BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

Yes I agree that it is delusional to think that "any" size is beautiful. As soon as they become unhealthy, some might consider it unattractive, but some obese look only mildly overweight and still be attractive. However I disagree that obesity is a choice. My brother classifies as "obese" but he did not chose to be the way he is. Sometimes obesity occurs along with other conditions, in my brothers case, autism, which is not a choice. His doctor said that if he wasn't autistic his weight would have been fine. So no, obesity (in most cases) is not a choice. And most (obese) people don't just wake up one day and decide to just become unhealthy with a bigger chance of death at an early age. Some obesity is developed in childhood, where a child has little to no control over their lives.
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

I assumed that for the sake of this argument wouldn't need to define them but thank you for doing that. We can agree that obesity is not healthy. It is unhealthy. un"health"y adjective harmful to health. "an unhealthy diet" synonyms:harmful, detrimental, destructive, injurious, damaging. As far as weight range, the Body Mass Index is the standard. I have not set that scale, but is accepted in the medical realm as the established healthy weight range. It is not beautiful to be obese. When someone makes conscious choices to become overweight, it is detrimental, unhealthy, and therefore cannot be perceived as beautiful. It is delusional to state that you can be beautiful at any size. Obesity, one of the greatest causes of preventable death, is linked to some of the highest cases of hospitality and mortality including heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. If I said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then said I think that abuse is beautiful, would you agree?
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

Since you didn't say the definition of beautiful I will beau"ti"ful G2;byoV2;odəfəl/ adjective pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically. "beautiful poetry" synonyms:attractive, pretty, handsome, good-looking, alluring, prepossessing; More of a very high standard; excellent. "the house had been left in beautiful order" You`re right, obesity is not healthy, and it is looked down upon, but the definition of beautiful contradicts your argument. It states "pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically" which implies that beauty is in the eye of beholder. Also you did not define overweight o"ver"weight adjective G6;!3;vərG2;wāt/ 1. above a weight considered normal or desirable. "he's forty pounds overweight" synonyms:fat, obese, stout, full-figured, corpulent, gross, fleshy, plump, portly, chubby, rotund, paunchy, potbellied, flabby, well upholstered, broad in the beam; informalporky, tubby, blubbery, pudgy "the growing number of overweight children is a legitimate health crisis" This definition dose help your argument, however, you did not set a weight rage, so I cant further address your argument.
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

All over the world I hear stories about people making claims that "people should be comfortable in their own skin". This is true- up to a point. Fat acceptance is a relatively new movement that says people are beautiful no matter their size- even if that is morbidly obese and overweight. When you are morbidly obese, you are unhealthy and disrespect yourself and those around you. You can not be beautiful and overweight.
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

Again, by saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" I was referring to different weight preferences for romantic partners or aesthetic attraction. You are right that eating more calories that you burn is destructive, but I fail to see how that is "shame" ful. Yes it puts your health at risk, and society looks down on that, but honestly its a part of humanity. Society has set unrealistic beauty standers that are ridiculous, such as having clear skin, being a certain weight, or having a certain hair color or style. However, all those things are what make us diverse and special, the human body is a beautiful. You cant summarize everyone's preference on over weight people, because a lot of people have different beauty standers that are different from society's. But since obesity and the classification of being over weight are technically two different things, parts of this argument are invalid.
Overweight people cannot be beautiful.

You are right. It should have been labeled differently. And at first I had the mindset that beauty is black and white- either something is or is not beautiful. However, you're right that beauty is and can be on a scope. Whereas attraction is probably more black and white- something (to someone) is attractive or not. That being said, I am not discussing subjective attraction fascinations. Unhealthy decisions and actions that lead to a person becoming overweight and/or obese is neither attractive nor beautiful. Wouldn't you agree? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I tell you abuse is beautiful, is it? My problem is the fact that the idea of being overweight is glorified and glamorized. For crying out loud, every new show on TLC or MTV or ABC or 123 has an obese person showing off their overweight body. Now, the opposite of glamour is shame. I don't think that is productive either. But how about encouragement? We need to encourage people, children especially, to be conscious of their actions. If you consume more calories than you burn, you will gain excess weight. This is harmful and destructive and can not be beautiful. These are not my subjective opinions. We have social norms for a reason. But the reason I even bring this issue up is that social standards are dropping. With the rise of hedonism and nihilism and the do-what-makes-you-feel-good mentality, it is no surprise that obesity rates continue to climb. And from a biological standpoint, vitality is something we can judge at face value. Someone walking around with too much fat will be less likely to be desired as a mate. But let's face it, they probably aren't walking around too much. Heyo! For my next debate, "Comedy needs CPR- an in depth look at people protesting about their feelings."
"Intense" Negotiations with terrorists should happen

Um if you still cant get what I am arguing then sorry I cant help you. Let me redefine the topic in which we are debating. The term negotiation in itself is the process of coming to an agreement. The quotation marks around intense makes the topic so it isn't normal negotiations. I never said to nuke them, just use a forceful solution to resolve the situation. I feel dumb having to re explain this to you this far into the debate. So in this debate you as CON should be debating that we should not use intense negotiations. Hope that helps you in the final round. Another thing that keeps bugging me throughout this debate, the fact that my opponent keeps putting words in my mouth. For those of you who have been reading this debate my opponent has said things like "nuking them" or refering to all terrorists as "Muslim". No where did I ever use either of these words so please disregard these arguments. They are arguments made in the last minute because my opponent procrastinates until the last hour or so before the argument is due. Man what a waste of my time. .. Going down every argument I made 0. I'm gonna label it this because it really never had a bullet mark since it was in a paragraph. Again where the hell are you getting a nuke! ?? ! Also saying there are thousands of terrorists was putting it conservatively, there are far more than that. It is scary because there are so many that we cant put a true number on the growing problem. 1. This point was dropped if you look at his arguments. So based on that logic my opponent concedes that the US is acting in favor of appeasement in the status quo . Also that it will not lead to anything in a positive future. 2. This point too was dropped using the same logic he concedes that by imprisoning terrorists it is counter productive. It leads to maryters and an increase in terrorism for the future. 3 & 4 These are of no value in the debate since both are agreed upon by both parties. 5. Yes Ill give you that it is a difficult task to find terrorists but not impossible. We have found several thousand, each with new leads to other terrorists. Id like to pull down the definition of terrorism from above because I really don't think my opponent read the argument other wise he wouldn't keep "redefining" the word terrorism. 6. This point too was dropped what a surprise. So again since he didn't answer he concedes that this is the best option we have. Half assed approaches wont work only this will. 7. Again this never really had a point for an argument so now its 7. While there hasn't been an attack on the US in the past few years doesn't mean that there isn't terrorism in other areas a. k. a Iraq and the surrounding areas. We have the obligation to help them out and absolve this growing crisis. Its not a different case, it is the same terrorism against the US as it would be if it is on US soil. A war on Europe's soil still is a war none the less.
"Intense" Negotiations with terrorists should happen

There is a basic incongruity here. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jokerdude, but where I went to school, "negotiation" did not mean nuking your opponents to glass. That seems to be what you want. So I am placed in the rather unique situation of actually holding the view my opponent is supposed to hold, and he the view I am supposed to hold. Jokerdude, you have broken the rules of debate: you have a topic to argue PRO for, but you are not arguing PRO. You are arguing CON. As we are in the debate tournament, I really wonder what to do next. I suppose it's my duty to continue the debate, but this is rapidly turning into a snafu. Ah, well, life goes on. You say: "Terrorists are less of a minority than you think thousands are active and even more are sleeper cells." I have a feeling you just pulled that number out of the hat. However, thousands of terrorists isn't really that worrying. So there are 5,000 disgruntled camel herders camping out in the Afghan mountains with sub-machine guns, and occasionally bombing American troops and civilians. We can outlast them, we can wean them down, but killing them with one big nuke? Not the greatest idea. Ten more would rise in each of their places. "What I am arguing for is that known terrorists should be killed not people with a sketchy guess at being terrorists." Well, frankly, except for the ones who've been convicted, we just don't know. In come cases, no one knows but they themselves until we strike. In a perfect world we would instantly know who was a terrorist and who was not, but it's not that simple. As I said before, who is a terrorist? Is it everyone who prays at a mosque? Everyone who opposes President Bush? "To end Ill reiterate its not just people we think might kinda be terrorists, this does not make us terrorists just the opposite. We bring peace to a world that has all but consumed itself in chaos by those who choose to live as terrorists[.]" There have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. None in Europe since the subway bombings in London three years ago (I saw the site, when I was in England.) Terrorism has alot of fear-power, but it doesn't have the power or ability to destabilize the world as you think it has. The middle east, of course, is a different matter, but we are dealing with that as we speak.
"Intense" Negotiations with terrorists should happen

I'd like to start with a funny comment my opponent's name was listed incorrectly so it took me a while just to figure out who the hell I was supposed to debate, but thats over and good luck to solAgratia. So since this is vague Ill begin with defining the word Intense from dictionary.com " Existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree" The way I view Intense Negotiations is where the United States will go all out killing any terrorist that is found out until the time where attacks against the US and US allies ceases. For my arguments... 1. Ill start with a history lesson. In WWII British Prime Minister Nevil Chamberlain used the policy of appeasement to the German aggressors. Needless to say it did not stop the Germans they kept pushing and pushing until Europe was on the brink of extinction by the Germans. Without intervention by the US the world map would look a lot different. I say this because on the current path of fighting terrorism the US is emulating Chamberlains policy of appeasement. We are ignoring the root of the problems by placing the few terrorists we find in "prison." To make a true difference and reduce the amount of terrorism that we see the US must act. Like in world war 2 only force will be recognized as a medium for change. Bringing us to "Intense" Negotiations. 2. There is no other alternatives to stop terrorists that would be as effective as these "Intense Negotiations" Jailing of terrorists instead of killing them is counter productive. They are either viewed as martyrs and pictures of their relatives holding their pictures are used in the media to portray the US as "oppressive", and they are used as pawns by other terrorists in prisoner releases which encourages kidnappings and hostage takings. If a captured terrorist was sentenced to life in prison and was planning more terrorist attacks a stay in jail will only enable him to interact with more terrorists who can carry on where he left off. 3. "Killing terrorists in a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral or even illegal" If people haven't noticed yet we are at war with a group of people who despise the US for their religion and other cultural beliefs. They stop at nothing to kill those who they have been raised to hate. Killing these terrorists is the only way to truly deter then stop terrorism. In no way is is immoral we are protecting ourselves from death, war is such. 4. Terrorists don't listen to rhyme or reason we have a moral obligation In order to protect the US and the world terrorism must be ended and the "negotiations have gotten us nowhere so it is time for a change. Lets bump it up a notch and see where that lands us. Again good luck to my opponent and lets see where the debate takes us
Schools in the US should have all healthy foods.

No, they should not have a say. Raising my child is my responsibility. There are already laws in place for child endangerment and malnutrition is one of them. The school system is there for teaching the basics needed to make it in life and prepare an individual for higher learning if they wish to continue their education (which they should). If a school wants to teach a health course which I do believe they do already; that is the place to teach proper nutritional values. But to tell my child what they can eat for lunch, is none of their business. Should kids eat healthy? Sure they should. should a family teach proper healthy eating at home? sure they should. Is it the federal or states right to tell me how to feed my child? heck no. I firmly believe it does not take a village to raise a child, it takes a family. While while the village, (school in this case) can suggest things all they want; it is ultimately a family's decision (or at least it should be), to make the determining factor on what their children eat. This needs to start at home with teaching your children proper values, not having the government overstep their boundaries. And I should not agree with you. I should make up my own mind based on my life's experience and values as a part of a society made of free-willed free thinking individuals, which in this case indicates to me that we are losing ourselves as a free people by allowing the government to step further into our lives telling us how to live and how to raise our children.
Schools in the US should have all healthy foods.

You have a point but they should have a say on what each child eats. If each child eats candy for lunch and that's all, that is a very poor choice made by parents of that child. If they are eating fruit with whole grain bread and peanut butter sandwiches, they are on the way to having a good, healthier life! You should agree with me! It is NOT right for people to have their kids eat sugar or candy for lunch when everyone else is eating healthy food!
Schools in the US should have all healthy foods.

Schools are getting out of hand with the healthy lunch programs. Schools are overstepping what should be their boundaries. Schools should have a variety of foods available to choose from. What my child is allowed to eat is the business of her mother and father. There are many schools that are now not allowing a child to eat a homemade lunch because they deem it not up to the schools standards is ludicrous. If a lunch I make my child at home is good enough for her to eat while I am at home eating the same thing, then what business is it of the school to make her have a cafeteria lunch and send me home a bill for it. I have seen what is being made under the new guidelines for healthier lunches and I would throw it out too. Most of it I would think has less nutritional value than what I send her to school with. The only thing that seems to be happening by forcing the schools to adopt the new healthy lunch programs in order to get government funding is to cause kids to go hungry as they won't eat and to create mass amounts of food waste. Eating healthy is only going to happen at home, it is not something you are going to teach your children by allowing the schools to do it for you. A child who is forced to eat something he hates while at school that has a completely different eating style and habits at home is going to maintain his poor choices regardless of what the school is trying to force on them.
Soccer is better than Football

Soccer is the world's most popular sport. More fans than football. Soccer players don't need to spend a lot of money for gear like football players and coaches do. Football is a stop stop game and soccer is a fluid game. Not long to learn the basics of soccer unlike football. Don't need physical strength of football to play soccer. Soccer is in the Olympics and football is not. Stretches across the world thus you have more fans to talk with and share your love for the sport. Less able to have injures than football players. Websites used- http://www.realclearsports.com... http://www.livestrong.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________ Best of luck to my opponent Rules are that you can not give up. No cussing and format is paragraph than rebuttals of your opponent's paragraph. ----->FOLLOW THESE RULES<-----
the system

It is estimated that in the United States are more than 12 million illegal immigrants. What can the States to do? To ignore them? To act like they do not exist? To send them to jail? To return them home? It cost much more than providing them some benefits... The fact that someone is illegally in a country does not mean that the country does not know that someone is present, that there live and try to survive. The state itself has a great benefit from that kind of people and it is normal to provide them education. This population is of great benefit to the state because they have no rights but has all the obligations of other legal residents. Illegal immigrant has no social protection, no health care, about pension not to speak, but it performs best kind of dirty work. So they do job and little cost. They should be sent to school in order to be productive, to contribute more for the same salary. Analysts say that the economic impact of a substantial - not just because they are cheap labor - but because they are consumers. Some American companies own products and services directed toward them. Many companies consider illegal immigrants to unofficial citizens. For example, companies that offer mortgage said: 'Even if you do not have documents for staying in the country, there are ways to apply for a loan and buy a house.' Owners of businesses and shops do not ask if you have documents or not, they are only interested can you pay for the products they sell. Establishing centers for their engagement will introduce some order in the employment of workers without documents. This center should probably provide language classes and some kind of training for some work. For economic reasons, employers claim that they need illegal immigrants. Laborers are sometimes abused. They do not always receive a salary, and sometimes are left in places from which they can not return home or somewhere.
the system

I don't know what is meant by the benefits that legal persons have in relation to the illegal and I will focus on the fact that illegal immigrants should have the same or at least similar rights as legal people. There are many reasons why someone chose to leave their country of origin and move to another country. The other country may can provide 'better life' and in some situations save lives. I will talk about what I saw and what I see every day. In the last century it was many wars, world and civil, and as a consequence of all this, there are huge population migration. A large number of people had (!) (not want) to move out. More recently in the Balkans civil war began 1991st and lasted until 1995. Then was no matter who's who of nationality, people had been killed in a row and randomly. Those who had the opportunity to choose were able to choose between illegal immigration in a country (where they had friends, relatives, acquaintances or in extreme cases did have no one) or to stay and be drafted or executed. Most people from this area fled to Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Canada and the U.S. They can not in those countries enter legally because there was no embassy which would be addressed (all ambassadors have fled in front of the threat) to obtain a visa (temporary or emigrant) and also the border of their country (later countries because 1 country fell apart in 6 ones) were closed so they generally are not able to legally leave the country. These people later were not allowed to submit requests for a visa because of the possibility of being arrested and deported for violating the law. If you look at this example, it is almost 5 years of exile. If these people are not allowed to do something (to have a job), they automatically have to deal with crime and other illegal acts in order to survive. A well-known that there is always work for those who want to work. Based on this, I think we should allow illegal immigrants to work. And btw do you know what conditions are needed for a U.S. visa? It is difficult (almost impossible) to fulfill. So the only possibility for legal entry remains marriage to a citizen of that state for a period of at least 5 years. It appears many people offering marriage for money. The price is approximately 20 000 euros for the marriage (in Western Europe-Switzerland, Germany, Austria). At the same time there is no guarantee that that someone will cheat and ask for a divorce before the expiration of 5 years of marriage. Another thing is that people from these regions can only dream of 20 000 euros (average salary is 300 euros and that is not enough even for a normal life and people take loans at banks and they are even more indebted). On the basis of written can be concluded that almost no legal possibility of going to one of the more developed countries, primarily because the conditions for obtaining a visa is very strict and marriage as one of the aspects of legal entry cost very much.
Vegetarians and vegans should stop telling omnivores what to eat.

I would like to point out your argument. You are only stating yourself in this particular situation. The first amendment gives us the right of freedom of speech and someone has the right to say what they want to say ( even if it is offensive and against the law) they still have a right. You also spelled accepting wrong but don't sweat it could have been a typing mistake. People have the right to say what they want. The government has no right to ban what someone has said. Unless it is something that has a good explanation on why it is not good than you cant tell someone what not to say.