BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Junk Food Should Be Banned From Elementary, Middle, and High Schools

I will be happy to abide by his rules in this debate, though the MLA format seems a bit excessive. If he wishes that I abide by it, though, I will do so. As my previous debate with jamccartney ended in a forfeit on his part, I will, however, attach another rule, so long as we agree that the rule should exist: In the event of a forfeit, voters should provide a 7 point victory to the opposing debater. I hope that is reasonable within this debate, as I feel it is generally acceptable that both of us finish writing and posting our arguments within the given 72 hour period. Other than that, with regards to the third rule, I would like to ensure that relevance is had on both sides of this debate, and as such, I will spend this round asking for clarification instead of just accepting. I hope that Pro will add this clarification either in his next post or in the comments section, as I feel it is relevant to both of our arguments. 1. Could you specify which schools this applies to? Does it apply at all levels of education? Does it apply to both public and private schools? (thanks to Kleptin for pointing these concerns out as well, as I would rather not win by utilizing their omission) 2. Does this apply solely to junk foods sold on school campuses, or does it also apply to any foods brought onto campus by both external parties and the students themselves? Much as you say that you're talking about serving junk food, I'm not certain if that is the sole focus of the debate from reading your R1 post. 3. On what level would such a ban be enforced? I'm mainly just concerned with whether you're presenting a single standard across the country, or different standards depending upon the state or locality. 4. How do you specifically define "junk food"? Does this solely apply to foods, or also to beverages? What falls under that definition and what doesn't will play a significant role in both of our arguments, so this is very important. I eagerly await my opponent's response and the start of this debate.
Junk Food Should Be Banned From Elementary, Middle, and High Schools

Junk Food Should Be Banned From Schools In this debate, I would like to debate someone who does not think junk food should be banned from schools. My opponent, Con, will be debating the side that junk food should continue to be served in schools. I will start off with some rules: 1. Proper spelling and grammar must be used at all time. 2. All sources, if any, must be cited using correct MLA format. 3. Arguments must be sophisticated and relevant. Rounds: Round 1: Acceptance only. Round 2: Arguments only. No rebuttals. Round 3: Rebuttals, any extra arguments, and conclusion. I look forward to this debate.
In a war between Vampires and Werewolves, Vampires would win.

I will keep my final words short and sweet and (somewhat) to the point. When you consider that vampires are weak to atoprophic items and werewolves are weak to things such as mountain ash and other such strange items you have a tie. When you consider that werewolves in most lore are constricted to the phases of the moon and vampires have to stay away from sunlight then relatively you have a tie. Werewolves are excellent hunters and yet vampires are excellent warriors, so there is another tie. Each side has weaknesses, strengths, and stalemates. Yet...in Underworld the vampires ruled over the werewolves, breeded lycans, and made them their slaves. This is a moot argument you might say, since the werewolves eventually broke free of the vampires restraints. But I propose to you that the very reason the werewolves were ever weak enough to be ruled by vampires is the reason that the vampires would win in a war against them. I do not necessarily know what that reason is and I wish I did. I hold steadfast that the ability to reason is a deciding factor for the vampires, but my oponent and I have gone back and forth over that issue. In the end, it is up to you, the reader, to look into your hearts and deeply consider just who is the better among these two species. I have presented my evidence and all I can ask is that you make the right decision. Oh yeah.. GO VAMPIRES!!!
In a war between Vampires and Werewolves, Vampires would win.

Ok I accept this challenge. For starters I would like to further clarify on rules that we will be following. I am not going to exclude very much else lest this get boring but sinister minister and I are long time friends and we have both decided that it would be wise to exclude all hybrids of species. I say this because some of the best and worst sources to use in an argument of this nature is the film or literature of vampires and werewolves. The hybrids I speak of are the strange blue lycan from Underworld that is half vamp and half werewolf and secondly Wesley Snipe's character in the Blade trilogy that has the ability to walk around in broad daylight. Before I really get into my side of the issue I would also like to further clarify what my friend the minister did not go into full detail on. Keep in mind that I am taking this information from internet resources and I am not just making up crazy powers. For the vampires in this argument I am going to use the example of vampires who are (of course) either reanimated corpses, vampires at birth, or humans turned vampire via bite. As to their abilities I am going to assume that they can turn into bats (some folklore suggests that they can turn into many other animals but I am going to stick with bats for the sake of the argument), that they do not necessarily HAVE to sleep during the day (though I will concede that there may be some situations in which they have to), that they can turn to mist for very short amounts of time to escape from inclosed spaces and such, that they have the ability to fly or in the very least walk on walls and ceilings, and that animal blood gives them nourishment but they will die in a certain length of time without human blood. If I covered everything that I needed to then the rest of their abilities/weaknesses should be the norm no matter where you are getting your information from. I have taken this information from a variety of sources (Darren Shans series Cirque du Freak, the film Van Helsing, the film series Underworld, and www.vampires.com) That is all I have for this round and I welcome Mister minister to provide his detailed list of strengths and weakness in the beginning of the next round.
In a war between Vampires and Werewolves, Vampires would win.

Alright, just to clarify, my opponent is arguing that in a full-scale, "interspecies" war between vampires and werewolves, vampires would win. I will stand in negation of that assertion. Now to define some terms: 1) Vampire - A reanimated corpse that is believed to rise from the grave at night to suck the blood of humans (or animals, I guess). For the purpose of this debate, we will consider every commonly known trait that vampires are believed to possess. 2) Werewolf - A human that is able to transform between a man and a wolf-like form. We will use the same criteria for usable traits for werewolves, i.e. any trait that is commonly associated with werewolves. Obviously, we will go into more detail as the debate goes on, but for now I'll be content with laying out the ground rules. 3) Interspecies War - In this sense, I mean that the fight between the two groups is a fight to the death, or rather extinction, and will be fought until one side is completely destroyed. 4) And as far as the "rules of engagement" are concerned, it should be assumed that neither vampires nor werewolves are concerned with pre-existing laws, treaties, or human rights in general. Alright now that that's out of the way, I will let my opponent begin with his opening statements. If he dares.... And feel free to clarify or rephrase anything I've said already if you see the need.
Is a Liger cooler than a zonkey.

I did prove that the Zonkey was cooler earlier. Remember that link? Also, I said that the Zonkey's kick is so strong that you may never be seen again. Size is not all that matters either. Would you say the same about Yoda? A liger is bigger than Yoda, but the liger is no match. Keeping Civilities: I would prefer if our argument remained civil. Please read this link about civility. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Famous Zonkey: Your claim that Zonkey are not as famous is completely unexplained, making it impossible for me to respond to the statement.
Is a Liger cooler than a zonkey.

Yea the zonkey can kick but the liger can eat you. It is huge, and I think all of the voters will agree that on the coolness scale the liger is much higher than a zonkey. Yea it might leave the zonkey alone but, who would want a zonkey for a pet its a dumb animal. Everyone I know wants a liger and the liger is famous, no one has heard of a zonkey.
Is a Liger cooler than a zonkey.

When you are dealing with Hybrids, the food chain situation is quite different. In this case, the Liger respects the Zonkey, and agrees to leave the rare species alone. What do you mean by better animal overall? The Zonkey beat the liger in the hybrid animal coolness scale. Zonkey was number one, Liger was number 2. http://twistedsifter.com... Now the Zonkey has a distinctive kick that it is renowned for. If you are behind the hind-quaters of the Zonkey, you may never be seen again. I hope to see stronger arguments and proof in the next round. Good luck.
Is homework good for students

OK thank you for those points. I shall now give mine. 1) Homework for reviewing Is it not true that there are students who daydream in class and not listen to a single thing the teacher says? No there are students like that. A classmate of mine in my former-school always daydreamed and did not even know what was going on. He always came to me for help. That, itself, is proof already that these students do exist. Homework eliminates those people. Because my old school rarely had homework, I had to take care of a classmate with his studies. Homework makes sure they understand. Teachers teach for a reason. To clearly educate these children. They give practice exercises in many branches and the students should understand. No one will teach a-b-c and give homework about x-y-z. Practices exercises act as a primary source of how children understand. Homework secures that stance.
Is homework good for students

As a student who likes the challenges we are presented with in school, I know how difficult it can be and at the end of 7 hours my brain is already shutting down, and the homework given forces your brain to be active again which can leave the student's brain worn out for the next day. If the teachers could incorporate the homework into the school day the students would do it and not complain. The homework assigned isn't always difficult it is normally a continuation of the work done during the school day so the student knows what the material is, but it takes time that students need in order to grow as a human. If students don't want to answer hard questions, it doesn't matter because they have to do it in school. The homework is only necessary when work is not completed in class or there is a time gap where information can be forgotten such as summer break. thank you and good luck
Is homework good for students

Ah homework. Homework, homework, homework. Thank you for creating this debate and I will be debating that homework is good. What is homework? Homework is actually schoolwork usually done at home. Who does not like homework? The students. Why do they not like homework? It is because of the difficulty and with the continuous dislike of hard questions, their minds cannot grow and fully develop. To develop the minds of the youths are why teachers give them homework. Thank you again for creating this important topic and good luck. 2nd round is more arguments and last round is rebutals. Thank you.
Is homework good for students

Homework is something most students dread. It is time consuming and often very very difficult. Many kids have after school programs and that can get in the way of having time for homework, students may be up all night sometimes not even getting any sleep which can result in a drop in grades and overall performance, in school to just being social. Homework causes a lot of stress as well and stress has been proven to kill more people then pneumonitis in a year. Homework can cause more than physical health damage. As a child with a growing mind and a growing understanding of the world, you need free time, to explore, to play, to learn new things about the world, to go out and do things, and homework takes away from a lot of the time kids have to do those things
Legislative override of SCOTUS

I want to debate you on a different topic actually. Why don't you give me a list of topics in the final round and I will let you know which one I choose. (I choose because you get to be instigator). Does that sound good? But I feel like this topic is old news, and I did give it my best shot this time around. I was disappointed that a real debate could not be launched on this. If you want to debate this at a future time, we only do it for three rounds because of the amount of arguments we will have to cover. if it is five rounds that will scare the voters off. I'll get someone to vote on this one though because we both had arguments.
The government is never going to turn its back on big oil

The American government will never turn its back on the oil industry for many reasons. The first and foremost being GREED. You may have politicians saying they are going to try to shift to a less oil-dependent nation, but the truth is some of them would never do that in a million years, because their cronies and them would lose out on big bucks. Secondly, it would also undermine our efforts in Iraq, because oil is what their economy is based on, so how could we ever set them up if we take away their economy? Big oil lobbyists are controlling the path that we take as far as energy is concerned. Is this a global warming debate? no, My opening argument is purely that the politicians are too rich, too greedy, and too selfish to do whats right for the country: remove dependence on foreign oil.
The government is never going to turn its back on big oil

No worries my friend sometimes it happens to the best of us technology letting us down and ruining our paragraph formats. I would also like to state you need not thank me for being respectful, I feel that as long as someone is respectful to me I should at least show you the same courtesy. I agree that we need to support Iraq in their rebuilding process and that oil is going to be the ticket to ensure that this country has the economy to speak of. Now you are acting like we will be giving up on our dependence of oil. This will not come for a number of years. Yet you are ignoring the fact that China and India with populations that are vastly bigger than ours will be surpassing us in oil dependence in the next few years. So the market will continue to be their in the world, so i would not be to worried about the Iraqi economy in that regard. You have made a number of points referring to the technologies and the capacities to steer away from oil are not quite their. I feel you are far too short sighted in those regards because believe it or not world wide there is a strong push away from fossil fuels, and it seems that the green industries are earning lots of money. You brought up a good point about Exxon making huge numbers but you fail to look at the fact that BP, Conaco and even Exxon are investing money to go green. I would like you to read your debate topic it states that "The government is never going to turn its back on big oil". Now we are dealing in absolutes and I feel that the government is already turning it's back on oil just as they did to the railroads a number of decades ago. Oil is the main source of power in the world but with all the global developments I feel that government will eventually have to turn from oil do to economical and safety reasons
The government is never going to turn its back on big oil

It is a unique Idea that I have not seen brought up yet in my dealings with Debate. org. I would also like to thank and encourage all other participants and potential voters because they have the power to alter and make debates fun. So with out further a due I will present my first point. Before I discuss the issues pertaining to our dependence on oil I will rebut my opponents statement that it will "undermine the war effort in Iraq". I do not know where my opponent gets this fact from because we currently are receiving very little if any oil from Iraq and if his argument is that if us stepping away from oil will mean a big loss to the oil industry he is not taking into account the emerging economies of India and China. My opponent has made a very bold statement that the government is "in bed" so to speak with the big oil businesses. I agree whole heartedly with that statement, it is true that our oil companies nationwide and across the globe have a large hand in our everyday process. With that said I would have to disagree with your topic statement that "government will never turn their back on oil". Although we agree that the big oil companies and government have a strong relationship with oil you for some reason think that the government will be monogamous. This is laughable because as soon as we find a more lucrative source of fuel. It is already happening here are a number of examples that prove we are taking steps away from oil. 1. Bio-Diesel fuel - This is a the big push for fuels made from corn. 2. Hydrogen Fuel Cell- GM, Honda, Ford and Toyota are all in a race to put out a Fuel Cell car that emits H20 as its bi-product 3. The US government has been making lots of strives towards solar power to power government buildings this year in regards to future power. 4. With more hybrid automobiles and higher EPA standards for miles per gallon a lot less fuel will be needed. With so many governmental bodies on the right pushing for nuclear power it is safe to say that we are already taking a step away from the bad relationship with oil. If one knows history, they would see the fact that the railroad companies where the ones that had the backing of the government at and before the time of President Grant, but since the days of the assembly line Henry Ford change the way Americans used transportation. Like I said early in our debate oil is the fuel that is deep ingrained in the veins of this country but as soon as we find something more cost effective and efficient we will drop it on the wayside. Look forward to hear your points and your rebuttal. Sincerely, SPC Rautert, Frederick J. USAR
Wikipedia is a trustworthy source

I still stand in strong negation to the following resolution that Wikipedia is a reliable source. My opponent said that I have failed to provide my own arguments. This is strictly false. My first argument was posted in Round 2. Counter-Arguments: Opponent's Point 2: "Sources are listed for each fact on Wikipedia." This is false, and my opponent even admitted it themselves, in their round 3 argument when they stated: " ...a source is not listed...notifies users that a source was not listed..."
Wikipedia is a trustworthy source

As I have said before, once someone edits a Wikipedia page, an expert is notified and checks if the seems correct and a source is listed. If it is clearly unrealistic or a source is not listed, it undoes the change or notifies users that a source was not listed, so they know to be wary of the information. Simply because anyone can edit it does not mean that fools are able to replace information with their own false information. The change the fool would make is undone.The link you have posted has been fixed by the Wikipedia experts. It is an outdated fact and its use as evidence is, from this point forwards, nullified.You have failed to provide your own arguments in proper form as I have. The counter-arguments are reserved for Round 3 onwards.
Wikipedia is a trustworthy source

This is the round of explanations and evidence.Point 1 - Wikipedia is fact-checked by its team of hundreds of experts and is notified when a change is made to one of its articles. That way, the experts check the change that as made, checks if it's correct, and deletes it if it is not.Point 2 - Sources are listed for each fact on Wikipedia.This way, if a user wants to fact-check it themselves, they can visit the source.I await the Contender's response.
Wikipedia is a trustworthy source

First off, I would like to discuss the legal problems of the counter-argument of my opponent. When she quoted my argument, she did not include the full sentence. When she cut off that fraction of a sentence, she changed the meaning of it entirely. That is libel, so the evidence is henceforth nullified. When I said, "...a source is not listed..." I meant that there is a notification in the extremely unlikely event that a source hasn't been listed.I admit that there are not sources for ALL the facts on Wikipedia, but some of the facts are common knowledge. When an important fact is left out, Wikipedia warns the reader not to trust it. I mistyped when I made that point. What I meant was that the facts that don't have sources can be simply ruled out as untrustworthy. I forgot to add that to the explanation. Therefore, I still have control of this point.The Contender has not retaliated to the fact that Wikipedia is fact-checked by experts, so it can be presumed that she has given up this case and it is a proven fact for me.Readers, it is clear that the contender has not properly maintained the conduct of this argument, and has trespassed over legal rights. She has failed to destroy my points that Wikipedia is fact-checked by experts and that sources are listed for their work. I have destroyed the fact anyone can edit a page on Wikipedia by reminding her that my point that she ignored negates hers. I urge you to vote for my side of the argument that Wikipedia is a trustworthy source.