.shmoop.com... http://www.nbcnews.com... http://dor.wa.gov...
National Retail Flat Tax of 10% on all retail items

Since it looks like a default victory, I will merely state that a 10% flat tax would have only raised around $820 billion (very likely less) in 2010, which represented 23.7% of 2010 federal spending [1]. The current system generated over 2.5x more, at about 62.6% of 2010 spending [2]. Therefore, the status quo is superior. Vote Con. 1. http://www.irs.gov... 2. http://www.census.gov...
National Retail Flat Tax of 10% on all retail items

I do not think it is fair to force me to defend the current model, as I should be able to attack your argument on my own terms. Regardless, I accept.Point of clarification: the tax you propose is the end tax on retail items (much like sales tax). This tax does not trigger from business-to-business transactions (e.g. a wholesaler selling Home Depot lumber). Question: does this tax apply to food, clothing, and other necessary items?Good luck.
DNA Should Be Collected From All Newborn Babies And Stored Indefinitely

I believe DNA from every newborn should be collected via a simple and pain-free swab in the mouth and stored in the national database. Having the DNA of every citizen will have multiple benefits that outweigh any consequences: 1. Criminals (including rapists and murderers) will have a higher chance of being identified and subsequently brought to justice. 2. Young children that have been kidnapped will be identified as being a missing person if they ever have a DNA test in the future for an unrelated issue. 3. Crime rate may fall dramatically due to the higher risk of being caught. 4. Long lost family members could be reunited by comparing their DNA to the database. You, my opponent, will be CON; you will argue that DNA should not be taken and stored.
Battlefield v.s Call of Duty

Battlefield and COD might be two different things and you cannot compare it, but you really can. They are two really great FPS games that are strangely hated and argued against. BUT I want to see what you think. Battlefield, IMO, always dominates in arguments. EVERYONE votes for it. (Note: If you just cry or insult the other game, you will be ignored). I have more experience playing with COD as it was my first FPS, and what game you really play first tends to always be your favorite. Rarely anyone switches games when they had a blast of it at the start and LOVED it. So, I vote for COD, even though it has '10 year old, annoying, swearing kids' you can just TOGGLE MUTE them and keep on playing. Hackers? Join a new server. The problems are pretty easy to fix. I bought Battlefield 4, and I say its a great FPS. The campaign never ticked me off as much as the Modern Warfare Trilogy (My FAVORITE Cod) or GHOSTS, but the multiplayer was slightly better, though I think I enjoy more fast-paced gaming, BF4 team deathmatch doesn't feel like C.O.D though. It feels the same as 'Conquest'. So- what do you think?
Battlefield v.s Call of Duty

My opponent's first argument was basically opinions, so I can't really rebut them. I will just post my own arguments.I will first compare Battlefield 4's and CoD: Ghost's ratingsCall of Duty Ghost's Ratings:[1]- Metacritic: 3.5/5[2]- Gamestop: 5.8/10[3]- Gamespot: 8/10As you can see, those are some bad ratings, except for the one by Gamespot, who gave it a decent rating.Battlefield 4 Ratings:[4]- Metacritic: 4/5[5]- Gamestop: 7.1/10[6]- Gamespot: 8/10Every single rating for BF4 is better than CoD: Ghosts', except for Gamespot.Cites:[1]- https://www.google.com...[2]- https://www.google.com...[3]- https://www.google.com...[4]- https://www.google.com...[5]- https://www.google.com...[6]- https://www.google.com...
RuneScape is fundamentally better than World of Warcraft

I will note that he has not responded to my rebuttals in the second round, and while he states he feels confident enough that they can hold up by themselves, this is ultiamtely for the voters to decide. Nontheless, I will fancy his new points. His in-depth knowledge of the game is praiseworthy and definitely adequate for sustaining this debate, but I fear he overlooks to much of the aspects of WoW in favor of RS, even when the answer seems to be so evident. ===================== Comparison between RS and WoW ===================== 1. Gear + Levels To an extent, gear does affect your performance in RS - there is no doubt about that. And I agree, WoW is heavily centered on gear. .. but isn't that what makes it better? Because if you agree that gear for RS isn't as important than WoW, than what do you expect as a RS player when you reach the higher levels and fight others? At the end of the day, having a 99 in skill X would be equally effective to someone else who has a 99 in skill X as well. If both players devote sufficient time to hit a certain level, then most of the skill is abandoned since there is BARELY any strategy in RS fights. I agree that there is weaknesses and strengths, exemplified in the "triangle". However, what you fail to notice is that not only is this actualized in WoW as well, but RS has a much more simpler version of it; Wow allows for much more possibilities and thus challenge. The accompaniment of gear means that even if everyone is maxed out, their hard work at trying to getting a rare item would pay off. You also bring up the issue of levels, and I agree that after a certain difference even gear would be highly ineffective. But this poses no problem, since the point for most players in the beginning IS TO LEVEL UP. As I said before, the game truly begins after you hit the maximum level; the journey of levelling up is in kind of like a long, luscious, training session :D 2. Undercutting achievements The change probably signifies that WoW has reassed the difficulty configuration for certain skills, activities, etc. This isn't something that happens only to WoW - it happens in every game. Even in RS, you will find the update here and there that notifies a change in something that has been instated for a long time but has now changed. I don't really see how this is much of a criticism besides someone say "ahh, I wish that happened sooner". 3. Account selling/buying + boting I agree that this is a problem that plagues every game, and Jagex is admirable for being hard on cheaters. However, I still don't see how this is a major implement in the game since it isn't the case in which every raid or half your encounter with other players consists of bought accounts, or people using cheating software. ===================== Conclusion ===================== My opponent garners many points against WoW, but most of them are either minor, or can be used against him.