BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

1ST OFF YOUR WELCOME AND WOULD YOU PLEASE ACCEPT ONE OF MINE PLEASE????? Yes some schools do supply healthy food choices but that is only as far as i know for 1/3 of the schools population. And have you considered that schools have alternatives to just a tray lunch such as, as it's referred to at my school Ale Cart. Which includes fries, burgers, nachos, everything you can find on the McDonald's Menu. So the parents buy what the kids eat at home but parents do pay attention to what they do buy their kids for food. not every parent buys their kids Fruit by the Foot, Tootsie Pops, and all that other junk that causes childhood obesity. So the parents can and do enforce healthy eating habits!!!!!!!!!
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

"It's not like the parents are shoving the food down their child's throats" The parents are, however, buying the majority of food that their children eat. "Kids are soley responsible for what they consume. " Their parents are the ones who buy the food that is available at home, so how could the children be 'soley responsibe'? "They can eat at school" The majority of schools have supplied healthy foods for students due to rapidly increasing rates of obesity; also, have you considered the many students who bring food from home? :)
Parents Should be Blamed for Their Child's Obesity

My opinion is that parents should be blamed for their child's obesity, whether it be partially or fully, they do influence their child's weight. The parents of children are the ones who provide food for them, so they have direct control of what their child is consuming, so they should be able to help their child maintain a healthy weight. Parents also have control over what their children do, resulting in the fact that parents could enroll their child in an excersize program or at least stop them from sitting around inside all day. This debate is not focused on those who gain weight due to disease; it is focusing on children becoming obese due to food consumption.
Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere

"Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. " I myself am for prostitution to be legalized but just not "everywhere" because if such a thing does happen there will be no licensing and "anyone" can choose to sell their bodies, like little kids. I am for making prostitution legal "almost" everywhere by states being able to legalize brothels, which could control who is allowed to sell their body and who is NOT allowed to sell their body such as children. It is better to have a license so it would be easier to tell if a brothel is running illegal prostitution with abducted woman and perhaps children. And if the legal brothels are forced to have regular health checkups, unlike the Netherlands, AIDs will be maintain and controlled from prostitution. "Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager. " I am guessing you did not comprehend what I wrote before, or I did not make it clearer. Prostitution in the Netherlands is legal "everywhere", but there still happens to be human trafficking going on and woman are still being abused and abducted to be forced in prostitution. It would be much better if they work in legal brothels that do not force them in prostitution and do not abuse them, because legal brothels are state owned. There can only be brothels in a county with a population of 400,000 or less. I would say they should increase this so it can apply to more areas and states should decide to allow brothels to be ran in their counties, as this will "generate revenue" for the state To make my view clear in where I stand in prostitution I will say this. .. . I do think prostitution should be made legal in more states other than Nevada. Prostitution should be made legal but only in specific areas such as legal brothels.
Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere

"Actually brothels are the buildings that are actually licensed and the prostitutes, the contracted workers, are legally allowed to sell sexual services, but any prostitution outside the licensed brothels would be illegal prostitution. Yes I understand that they do not have it in you area, because Nevada is the only state in the United States that brothels are legal." Exactly, that is why we should make it legal in every state in this country or at least make it possible for whores to get licenses which they shouldn't have to have a license because it's their own body but I guess its better than nothing. "Actually there is no real proof of that it would break any such link a pimp has against the illegal prostitutes. In fact if legal brothels are state owned and so technically there is still a manager or pimp, which of course would be the state. And by what I have read there still happens to be forced human trafficking in the Netherlands, so there of course would still be pimps abducting and using violence for human trafficking and would easily be concealed in the opened as other legal prostitutions go on. So, It would still be unlikely for men and woman to be independent from pimps." Actually, if prostitution was legal without having to have a license for it then they would not have to have a pimp or manager.
Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere

"The most obvious thinking to me for why men and woman are not penalized for having sex with another for no reason is because they are not purchasing the service. In whore houses (yes they exist), called "brothels" it is legal to purchase sexual services because they have a license to do such(I know like wtf lol..... license to be a whore lmfao!). So that is possibly why it is illegal to pay another for sex. The licensing is what is needed to be legalized, just like any other business." That may be true where you live but I'm talking about every state in America. Where I live, there is no such thing as a license for being a prostitute. If money is involved, they can get arrested. They can't get a license in my area. "Well I would agree on that part in itself because there are so many that can spread HIV and are out there selling their bodies while they know they have the virus." That statement obviously supports my arguement. "The acceptance of whore houses "Everywhere" still would not do much of a positive effect even though the woman are infection free. Since the services there are really expensive, trust me.... lol jk. The prostitutes are actually able to set their own prices which can be a way to make a client refuse to buy any absurdly priced services...... especially since they are fat and ugly as F%!# lol, which would make people seek out cheaper sexual services through illegal prostitution." Actually, that may come out as a positive thing because where prostitutes won't make as much money, they might try to live an honest life or maybe they will just lower their price. Making prostitution legal would break the link between their managers or ‘pimps’. These individuals subject prostitutes to physical abuse and threats of violence, retain a portion of their earnings, and often encourage them to become addicted to drugs. The provision of a secure environment in which to work would allow men and women to be independent of these individuals. Legalisation of prostitution would bring clear economic benefit for governments. A tax on the fee charged by a prostitute, and the imposition of income tax on the earnings of prostitutes would generate revenue. The problem of a high concentration of ‘sex tourists’ in a short number of destinations will disappear once a larger number of countries legalise prostitution. Supporting this motion, therefore, will reduce the problem of sex tourism.
Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere

I am so very happy to challenge that smexi Zealotical ;) "We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law?" The most obvious thinking to me for why men and woman are not penalized for having sex with another for no reason is because they are not purchasing the service. In whore houses (yes they exist), called "brothels" it is legal to purchase sexual services because they have a license to do such(I know like wtf lol..... license to be a whore lmfao!). So that is possibly why it is illegal to pay another for sex. The licensing is what is needed to be legalized, just like any other business. "They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition." Well I would agree on that part in itself because there are so many that can spread HIV and are out there selling their bodies while they know they have the virus. The acceptance of whore houses "Everywhere" still would not do much of a positive effect even though the woman are infection free. Since the services there are really expensive, trust me.... lol jk. The prostitutes are actually able to set their own prices which can be a way to make a client refuse to buy any absurdly priced services...... especially since they are fat and ugly as F%!# lol, which would make people seek out cheaper sexual services through illegal prostitution.
Making Prostitution Legal Everywhere

The control of one's own body is the most basic of one's own rights. We don't legal penalties upon men and women who choose to do it for no reason. Why should the exchange of money suddenly make an incident of lawful and consensual sexual intercourse against the law? Prostitution has been present in societies for thousands. Governments should notice that it can't be stopped completely. They should pass legislation that makes prostitution safer instead of persist with futile and dangerous prohibition.
Adam was is God=Christ. So 99.9% of all religions lie!

The Gospel according to John in chapter 1 is clearly talking about Jesus. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Revelation 19:13 describing Jesus :....And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.Adam was formed from the dust of the Earth and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.Jesus is God who created all things including Adam. Adam sinned. Jesus never sinned. Adam was only a man, Jesus is God the man.Another waste of time......if you can't see the difference between Adam and Jesus, well, I guess you will have to vote for my opponent.
Adam was is God=Christ. So 99.9% of all religions lie!

If a man, (Adam) has a son (you, a son of Adam through the generations of Adam) the son of the man is a man. You are a son of Adam.God's only begotten Son is God. His name is Jesus Christ. God's son, Adam, was a created son, not begotten. Jesus Christ was Fathered by God the Holy Spirit. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These three are one. Together they crearted all things (John chapter 1). Adam is a thing created by God. Jesus is God.Please tell me, if you die today, are you sure your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven? If you say yes, please tell me how you know so I can know too. Dont be selfish and keep it to yourself. Please tell me.
Adam was is God=Christ. So 99.9% of all religions lie!

This is a snoozer, Adam and Jesus Christ are not one and the same and Adam is not God. Any atheist would have to agree with me if they have a shred of honesty in their bones.I can't wait for the wacko votes to agree with my opponent saying Adam is God.....watch the atheists vote agaisnt me just to vote against me and say Adam is God even though they don't believe in God.
Adam was is God=Christ. So 99.9% of all religions lie!

If a man, (Adam) has a son (you, a son of Adam through the generations of Adam) the son of the man is a man. You are a son of Adam.God's only begotten Son is God. His name is Jesus Christ. God's son, Adam, was a created son, not begotten. Jesus Christ was Fathered by God the Holy Spirit. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. These three are one. Together they crearted all things (John chapter 1). Adam is a thing created by God. Jesus is God.You, opponent, are a dhild of Adam, a sinner like your father Adam. Sin is in your blood. Jesus knew no sin. His blood came from God, it did not come from Mary's husband. Jesus is God in the flesh who had sinless blood not corrupted like yours from your sinner father, Adam.I don't know if you went off your rocker or if your rocker rolled over on you and bumped your head, but Adam and Jesus are not the same. Adam was a man who sinned, like you. Jesus is God who never sinned like God His FatherEven an atheist has to admit that Adam and Jesus Christ are not one and the same. For this debate, I do not have to prove Jesus is God, I only have to show that Adam is not Jesus, and anybody who is within five hundred miles of reality, even an atheist, can see they are not one and the same. No atheist can agree with you in this debate, and no Christian should.......nobody with any common sense at all should agree with you.
Adam was is God=Christ. So 99.9% of all religions lie!

It's really a dumb debate. Your mind has to be an olympic gymnasium for contortions of flips and twists to try to show Adam and Jesus to be one and the same. In the begiining was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This is clearly talking about Jesus. The heavens and the earth were formed before Adam was formed from the dust.........and Adam did not become a living soul untill God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The reason I don't much care to post a lot of stuff in this debate is simple........it's too simple. Adam was nothing but a man, sinless when created and then fell into sin. Jesus is God who cannot sin. I took this debate because I feel sorry for my opponent.......I think his basket is missing a few weaves.Conceived of the Holy Spirit in Mary ..........did not involve sperm any more than God breathing into Adam's nostrils the breath of life involved sperm. You inherited sin from Adam. You are a sinner like Adam. Jesus Christ was the Son of God, not the son of Adam. God was his Father, Jesus' blood was holy sinless blood from God, not sin corrupted death contaminated blood like yours which came from Adam.
Empodicles' Elemental Theory.

First, I will disregard the fact that no evidence is posted in my opponent's argument. Let's set the date, it is somewhere between 492 B.C. and 432 B.C. Now, as we all are surely aware of, definitions change throughout time. Who is to say that the definition of an element and matter some 2500 years ago is the exact same as it is today, as my opponent would suggest. Now, for all that we do know, Empedocles' theory had nothing to do with what all matter was composed of. Now, unless my opponent has a time machine, I believe we can look at Empedocles theory in another way, that will essentially help to keep his theory disprovable. (http://www.visionlearning.com...) Let's define a theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Now it is clear that a theory has neither been completely proven or disproven. Therefore, to win this debate, I must prove that my opponents argument does not disprove Empedocles' theory, and I do not have to prove his theory. Now let's define an element: a component or constituent of a whole or one of the parts into which a whole may be resolved by analysis: Bricks and mortar are elements of every masonry wall. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Now it's clear to me, if we keep a relatively similar definition of an element as it is now, that an element does not restrict us to what is on the periodic table. Empedocles could have simply been using the word element as I have defined. My opponent seems to try to get inside Empedocles head with his third posted paragraph, so I will take the same liberty. Let's suppose Empedocles' theory had nothing to do with all matter. Instead let's connect it to what almost all science was connected to in those times; natural phenomena. In simpler terms, natural disasters. Thinks like earth quakes, typhoons, tidal waves, wild fires, and erupting volcanoes. My definition of an element with the given example of a brick and mortar just goes to support Empedocles. Mortar and a brick can both be broken down into simpler elements. Now; fire, earth, air, and water can too. So maybe his elemental view, was the ingredients of a disaster. Not the ingredients of all matter. Here are some examples: Volcanic eruption: has lava, which is molten earth, so let's combine earth and fire and we have lava. Typhoon: simply a vortex of water, so air and water make this one. Earthquake: plates of earth are moving and bumping into each other. Wild fire: simply a fire. Tidal waves: a wave of water. Mud slide: mixed water and earth sliding down a mountain. Avalanche: frozen water sliding down a mountain. As we can see, his theory can be taken into different contexts, and my opponent has no way of knowing what context his theory was in without some kind of first person account.
Empodicles' Elemental Theory.

Introduction:First, let us identify some crucial components of Empedocles' theory:"[Empedocles theory] is based on the claim that everything is composed of four material elements (“roots”); these elements are moved by two opposing forces. The elements are fire, air, earth, and water; the forces are Love and Strife" (1)."Empedocles seems to have Parmenides' arguments in mind when he denies that these elements or forces come to be or pass away. Everything else comes to be and passes away because each is composed of elements that successively combine to form them and separate at their destruction (B 17.26-35)" (1).Thus:1. We establish the four elements/roots: fire, air, earth, water, which are material.2. We establish that everything is composed of them.3. We establish that these elements cannot be decomposed into simpler parts.Disproof:WaterWater is composed of Hydrogen and Oxygen and can easily be separated into these components through the process of electrolysis (2). Thus, water is not an element and violates #3.AirAir is a mixture of gases which, themselves, are compounds being able to be decomposed into smaller components. The two most prominent examples are: Nitrogen (in the form of N2, which can be broken into individual nitrogen atoms) and Oxygen (in the form of O2, which can also be broken down). The only components of air that are truly elemental are trace amounts of noble gasses (3). Thus, air is not an element and violates #3.FireFire is not a substance, it is a process. Furthermore it is a process with multiple necessary components: fuel, oxygen, and heat (4). Thus, fire violates both #1 and #3.EarthEarth is difficult to define, so I saved it last and simply designate it as everything in nature that is not water, air, or fire. In this sense it is easy to see that earth is also a composite object, being composed of a great deal of simpler elements. Soil contains inorganic (rocks) and organic (remains of living organisms) material. Thus earth violates #3.Synthetic elementsNot addressed thus far is #2, that all things are composed of the above elements. In designating Earth as everything that not water, air, or fire would seem to prove this. However, our ability to create synthetic elements is an exception. Our ability to create synthetic elements demonstrates that, even in terms of modern Chemistry, elements and atoms are not indivisible. Atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons (the latter two being composed of up and down quarks). Thus we can create new elements which are not composites of existing elements. Thus #2 is disproved.
Empodicles' Elemental Theory.

I will prove that Empodicles' theory of the four elements of fire, earth, air, and water as true, or; at least, not disprovable. I will allow my opponent to start with the argument, you may use anything you see as relevent to disprove Empodicles' theory of elements, and I will do all in my power to disprove them. Accepting anyone willing to take the challenge.
an engineering student can do everthing?;-as study,hardwork,singing etc.

A engineering student can not pull shrapnel out of a soldiers body on the battle field without years of experience and studying. A engineering student can not sing a Whitney Houston song at a acceptable tone and pitch without months of studying. A engineering can not provide plumbing, or any type of sink work without studying of experience Engineering students are good at ENGINEERING, and can not specialize in every job. A engineering student CAN be innovative, creative, and work hard. Just like everyone else can, but they can't specialize in everything unless they want to specialize in all types of engineering, that is possible.
Is David Cameron harder than Barack Obama (In a celebrity Deathmatch style fight)

I believe that David Cameron Prime minister of Great Britain would easily beat the puny and a bit geeky 'President' of the USA Barack Obama. This debate in all seriousness is more for the all important manly bragging rights of which country has the hardest leader. (like who has the hardest dad). There is to be no mention of any politics or Military power etc. This to be a debate on the phisical and mental prowess of these two fine men and to be as ceative as you can (celebrity death match stye). This will be an unorthodox debate at there is no factual data to support anything said, It is simply a battle of wits, creativeness and who can argue the most to represent there country without being too unrealistic. The stats (DC) David Cameron age: 45 Height: 6ft 1 inches weight: 88 kg approx reach: long class: Cruiserweight Education: Oxford Uni Last fight Vs the Labour party Gordon Brown Barack Obama age: 49 height: 6ft 1inches weight: 86 kg approx Reach: longer class: Cruiserweight education: Harvard law school Last fight Vs Republican John McCain Ding Ding Round 1 DC because he is British and is the leader of a massive football hooligan nation knows a trick or two about fighting, nuckle dusters and head butts would definatley see off Barack Obama in the first round giving him a bloody nose and some hard facial and body bruises, all in the name of a bloody good show. Now I know DC can not press a red button in this fight to launch any nukes but he can take the red button and press it onto Barack Obama's nose to make him look like a clown and look silly in front of the media. DC (because it sounds cool) would easily be harder than Barack Obama, because he is British and also as the character of the man he would have too much self pride to lose. Both men phisically are pretty even so I think this would come down to sheer determination and guts brawl.
Is David Cameron harder than Barack Obama (In a celebrity Deathmatch style fight)

I give you a chance to do something and all you do is say "Whatever Pro Just get this over with" you are either very lazy or very busy. But forget about that, anyway both DC and Obama walk back into the ring. both through a punch and miss. They then both try to do a hamer fist, both nail each other in the face and fall down unconsious. The reff seeing his chance pins both of them and is crowened the new champion. 2 minuets later as he was showing off he gets jumped by both DC and Obama, he is then thrown out of the ring. Both country leader realize that they should work together to beter them selves and there country. ding ding And it's a tie
Is David Cameron harder than Barack Obama (In a celebrity Deathmatch style fight)

Alright i think i got it As DC was leaving in a strecher obama fealing real smart and clever about himself was sudenly hit in the back of the head. Geting up he realized that it was DC. But how said Obama, easy said DC in reply that was my stunt double. I had to go in to get another face lift, now are you ready for a real fight. All obama does is nod yes and both wait for the bell to ring.