BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Childrens toys taken out of fast food meals.

****REBUTTALS**** "The responsibility lies on the parents or the adults in the situation. The corporations are not to blame but at the same time by adding these appealing toys to the meals, it encourages the children to want to eat at these unhealthy places in order to receive these toys with their meals."I agree that toys in fast food attract children. I however also know that htere is a purpose for them being there, and don't feel taking them out is neccesary. The companies advertising with toys in their meals are only doing their job: Making money. They are more likely to attract kids by advertising these toys, thus making them more money. However, is obesity really these companies fault? My question is why the parents do not take responsibility for taking their children to these restaurants if they do not want them getting fat? "Obesity is looked upon as a problem that is continuously getting worse and worse. One problem leads to another when a person is obese. There are many health problems that come along with obesity such as diabetes, as well as breathing and heart problems. The list could go on and on. So what I am simply trying to say is that by removing these toys and maybe substituting it with a healthier snack, such as a fruit, would be a better deal in the end."I have said this before, and I will say it again. Takiing toys out of kids meals will not make people stop eating at fast food restaurants. If a child is getting hart burm, and diabetes from eating too much McDonalds, their parents probably shouldn't take them their. Most kids that I know barely even eat their food, as mainly all they care for is the toys and the play place. But that's beside the point. The point is you having the burden of proof, must prove to me how children will suddenly stop eating fast food once the toys are removed from the equation. "Again, this may not even stop these children from wanting to go to these fast food chains, but at least it allows them to have some what of a healthy snack, instead of a toy that does no justice for your health."No matter what, the child will still get obese if their parents continually take them to fast food restaurants.My point remains Un-Refuted, that the blame remains on the parents if their child is obese.Both of my points have been un touched by my opponent, so please extend them across the board. Thankyou.
Childrens toys taken out of fast food meals.

The responsibility lies on the parents or the adults in the situation. The corporations are not to blame but at the same time by adding these appealing toys to the meals, it encourages the children to want to eat at these unhealthy places in order to receive these toys with their meals. Obesity is looked upon as a problem that is continuously getting worse and worse. One problem leads to another when a person is obese. There are many health problems that come along with obesity such as diabetes, as well as breathing and heart problems. The list could go on and on. So what I am simply trying to say is that by removing these toys and maybe substituting it with a healthier snack, such as a fruit, would be a better deal in the end. Again, this may not even stop these children from wanting to go to these fast food chains, but at least it allows them to have some what of a healthy snack, instead of a toy that does no justice for your health.
Childrens toys taken out of fast food meals.

****REBUTTALS**** "I do think it mainly lies on the responsibility of the parents or guardians to ensure that their child is eating the healthy foods but I do also believe that possibly banning these toys in the meals would prevent the children from getting hooked on these types of foods. I do agree it is all about the advertising but I also think it encourages people to want to eat that unhealthy food. "My question to you, however, is whose responsibility is it to prevent their children from eating fast food when health is an obvious issue for their children? Can we really blame the corporations? It is after all their JOB to fund and raise money through selling their foods. Advertising to children is a way for them to make money. Again, let's not take our children to fast food restaurants if we don't want them eating unhealthily. That is OUR responsibility as parents and adults. ****CONCLUSION**** Well, not much to say else really. All of my contentions were either untouched on, or agreed with.
Childrens toys taken out of fast food meals.

Your response was excellent and it did make me think of fast food restaurants a little differently. I do agree with many of your points. I know first hand how hard it can be to get kids to eat, to the point where you will do anything just for them to take a bite of some food. Very good points! I do think it mainly lies on the responsibility of the parents or guardians to ensure that their child is eating the healthy foods but I do also believe that possibly banning these toys in the meals would prevent the children from getting hooked on these types of foods. I do agree it is all about the advertising but I also think it encourages people to want to eat that unhealthy food. There are many circumstances where parents work late and there is simply no time to make a home cooked meal, so in those cases I can understand taking your child to a fast food restaurant to eat something quick. To conclude my argument, I would say these toys encourage getting hooked on fast food "junk" food. Thank you.
Childrens toys taken out of fast food meals.

I don't believe that children's toys should be part of fast food meals. Obesity is a large issue in the United States as it is. By putting toys, especially ones that are from movies only promotes children wanting to go eat this fast food which is the leading cause of obesity. I have been to Europe as well as Australia and they walk everywhere. Even 20 years ago, people did not use cars as much as they do today. There are other outside factors that cause obesity, but I believe that it can be helped by leaving the toys out of the kid's meals at fast food chains. Although, I do see that by putting these toys in the meals, it draws children in and makes them want to come to that place to get food. I think if there is a way to begin to stop the obesity problem it has to start with possibly taking the toys out of the kid's meals. Maybe this will make children not want to go to that place for food.
Athenian Democracy

I admit that children and slaves should have not voted because they might not know what they are talking about. However, what's wrong with women. Women are perfectly capably of making smart decisions, not just men in the military. This is the smae for those men not in the military as well. They are smart enough to make the right decisions that would have benefited Athens. For the final time, Athenian Democracy was not actually a democracy, it did not favor all the people.
You shall replace my calculator

I will make this as concise as possible. First off, my autonomy does matter in this resolution because this is an interaction between two people. If you say that you can use me as a calculator against my wishes then it's like saying that you can punch me in the face without me taking any form of retaliation. It makes no sense whatsoever. I'd definitely be against being used as an object and I'd definitely punch you back in the face if you did the same to me. My first point stands because my classes are overall different than yours so if I were to miss one, you wouldn't even be able to help me and I'd have to do double the work which would frustrate me. So that's why my first point stands. My second point stands because I can't study on my free time. The logical reason for this: I use it for sleep. I can't study and sleep at the same time. I can't mentally bring math books with me into my subconscious while I sleep and meditate and do math while I'm sleeping (Well I can but I can only review stuff I've read over which is quite useless since I know it already). As I said, since I'm present in your math class, I skip a class that you don't take so you won't be able to help me pick up the work I miss. My third point still stands because my autonomy matters in this situation. As aforesaid you wouldn't be able to help me keep up in my other classes. Well, all I do is tutor him and make him better. But what do I get in return? Not much other than just the satisfaction that I helped someone. I get nothing else in return from helping you so why should I if I don't get reimbursed with some sort of a payment? Cause I'm not learning anything new. I tutor many people. You'd just be another addition to the group. Just another load which will slow me down. Onto his case: His first contention fails because you have a mentality that I have an unlimited memory. I would have to memorize thousands of formulas so therefore, I would have to take up so much time to memorize them and to use them resourcefully and effectively is highly unlikely. The aforesaid also strikes down his second point because my knowledge has limits. I can't keep on memorizing forever. I have a life to attend to so I wouldn't be able to have the time to keep going. Also, speed matters in this case because there are certain things called time limits. I can't be with you all day so that I can answer just one measly question trying to figure out the sine of a certain degree or the variance of a set of 100 sets of data. His third point falls because of what I said in the last paragraph, saying that the speed does matter in this case. His fourth point falls because... so what if they are humanly possible? It still requires an amount of work to do the functions and substitute and calculate. Time is of the essence which we don't have enough to work with. It is for these reasons that I urge a con vote. Thank you all.
You shall replace my calculator

I will flow through my opponent's layout as set, then weigh cases. His first contention again is dropped because autonomy is extra-resolutional. As I stated before, i base this on the improvement on my mathematical performance, not on what he chooses to do. Clearly, my opponent refuses to acknowledge this, but does not properly refute this. Thus extend this logic to any refutations he makes against my autonomy point. My point of his expansion of his knowledge remains standing, because he never refuted his studying on his free time. There is free time when hes not in use (about 6-8 hours). He can properly rest and maintain his advantage. He would also be present in my math class which would allow him to review. His third contention remains dropped since I have proved he has incredible memory, great math grades, and sources to improve his performance and advance his knowledge. Drop the autonomy point again. Again i can learn from him and I will recieve better grades. Remember, his over all average is a 99.6. Compare this to my 89 and note that this proves he will prove to be a benefit. Also note that since he can serve as a tutor, I will learn about the subject much faster than self-attempting. And this can be a cycle in which a new lesson is brought up, he tutors me, I learn, and then a new subject is brought up so he may tutor me again. Onto my case. My first contention stands that this is true and since this was the sole point accepted by both sides, it stands. My second contention stands since he will know how to properly solve them. Plus speed is not an issue. Thus his refutation is dropped. My third contention stands since I again uphold time is irrelevant since in the end he will know how to solve and I will not. And since the answer is correct, my grades will increase to an increase in correct answers. My fourth point stands since I was providing the fact that those functions are humanly possible since they were invented by humans and thus, my opponent can solve using those functions. WeighingI am clearly winning this debate, because I uphold that if I use my opponent instead of a calculator, I will get more right answers, can be tutored to know the formulas necessary and will have an increase in grades. Thus my mathematical performance increases and my BoP is upheld. I am also winning evidence presented as well as a better flow of logic.
You shall replace my calculator

I will proceed by defending my case first then move onto the pro. My case: My first contention cannot be dropped because my autonomy does matter in this debate. His autonomy observation makes no sense and he is saying that his life is better than mine and he is only using me for his own beneficial means without the slightest care about what I want. In reality, both sides matter. I have to have something to go my way but by being used as a calculator I have none of that. He only proceeds to use me to solve the problems and help him and get nothing back in return. My opponent says that my second contention would allow me to expand my knowledge instead of hindering my performance. I highly disagree to this because I'm not ABLE to expand my knowledge. I have extra time to study math but when I help you. I'm taking that time away. Since there's no time, there's no way to stay ahead. And furthermore, it wouldn't be good for me to fall back to what would be covered in class because I wouldn't get a truly full and complete understanding of the lesson. My third contention can't be totally fixed with those two inventions. I would still need to know what to do. You know. Use a brain and not have a clue what to do. Same as my second contention defense, if I don't know the entire lesson fully, I can't solve all problems set forth. As aforesaid in the beginning of my defense, my autonomy matters because I'm a person too. Onto my fourth contention. I don't understand how his performance will increase. He doesn't state any evidence stating how he achieves this if I'M doing all the work for him. Teaching someone how to do something is different from the person doing the work. That's actually a good point. If I teach him how to do it then that means I don't have to be used as his calculator because he now knows how to perform the same way as me. Moving onto his case His first point drops because he doesn't state that he's defending it. He only blabbers on about my memorization of 1000 digits of pi. His second point drops because my third contention holds as aforesaid. Even if I had the functions, if I don't know what they mean or how to solve em, I would not be able to achieve the values. Also, it'd be a lot quicker to input this into the calculator. It finds a value in mere seconds while it may take me 15x as long to figure out the values needed. His third point drops because his refutation just makes no sense. I can't be as productive as a calculator because I use so much time finding needed values that a person with a calculator can solve it by the time I find the values. So using me as a calculator is less productive. His fourth point's defenses just make no relevance to the point itself. They have nothing to do with being able to get functions on a calculator. Therefore, those defenses drop and his fourth point should drop. It is for these reasons that I still urge a con vote.
You shall replace my calculator

.. well. .. lets jump into it. Observation: Your autonomy does not matter within the situation. This debate relies on my mathematical performance improving, because i chose to use you(superfox1995) over my calculator. Point 1) You Have Incredible MemoryLet the audience note that this very man, superfox1995, remembered pi to ONE THOUSAND PLACES. He cannot deny this for I can even provide proof. It will be at the end of this point. But anyway, the fact that he can achieve this incredible feat means he can also remember formulas. In turn, instead of me forgetting how to input the formula into my calculator, I simply read the question and he provides the answers. . http://queenscourier.com...Point 2) Your Expansion on Mathematical Knowledge is Never EndingYou, kind sir, have personally told me that you study and practice math for fun. You even admitted you studied math you were not being taught at the time. Since your knowledge is so advanced, my performance would increase, because you would know how to solve the problem instead of me having to remember what formula to input. Point 3) You are capable of drawing graphsYou have two functional hands and know how to properly lable a graph and draw the given equation. Point 4) Sine, Cosine, Tangent, Logs, Roots(Square, Cubed, Etc. ) Are All Attainable Without a CalculatorIt is quite simple, for such functions to exist on a calculator, man had to have made those functions which means you can solve for the same values. .. WITHOUT A CALCULATOR! !! ! I Provide evidence below. Sine, Cosine, Tangent. http://homeschoolmath.blogspot.com...http://answers.google.com...http://www.gamedev.net...http://answers.yahoo.com...Logarithmshttp://answers.yahoo.com...http://www.curiousmath.com...Rootshttp://www.homeschoolmath.net...http://www.murderousmaths.co.uk...Thank you,vote Pro, and I leave Con with this question: What is your math average this quarter? I await his reply :)
The Three Little Pigs Are Criminals

I accept. I will refute my opponent's arguments, since he has the sole BoP.==Rebuttal 1: None of my opponent's arguments are in any way true or valid=="They built houses on land without council permission," - OpponentThey had absolutely no laws or government nearby (at least none mentioned in the story), so since it was a place where barely anyone lived and thus there was no government, they did not need council permission. Even then, pigs are animals, thus they are less likely to need to adhere to the laws."They murdered an innocent wolf" - OpponentThe wolf was obviously not innocent. He was planning to hunt down all three of the pigs and eat them, meaning the wolf was obviously not innocent. Even then, however, murder would not be crime, thus it wouldn't be murder, by definition, as there was no government."and they disrepected the wolf by eating it for supper." - OpponentTo disrespect a person (in this case, an animal) is not a crime, even in places where there is a strict government. Also, humans eat animals all the time, thus disproving its criminality. Again, due to the fact that there isn't even a government in the area, it cannot be a crime.Even so, the wolf was planning to eat them all for supper, which means that it contradicts my opponent's arguments in a way. Plus, there are different versions. The wolf, who was eaten by the third pig, ate the other two pigs in one version, and in another version all three survive without eating the wolf, whereas the wolf only runs away without being killed, which contradicts my opponent's second statement. [1]==Contention 1: No Government==This argument has been tied into the rebuttal - no government and laws means no crimes.==Conclusion==I have proven all my opponent's points wrong and affirmed my stance. My opponent has not met the BoP.The resolution is affirmed. Vote Con.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Jodi Arias is innocent *Fall Tier Tournament- round 2*

First off I want to join Wylted in thanking bsh1 for running this tournament. I also want to thank Wylted for his participation.Before I begin my opening statements, I want to note that my opponent and I have agreed that I must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jodi Arias is either guilty of first-degree murder or second-degree murder. The definitions are as follows, acccording to a legal wesbite:First-degree murder - "First-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or 'lying in wait' for the victim. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him."[1]Second-degree murder - "Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable 'heat of passion'; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car."[2]Additionally, I want to establish that, as this is a debate on a murder, this will include graphic details of the killing, as well as photographic evidence. These will include, among other things, photographs of Travis Alexander (taken both directly before and directly after he was murdered) as well as blood and evidence of the killing. I will refrain from posting these very graphic and disturbing images directly - however, I will link them externally through citations. In order to fully understand the case, it is important to consider all evidence - accordingly, if you have an aversion to such accounts or images, I would strongly suggest you not read or vote on this debate.As the prosecutorial side of this case, I will be arguing that Jodi Arias is guilty of either of these forms of murder. I can (and will) prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jodi Arias had both the means and motive to conduct the murder, and will confirm her guilt in accordance with the statutes of first and/or second-degree murder. Additionally, I will debunk the claims made by the Arias camp, as well as by my opponent. With that I look forward to my opponent's opening round. References:1. http://criminal.findlaw.com...2. http://criminal.findlaw.com...
Jodi Arias is innocent *Fall Tier Tournament- round 2*

I want to start by thanking BSH1 for hosting this tournament and TNO5 for participating in it.A few things to keep in mind, is that my opponent has to show that Jodi Arias is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't have to prove her innocence. I only have to show reasonable doubt. I plan to do this through a self defense argument, but am not limited to self defense arguments. What I am going to do is show you that Con has no case. Jodi Arias instead of being the cold blooded murderer my opponent makes her out to be is actually a victim of domestic violence. She was taking pictures of Travis Alexander with his camera and he flipped out due to his very conservative Mormon background and fear of the photos getting out. This violent, explosive individual then went after Jodi Arias and she surprisingly found herself in a life or death battle she was fortunate enough to survive. Jodi Arias is a victim on several different levels. Not only a victim of Travis Alexander, but the victim of a weak defense team and a corrupt justice system.