BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The LA school board made the right decision in banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk

The Los Angeles Unified School District is taking a stand against child obesity by banning chocolate and strawberry flavored milk. In the past few years, schools in the District of Columbia, Boulder Valley, Colorado, and Berkeley, California have also banned flavored milk. The decision to offer only plain milk is clearly better for the students. According to the Centers for Disease Control, a serving of low-fat chocolate milk contains 53 more calories than a serving of low-fat white milk (1). These are mostly empty calories, which have no nutritional value whatsoever. Children under the age of 9 should not take in more than 120 empty calories a day (2). By drinking a carton of chocolate milk, young children are consuming nearly 50% of this daily limit. For this reason, the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity strongly discourages serving flavored milk (3). Opponents of banning flavored milk argue that all flavors of milk contain the same quantities of important nutrients. While this is true, children will absorb more of these nutrients if they choose to drink plain milk as opposed to chocolate milk. Chocolate contains oxalate, a naturally occurring compound in cocoa beans, which can inhibit the absorption of calcium. One study found that a single 100 gram dose of dark chocolate increased calcium excretion by 147% (4). According to another study, “Higher frequency of chocolate consumption is linearly related to lower bone density and strength” (5). Opponents of banning flavored milk also argue that some children simply will not drink plain milk. However, most students will select healthy foods if they are prompted to do so (6). Furthermore, evidence has shown that children who are continually exposed to healthy foods will learn to prefer these foods. These children will also develop a decreased preference for sweetened foods (7). Based on these conclusions, students who drink plain milk on a regular basis should develop less of a preference for chocolate milk. This has several important implications for schools. Administrators may feel that it makes sense to serve chocolate milk to increase children’s initial acceptance of milk. However, this strategy will actually result in decreased long-term acceptance of unsweetened foods, including white milk. Conclusion: Our society has a responsibility to help students develop healthy eating habits. Banning flavored milk in our schools is an excellent way to accomplish this task. References: http://www.cdc.gov... http://www.choosemyplate.gov... http://yaleruddcenter.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ajcn.org... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.yaleruddcenter.org...
Taking N,N DMT, 5MAO DMT, and 4Aco DMT all at once. After getting really high on reefer.

First of all, your picture is tripping me out. o.k DO YOU EVEN KNOW?! Do you understand how unquestionably, horrifically insanely, mind jalapoling, and purely NUTS times infinity, your trip would be after this endeavor? This act in the topic, I am now trade marking (On the spot) "Gogert's Heroic Dose"(Two sitters required) First, be in a place you can lay down and relax, then smoke a large amount of any weed, preferably a cannabis with high THC. Then after you are very very high (Giggling and short funny gigs is when you know XD), smoke the N,N DMT with a large hit and hold for 7 seconds. (Brief hold time because if you do not hurry, you will be unable to get the other two DMT forms :[ ) Then release the smoke and have sitter #1 get your other GB that is already loaded with 5MEO DMT. After a large hit of that, hold in lungs for 7 seconds and release. Your doing gods work at this point, but you must go beyond and be strong; you have the human race behind you. You got the 4Aco DMT there as well loaded. Get sitter #2 and If you were able have a large hit and hold for as long as you can, and make sure your sitters help you to breath again. After you have completed and overcame all three DMT gods, you must lay back in something comfortable. I like hammocks.
are iphones the best phone to have

To start things off, many talented developers still launch new apps for iOS first and then release Samsung versions somewhere down the road. This is a big advantage for iPhone users who like to be ahead of the curve. Apple has a much better screen and build and a better looking phone. Samsung is just too wide. They should just stop trying. Go back to making fridges and T.V.S! Apple has way more apps and on samsung tablets, they just make the phone apple bigger! Besides, apple has an easier-to-use interface. Samsung is just confusing. Plus it is easy to use then Samsung.
Policy topic: space

Post all speeches to google docs or media fire, then post the link here as your speech. DO NOT ACCEPT UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT POLICY IS AND HOW TO DEBATE IT! I will be aff on this topic. CX will be in comments after opponents speech. The full resolution is: the united states federal government should substantially increase it's development and or exploration of space beyond Earth's mesosphere r1- intro and acceptance r2- 1ac, 1nc r3- 2ac, neg block r4- 1ar, 2nr r5- 2ar, and neg don't post this roud The neg will wave the last speech. To judges: please vote on a policy basis, and on this debate- AWARD ALL 7 POINTS TO THE WINNER. It makes it easier on all of us. Thank you. Lehgo
Jay Cutler

some of the arguments that you used only furthered my point. I'll show you where. 1) {"The Broncos did NOT go out looking to deal for Matt Cassel or go out looking for a trading partner to deal Jay Cutler away. The teams approached THEM with the idea. "} Exactly, the Broncos weren't looking to trade Cutler, they just recieved an offer from other teams. This shouldn't worry Jay. He needs to understand whats going on. They're not trying to back stab him, it's just part of being in the NFL. 2) {"Just the fact that the Broncos even considered the trade made Jay think they couldn't win with him at the helm. "} Of course they consider it. If they didn't that would be dumb. If you have an opportunity for a new situation then you consider it to ensure that it wouldn't be better for your team. In this case I don't think it would be, but you should still consider it, why not. 3) {"The Broncos ranked 2nd in total offense and 3rd in passing offense in 2008. Jay Cutler was the quarterback all year long. With a defense that ranked 29th in the league, it was Cutler alone that carried the Broncos to the edge of the playoffs with an 8-8 record. "} Right. So Jay Cutler shouldn't worry right? His coach would be crazy to make a trade. Cutler just needs to understand that just because his coach is looking into something else doesn't mean he should have a panick attack. Cutler is in the NFL. There's a lot of stuff that goes on that yu can't control. It's a business. Franchises are trying to make money. Players are supposed to play. Jay needs to let his coach worry about the money, and he needs to worry about himself. Sure he can be mad, but He's taken it way too far.
Jay Cutler

Jay Cutler is not acting like a baby. I believe he is right in his actions. First off, let's get one thing straight, one thing some people seem to have a hard time grasping--the Broncos did NOT go out looking to deal for Matt Cassel or go out looking for a trading partner to deal Jay Cutler away. The teams approached THEM with the idea. It's the fact that the Broncos CONSIDERED dealing Cutler (who is a: franchise quarterback, a pro-bowler, infinitely talented) for Cassel made him upset. And not just that--they didn't let him know his name was even in those trade talks. With that, clearly the Broncos organization is not trustworthy when it comes to dealing with players, particularly recognizing and respecting key players. It is a business, yes, but its just plain foolish to even think of dealing Cutler, even for two first-round picks, for what he's done for that franchise, and the better (possibly) years to come when his team gets half-decent defense to take the pressure off of his offense. Just the fact that the Broncos even considered the trade made Jay think they couldn't win with him at the helm. This is misconception, and here's why. McDaniels made the worst mistake a new head coach can make--he remotely tinkered with his team's strength with his, and his general manager's consideration. Remember that old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Broncos ranked 2nd in total offense and 3rd in passing offense in 2008. Jay Cutler was the quarterback all year long. With a defense that ranked 29th in the league, it was Cutler alone that carried the Broncos to the edge of the playoffs with an 8-8 record. With an ineffective running-game, the offense became predictable, which made Cutler's job even harder. The passing offense was clearly the team's only strength. If McDaniels and Xanders (general manager) don't understand how to manage a team, they shouldn't be have the jobs they were paid big bucks to do. Finally, from the trade ideas, we gather that Cutler also feels insulted because a. He doesn't feel as valued as he should be b. The coach considered a guy like Matt Cassel, who we don't know better than just a one-year wonder, over him With such poor player management, it's no wonder the Broncos are in the position they are in, with Cutler and with a rebuilding process.
Final Fantasy vs ( RPG franchise)

This is a Franchise vs Franchise Debate. Only RPGS shall be allowed as a choice for the franchise. I am going to take the flag up for final fantasy and my adversary shall pick another RPG franchise to defend. This is a shared BOP and comparative debate. We shall both gives reasons as to why we believe our franchise is the best. RoundsMe[1] Rules and guidelines[2] Opening Arguments Contentions[3] Rebuilding contentions, rebuttals, and closing statementsAdversary [1] Shall declare his franchise and go straight into contentions[2] Rebuilding contentions, rebuttals, and closing statements[3] Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules[1] Failure to type no round as agreed upon in the final round shall result in a full 7 point loss due to him/her having an extra round[2] FFS shall result in the loss of a conduct point with multiple FFS possibly resulting in a full 7 point drop at the discretion of the judges[3] No semantics or trolling, this is a serious debate.
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

This debate looks interesting, so I'll accept it.Definitions:I accept all of the pro's definition other than "Revise", due to it's multiple meanings, some of which don't refer to the resolution. I substitute it with this:Revise: 1. To prepare a newly edited version of (a text). 2. To reconsider and change or modify [1]This definition is very specific to the resolution, but if my opponent wants to just accept one of the two definitions that's fine with me as I accept both.I also propose that we define "Should" as:Should: used to state that something ought to happen, be done etc [2]And as "ought" is used in the definition, Ought is defined as:Ought: Used to indicate obligation or dutyWorks Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

Resolved: The U. S. Constitution should be revised for our modern society. First round is for acceptance. Second round is for arguments. Third round is for first rebuttals. Second round is fro second rebuttals. Third round is for conclusion. Definition of terms: Revise- to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion..to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript. Modern-characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obesolete. Nation-a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. Source- dictionary.com
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

The idea of democracy is that power rests in the hands of the people. Why do we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy? Because it would be such a slow process to have a direct democracy: Everyone would have a chance to vote on everything. In a representative democracy, we elect leaders to vote for us. In some ways this is already taking power away from the people, but that is the choice we make in favor of progress. A remarkable amount of things can get done in a dictatorship because only one person is making the decisions. It is just that those decisions are not always good. Because our system is set up this way, we should embrace any chance we get to put the power back directly into the hands of the people. Unfortunately, there are elements in our modern government that are dictated by the Constitution take the power away from the people when it would be just as easy to put the power into the hands of the people. The issue of such a small percentage of the population change the course of the nation is not putting the power in the hands of the people. By basing whether an amendment passes on whether 3/4 of the states rather than on weather 3/4 of the popular vote approves something takes power away from the people. Doing this means that the vote of someone who lives in a large state matters less than that of someone who lives in a small state. Supposes there are two states. In one state there are 100 people. In the other there are 1,000. Under this procedure, the vote of the person in the big state is 10 times less important than that of the person who lives in the small state. If we revised the process so that the only thing that mattered was that 75% of the total population wanted an amendment, then everyone's votes would matter equally. My opponent has said that the amendment process is not flawed enough for the government to be obligated to fix it, however this flaw gives the power to a small percentage of the people. That is a very large flaw. In fixing this flaw, nothing is lost, except that equality is gained. Another example of this inequality in a different, yet similar sense is the electoral college process in our current constitution. This process is yet another way in which the power is taken from the people. Even if a majority of people agree on something, it does not matter because of the electoral college. This is yet another flaw in our constitution.My opponent contends that the flaws in the Constitution are not big enough to warrant a revision, however, this is not the case. In fixing these flaws, our nation will progress. Refusing to fix these flaws hinders progress.I once again thank my opponent for this fascinating debate.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

On proving the amendments flawed:I never made the statement that the amendment process doesn't have its flawed (nothing is perfect, so everything has its flaws), I simply stated that there wasn't a current reason why the amendments are flawed enough for the government to be obligated to fix it. Therefor, poining out a single flaw cannot overturn my argument. The pro's job is not to point out a single flaw (as even his suggestion is flawed enough to not work so we don't have a substitute system yet), but to prove that the amendment process or the constitution is flawed enough to assert an obligation to change the system. Thus, pointing out a single flaw that does not carry a large weight (as I will prove in the argument below) does not fulfill your BoP.Paragraph 2:democracy [dɪˈmɒkrəsɪ] n pl -cies 1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by the people or their elected representatives 2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political or social unit governed ultimately by all its members[1]A representative democracy does not work in a way where 51% of the people are required to pass legislation. It's simply where representatives have a hand in managing the country so it can be based on the will of the people, that's why the amendment requires a 3/4 majority rather than a 51/49. That's why your first source (which is a questionable at best) is irrelevant. Your second source was less on the unfair majority, and more on how it is interpereted in modern times. "the proper response is not to reject the Constitution but to work within it by trying to persuade fellow Americans to share our views of constitutional possibility and by supporting presidential candidates who will appoint (and get through the Senate) judges who will be more open to better interpretations"[2].Paragraph 3:Even if you choose disregaurd the fact this process is in fact democratic as the US is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy, his entire plan revolves around the fact that all of the smallest states will unanimously side with one another for no apparent reason while every other state rules on the other side. This is in direct contradiction with his Parisan Politics argument, which states that politicians develop their stances based on parties, not sizes.Paragraph 4:As this is a single reason, and the reason is both irrelevant as it's completely democratic and it's unlikely as it requires a sinlge situation that contradicts his earlier statements.Answer:1.) Absolutely. Check the definition of democracy above. Because America is a representative democracy, we work on the number of representatives in congress rather than the direct number of citizens in America. Due to the hundreds of millions of citizens in this nation, we can't expect every single one to vote in order to decide what does and does not pass. That would cost too much, and the average citizen isn't aware of political implications of certain legislation.Works Cited:1.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2.) http://www.utexas.edu...
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

Since his arguments are contingent on the assertion that the amendment process in our current constitution is not flawed, I would like to devote this round to proving that it is flawed. If the amendment process is flawed, then revising the constitution through this process would be a flawed process. My opponent has stated that the constitutional amendment process was meant to be difficult, and while this may be true, it was also meant to be democratic. The way in which the current process is set up, approximately 3.8% of the population can reject a proposed amendment. How is this possible? It takes 12 states disapproval to block a constitutional amendment. One combination of the the twelve states could include the 12 smallest states. These small states total populations are only 3.8% of the total population. [1][2] It is undemocratic for this small percentage of the population to override the opinion of 96.2% of the population. This inequality is a fundamental flaw in the amendment process. Any attempt to change such an amendment process through the current system could be voted down by this tiny minority. This is why the process must be changed. Although the other flaws in the constitution are important, they cannot be resovled until this underlying problem is fixed. I believe this argument fulfills my BOP: I have shown that the amendment process is fundamentally flawed, thus we must revise the Constitution in other ways to fix this. Question:1. Can this process possibly considered democratic in nature? I look forward to my opponents response.
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

My opponent states that: "This flexibility [in that there is an amendment process] means that there is no moral or practical reason to revise the entire Constitution because if there would be an immoral or otherwise wrong act that the Constitution upholds, it can be revised or eliminated through the Amendment process already" My forcus for this rebuttal will focus on the followi point: It is more effiecient and effective to create a revision comittee elected by the people than it is to do it all through the amendment process. Partisan Politics Makes a Revision Through Congress ImpossibleMy opponant has contended that there is no need to make major changes to the constitution because the current ammendment process works just fine. However, the National Journal has said that Congress is the most partisan it's ever been. This would make the process of going through and rewriting the constitution through Congress an impossible task in today's political atmosphere. A comitee, voted on directly by the people without the interference of political parites or corporate money, who's sole purpose is to reevalutate the Constituion would solve the problems much better. EfficiencyIt would also be much more efficient to a committee modled after the original body of the Second Continental Congrewss. To have a group of people just looking at the various problems in the Constitution all at once would very good. It would also not take precious time away from Congress to look at all of these various issues. I have already provided some examples of aditions/revisions to the current Constitution, and these, among others, would have to be considered.I look forward to my opponants response.Sources:http://wamu.org...;
The Constitution Should Be Revised for our Modern Nation

As my opponent has the burden of proof in the debate to show that the US government has the obligation to revise the constitution, I will open with a case that shows the US government is currently under no such obligation. As the main argument on the round will be over pro's BoP, I will spend more time negating his arguments than constructing mine, as the former is all I need to do to negate the resolution. Contention 1: The Constitution is Open to AdaptationsSubpoint A: The Amendment Process Allows the Constitution to Adapt with the timesThe main reason that the government is under no obligation to revise our Constitution is that the founding fathers designed the Constitution to adapt with the times by giving it the ability to change its stance through state and Congress-ratified amendments[2] . This flexibility allows the Constitution to change with the times in order to better uphold the will of the people, and this ability to change is what keeps it a stable document today[2]. Subpoint B: This Flexibility Means There is no Reason to Change the ConstitutionThis flexibility means that there is no moral or practical reason to revise the entire Constitution because if there would be an immoral or otherwise wrong act that the Constitution upholds, it can be revised or eliminated through the Amendment process already. This is evident in the cases of the Constitution's adding amendments that abolished slavery and made discrimination illegal[3]. Because the Constitution possessed the ability to change different elements within itself at any time in order to uphold the will of the people, there is no obligation to revise the entire document, and the resolution is negated,That is my sole contention, and I look forward to the beginning of rebuttals. Works Cited:1. ) . http://www2.waketech.edu...2.) . http://countrystudies.us...3.) . http://www.ushistory.org...