BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast food is killing the nation

I would just like to point out, that firstly, CON drops my entire case and simply procures another argument. Let's start with a refutation again. It is not secret that fast food implies fat and greasy foods. They now state their nutritional content on websites and packaging. The big problem with this is that many people cannot read and understand the nutritional facts. 5% sodium, what is that? Is that good or bad? 100mg of carbohydrates. .. ? The average person would not look at the nutritional facts, and even if they do, it is even less likely that they would fully understand it and change their decision about eating the food. Therefore, the argument that nutritional facts on fast food is a reason that it is not killing the nation, is false. No one is holding a gun to the consumers head to consume food at these restaurants. Fast food restaurants are now offering many healthy alternatives in their menus at the same great affordable prices. That may be true, however CON deviates from the topic. The topic is whether or not fast food is killing the nation, and arguing that people are not forced to eat fast food does not prove that. It is true that people are not forced to eat fast food, however some people still choose to eat fast food, therefore, the threat of fast food still poses a huge risk, and is indeded killing the nation. Furthermore, fast food restaurants offering healthier alternatives is not a valid point, as it does not prove the resolution. Although fast food chains offer healthier food, they still have fast food that is unhealthy, available to customers. People still eat the unhealthy fast food, although there are healthier options. Therefore, it is obvious, as I proved last round, that fast food is killing the nation. ConclusionCON drops all my arguments from last round. CON deviates from the topic. Furthermore, you can't just ban fast food. . http://www.greatist.com... #There are literally millions of chains in the states, providing many jobs. Like it or not, there are always going to be fast food restaurants around for people to eat in. As I proved that fast food does kill the nation, the fact that fast food chains will always be around, is a clear sign that the nation will grow to have more and more health issues. Therefore, fast food is killing the nation.
Fast food is killing the nation

By mistake I hit con, but I will argue for Con. Argument People have free will. It is not secret that fast food implies fat and greasy foods. They now state their nutritional content on websites and packaging. No one is holding a gun to the consumers head to consume food at these restaurants. Fast food restaurants are now offering many healthy alternatives in their menus at the same great affordable prices. . http://www.mcdonalds.com... Conclusion It is up to the consumer to make good healthy choices to ensure their health.
Fast food is killing the nation

As PRO, I will be supporting the resolution that fast food is killing the nation. By killing, it is meant that fast food has detrimental effects on the nation (it's economy, citizens, etc. ) The nation in question will be the United States of America. Let's start with a refutation. In today's busy world it is no surprise that most people eat while their on the run. As well as the decline in the economy may also be another reason why to buy cheap lunch at Burger King or McDonald's. This does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation. Without taking into consideration the damage that they are doing to their health and wallet. CON makes an argument for my side of the case. As fast food does damage to health and wallet, CON is saying that fast food indeed does kill the nation. A revaluation on the part of American people is needed to secure the health. This again, does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation. Arguments. It is obvious that obesity has been increasing in recent years in the states. . http://en.wikipedia.org...This is because of the large amount of fast food chains in the states, which is ever increasing in recent years as well. . http://en.wikipedia.org...As a result, it is obvious that the obesity rate increasing is caused by the increase in fast food, as they two directly correlate with each other. As obesity is harmful to health, and a large percentage of the states is obese, it can be said that obesity is killing the nation, is doing drastic harm to the nation through health hazards. When one is obese, one is much more prone to diseases and health issues such as diabetes and heart failure. These have the potential to kill or even hospitalize people. Because a large portion of the states is obese, and at risk to health issues in their lives, the nation, in a sense, is dying, because its people are dying. Because this is caused by fast food, it is obvious that fast food is indeed killing the nation. ConclusionCON only really provides one argument that proves anything, and that one argument is proving the wrong side. I have detailed an argument that proves my side of the case, that fast food is killing the states. As a result of CON proving my side, and me having successfully proven my BOP, it is obvious that I have won thie debate.
Fast food is killing the nation

Again, CON ignores the fundamental principles of my argument as well as ignores my first argument on obesity and health affects. CON says, that because it is consumer choice, fast food is not killing the nation. Consider this. In a hypothetical situation, let's say a fast food chain sells poison. The consumer makes the choice to buy the poison and congest it. He dies. Therefore, regardless of choice, this poison still kills the person. Now multiply that on a nation wide scale. Then, we can truly see that fast food is killing the nation. CON also talks about a ban on fast food. I thoroughly explained that a ban on fast food is not possible. Furthermore, CON says that if fast food is banned, consumers would still make unhealthy choices. However, I thoroughly explained that choice is not a deciding factor in whether or not fast food is killing the nation. Regardless whose chocie it is, consumers still ingest fast food, thus getting health concerns and obesity rates. Therefore, fast food is killing the nation.
Fast food is killing the nation

I have responded to your argument that consumer do not know how to read content charts of nutrition. Fast food is not killing the nation. It is consumer choice. The fast food industry markets there products to educe consumption as any other but yet again it is consumer choice. If there was a ban on fast food, consumers would still make unhealthy choice effecting their health. Therefore, it is not fast food that is killing the nation. It is consumers choice of consumption. Fast food is not killing the nation.
Fast food is killing the nation

RefutationIf you read my argument. It is the consumers choice in eating fast food in unhealthy ways. Yes, I understand it is the consumer's choice to eat fast food. However, that only proves my earlier point that consumers are getting more and more obese and as a result is killing the nation. Furthermore, consumer choice does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation. Fast food chains have taken an approach to offer all different things on their menu, which some are healthy and at the same low cost. I said this before, which remains unrefuted, fast food is still readily available even if healthier foods are added. Not all consumers will switch to the healthy foods and as a result, some consumers will still eat unhealthy. Obesity, killing the nation. As from the stand point it is not the responsibility of these chains to ensure that each consumer is maintaining a healthy lifestyle. I don't care, this does not prove that fast food is not killing the nation. Off topic. ConclusionCON leaves many points of mine unrefuted and deviates greatly off topic.
Fast food is killing the nation

Again, CON does not contest my previous arguments or refutation. Again let's start with a refutation. This is CON's case. The nutritional content that is listed in foods is list for consumer to know and learn. It is not the fast foods chain's responsibility to educate their consumers. It is the consumers responsibility to learn what their eating. Therefore, Fast food Chains are providing information that is necessary, hence is it is the consumers choice of fast food that is killing the nation. Whether or not it is the consumer's choice, the end result is the same, which CON agrees, "fast food is killing the nation. "CON also says a ban on fast food is needed, but I pointed out last round, that that is not possible. I doubt CON even read my arguments. Conclusion -dropped arguments/refutation-concession that fast food is killing the nation-did not read last round's argumentsTherefore, it is obvious that I have won this debate.
KKK and neonazi movements should be banned

It appears to me you said something about other ethnic groups interferering with other americans and our constitution what does that have to do with anything.We as americans have rights so does Nazis,KKK ,or anybody else and even muslims, because we are all americans and we need to come together,as one country of people. You have not demonstrated nothing in this debate or proven anything in your argument.You really need to research your topic before you start a debate.Well goodbye to this debate.Thanks for the debate.
KKK and neonazi movements should be banned

well it seems to me that you can't prove anything about why the nazis and kkk should be not of this country and be banned.I think that we are all americans and we need to come together whether we are nazis, kkk, baptist, catholics, or what ever, it does not matter.Our constitution stands for freedom and we should not bann anything. Ok here we go again bann this don't do that, is that america the land of opportunty or is it the land of opportunity for someone else.We are so divided its not funny.KKK and nazis and i quote have as much rights in this country as we do, because we are all americans. SO now stay tune for my round three bean bat. Ps you did not answer my question from previous round?
KKK and neonazi movements should be banned

I believe everybody in this country has a way to believe how they want to.Whether you are with the kkk or nazis does not matter, we are a free country.You stated we are one nation under god,but we are a free country so people have the freedom of speech and how they think.This is in our constitution.How do you know if this is bad can you prove this? Prove to me how this is bad, because we do have the right to believe the way we want.And my next question to you which god are you talking about? stay tune for my next round goodbye.
Presuppositional Arguments For God Are Incoherent Fallacious Nonsense!

A Debate Tactic now common in arguments between Theists and those doubting their God (Atheists, Opposing Christian Sects and Other Religions) is the Presuppositional Argument position.They argue that knowledge can only come from God and without God there is no knowledge.Presuppositionalist Apologists, make the Assertion that Science, Logic, Morality, Free Will and Induction all cannot exist without God Existing.They basically have no evidence at all for this claim, as Presuppositionalism itself is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.Though Theists deliberately use such arguments as last resort tactics to obfuscate the debate and try and confound their opponent.This is working less and less in arguments as their opponents arm themselves with knowledge of how Presuppositional Arguments are extremely Fallacious and thus can now attack back.Though it does seem that Theism will be doomed to lose all arguments with skeptics and opposing sects and world views when all opposition know how to defeat such Presuppositional nonsense.Though recently I've noticed some Theists who attack Atheists continually are resorting to such Presuppositional Nonsense straight up in arguments.One such clown who insists in starting his debates off with the Fallacy of Presuppositionalism is Sye Ten Bruggencate.Here is Sye in a debate with Matt Dillahunty, (only a 90 second excerpt from the debate), who by the way makes Sye appear extremely Ignorant, as he indeed is.Notice the very first argument Sye uses here is a Presuppositional Argument.Most theists only use such arguments when they have already lost a debate and try to confuse their opponent to gain back some ground.those theists know that their Presuppositional Arguments are Fallacious, but are simply a stall tactic, Sye appears to think they are valid. Silly Sye!Though it is a wonder anybody bothers to debate Sye, since he presents no evidence for God only presents Fallacious Nonsense like his even more Fallacious version of the already Fallacious Presuppositional Arguments.One Wonders Where Apologetics Fallacies Will End??Maybe they will never end, just get increasingly Fallacious year by year as they appear to be doing, in order to keep their error ridden and unverifiable belief systems alive.My thanks to whoever wants to take the Con position in this discussion/debate.And Good Luck!
People have become overdependent on technology

We have, as a society, become overdependent on technology. Most of the economic structure of the world is electronic. We read books on iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc. , we write emails in lieu of most paper mail, and rely on telephones/cell phones to communicate with people. If all of this went away, we wouldn't be sent back tens of years -- it'd be hundreds of years. Kids from a minimal age are exposed to an extremely high level of technology. I am not alone in the observation of kids under 10 using various media outlets more and more [1]. "Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'. .. Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone. .. .. .. .. .it's practically the end of our civilisation! !" It appears that between these two phrases, Con has seemingly switched sides -- or perhaps conceded that we are becoming overdependent on technology. This is a debate about whether we as a society have become over dependent on technology, not on whether the use of it in the first place is negative. SOURCES 1. . http://www.cnn.com...
People have become overdependent on technology

I, being the con,am going to refute the resolution and prove why people have NOT become over dependent on technology. I ask that voters cast their vote based on who argues the topic better, and not based on their personal viewpoint. Keep in mind that I have no strong views on either side, but want to practise my debating skills. Thanks! With the fast evolution of technology, people all around the globe are beginning to wonder if this continues to be a good sign. Nowadays, I am willing to admit it, most people are almost always in front of a technological device, whether it is a phone, a tablet or a laptop. However, contrary to what many people think, this DOESN'T have to be a bad thing... in this round, I want to give 2 points to show that people have not become overly dependent on technology - 1) Firstly, all of us are definitely dependent on technology, but not to such a degree that it becomes 'over dependent'. Living as we are, in the 21st century, we should accept the fact that technology is an integral part of our lives, and it has to remain that way if any progress is expected. With the inventions of technological miracles, such as new computers, laptops, phones and tablets, people suddenly have the means to transfer their favourite pastime onto their different devices. If someone loves music, in around 10 minutes, he or she can have their favourite music on their phone,laptop or tablet, and listen to it whenever they want. If someone wants to know what's going on in the world at any point in time, all they have to do is take out their phone, install a news app, and that's it!! Such acts are done by all of us everyday, and yet, we don't realise it. We have stopped appreciating the value of the technology that comes our way. Think about it - what would you if there was NO technology for a day ? No television, no computer, no phone..........it's practically the end of our civilisation!! 2) However, there is definitely a bad side to this - people are getting more and more glued to their screens. This is one of the main points of the people who argue against technology. But, if you think about it, aren't we actually achieving a new level of communication? We no longer have to be standing next to a person to talk or communicate with them! However,this does not mean that we have lost our basic touch of human interaction - face to face communication. It just means that we have found a way to communicate when it is not possible for us to meet. Skype, E-mail,Texting , calling, Facebook -These types of things are wonderful! Even miraculous, some might say! But, there are many of us who believe that this reduces our basic means of communication - talking to someone.This, though I have said is wrong today, may not be the same tomorrow. Today, it is at a healthy rate of calling, but who knows what will happen in the next century? The complete eradication of face to face contact? Maybe, if we are not careful. Therefore, I say that the use of cell phones or other devices for communication CAN become a bad thing in the future, unless we take precautions against this.
The penny should be stopped from circulation

Alright, I was planning on presenting my advantages and arguments in my second speech after presenting my plan. Let's have a look at a few statistics revolving pennies: 1: Pennies in circulation: 200 billion, totaling 2 billion dollars 2: Cost to produce a penny: 1.99 cents 3: Pennies created in 2013: 7 billion, totaling 70 million dollars Doing some math we can see that if we make 7 billion pennies in 2013, and it costs 1.99 cents to make a penny then we spent 13,939,000,000" (13 billion 930 million cents) to make our pennies in 2013. That's a total of 139,390,000$ (139 million 390 thousand dollars) to make our pennies. As a total, we are losing 69,390,000$ (69 million 3 hundred and 90 thousand dollars). Based on these statistics and the total losses provided by these pennies there is no reason to not pass this plan, we would also be making up for some of these losses by melting down these pennies and using the metal for other enterprises. An interesting thing to consider about this is that it has been done before, in 1857 the half penny was eliminated. There were no serious side affects and the value of the dollar was much higher. When no serious side effects came into play when the value of the dollar was higher, it is clear that it will have minimal side effects on the current economy. Sources: http://www.kokogiak.com... http://coincollectingenterprises.com... http://1.usa.gov...
The penny should be stopped from circulation

You did not state why pennies should not be in circulation. Anyways, melting down pennies will cost a huge amount of money. Secondly, halting the production of pennies will discourage the use of pennies; and therefore, make it harder for future penny collectors to collect old pennies. I do not see any reason why pennies should be abandoned; it costs money and results in no benefits. I do not have much time; therefore, I will stop right here.
The penny should be stopped from circulation

I will be arguing in favor of the following plan: 1: All Pennies currently circulated as U. S Currency shall be no longer be accepted as commerce by the United States Treasury Department. A: The production of pennies will be halted immediately. B: Those pennies not in circulation, but already produced, shall be melted down. C: The remaining pennies shall not and will not be allowed to be held by any U. S citizen with any intention other than collecting 2: Pennies shall be no longer used as a form of debt payment in the United States or its respective territorial holdings, nor shall it be continued to be produced as a coin of regular commercial circulation. 3: The United States Mint shall be responsible for executing the contingencies of the aforementioned plan, in the interest of the U. S Treasury department. 4: All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void.
The act of performing oral sex on your genetic clone is homosexual, not masturbation.

I'll start off by defining a few words. Masturbation-the stimulation or manipulation of one's own genitals,especially to orgasm; sexual self-gratification. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Homosexuality-sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons ofone's own sex. . http://dictionary.reference.com...Clone-a cell, cell product, or organism that is geneticallyidentical to the unit or individual from which it wasderived. . http://dictionary.reference.com...My opponent seems to think that sex with your clone counts as masturbation because your clone is you. This would be all fine and dandy if it wasn't for one glaringly obvious flaw; your clone is not you. He/she is a copy of you, your doppleganger, another being that shares the exact same DNA as you, but he/she(your clone) cannnot be you because you two do not share the same consciousness. He/She is an entirely seperate entity from you. Whether or not you are there, your clone will think and behave as he/she wants. If you were to die, he/she would live on. Let's say you live in Texas, and your clone lives in Ohio. If your clone was to get into a drunken bar fight over who's dirty dan, and who's pinhead larry(spongebob allusion), got the living daylights beaten out of him, and then awoke the next morning half dead and suffering from a terrible katzenjammer(been looking for an excuse to use this word), would you have all the memories, injuries, pain, and bruises as your clone? Would you even be aware of all that's happened to him unless he/she or an outside source informed you? No you would not, what happens to your clone does not happen to you. Your clown simply has the same genetic make-up as you, but that does not make him you. If your clone really was you, then there would be no need for you to both engage in sexing of the oral nature. Only one of you would need to perform the felatio since you would both feel it, and gain whatever pleasure you desire from it, if you two were infact the same person. But due to the fact that you two aren't the same person, you will both have to taste each other's penis(or Vag), unless one of you is extremely generous and truly believes that it's better to give than to receive. But then again, I guess there is the off chance that your clone ends up being homosexual and genuinely likes giving oral to the same gender, then you're in luck, until pictures of you come up on the internet, and you have to explain how it's not really you, but it's your gay clone, hell bent on ruining your good name, because of a fight you two had over whether to watch Brokeback Mountain, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show. But nobody's gonna believe that. .Should have just stuck to actual masturbation rather than paying millions to have your clone do it for you, weirdo. .
The act of performing oral sex on your genetic clone is homosexual, not masturbation.

This debate is purely for fun, and also to settle and age old dispute that me and my friends have every now and then.The topic is simple; a genetic clone is made of a person, and somehow rapidly aged to said person's exact age. If the orginal and the clone were to perform oral sex on each other, is it gay(homosexual), or considered masturbation?I say it's gay, and I dare you to prove otherwise... For the sake of argument, the action cannot be both masturbation, and gay; it must be one or the other.Although this debate is for entertainment purposes only, I request it be taken with the same seriousness as any other debate, but humor is both expected and welcomed.1st Round-Acceptance 2-4th Round-debating, rebuttals, blah blah blahNo new arguments in 4th round.Also, no silly semantic tactics, they're annoying..Questions, comments, concerns? Post in comment box please.COME AT ME BRO