BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

My opponent has conceded the "grumpiness" argument by not answering my reply to it; I shall, therefore, only address her first/second points. Never skip your breakfastZEENIA F BARIA Oct 13, 2012, 12.00AM ISTThey do say, however, that the case for breakfast's benefits is far from airtight -- especially for adults, many of whom, if anything, could stand skipping a meal."For adults, I think the evidence is mixed," says Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who hasn't eaten breakfast in years because she is just not hungry in the morning."I am well aware that everyone says breakfast is the most important meal of the day, but I am not convinced," Nestle wrote in her book, "What to Eat." (She later received many e-mails from readers telling her that they were relieved to hear it.) "What you eat -- and how much -- matters more to your health than when you eat."A few scientists go further than this. They say it may be more healthful for adults to skip breakfast, as long as they eat carefully the rest of the day."No clear evidence shows that the skipping of breakfast or lunch (or both) is unhealthy, and animal data suggest quite the opposite," wrote Mattson, possibly the ultimate anti-breakfast iconoclast, last year in the medical journal the Lancet. Advice to eat smaller and more frequent meals, he wrote, "is given despite the lack of clear scientific evidence to justify it."Also, extend my evidence from Round 2, coming from credited nutritionists: no conclusive evidence to show the negatives of skipping breakfast.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Here is my proof:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com..."Skipping breakfast also triggers bad eating habits during the day, as cravings ensue and quick-fix fast foods are often eaten. Having breakfast boosts metabolism and increases your energy levels throughout the day. When you miss it, your energy is reduced and physical activity levels decline," beleives Dr Dube. I rest my case
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Ladies and gentlemen...My opponent has claimed there to be scientific evidence for his/her claims, but has not cited any. I, on the other hand, do have evidence that shows that not eating breakfast is in no way related to decreased energy levels and energy intake at subsequent meals, negating the Pro's first and second points: Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Feb;93(2):284-91. Epub 2010 Nov 17. Pub Med ID # 21084650 This study showed “there was no significant main effect of breakfast condition on energy intake at lunch (P = 0.36) or throughout the remainder of the day (P = 0.85)... Leading to the conclusion that omitting breakfast affected children’s appetite ratings but not their energy intake at subsequent meals. The dissonance between children’s subjective ratings of prospective consumption and their actual intake should be further examined.” I would also like to point out that skipping any meal will cause hunger, which leads to overall grumpiness. However, as shown by the evidence above, there is no conclusive evidence relating skipped breakfast to reduced energy in intake. Mark Bunn of "Wisdoms of Health" said: Just as the early morning sun is relatively weak in strength, our digestive fire, which we need to digest food, is relatively weak in the early hours of the day. As such, most of us do not have strong appetites or the digestive strength to process much food at this time.Unlike modern health directives, in Ayurveda and other time-tested natural health sciences, breakfast is not recommended to be a large meal, let alone the most substantial meal of the day. In long-living groups such as the Okinawans, Vilcabambans, Campodimelani and Abkhasians, none have breakfast as the most important or substantial meal of the day. They have understood that the time when the sun reaches its peak is when we are best equipped to eat more.The Con's case should be valued over that of the Pro for the substantial, thorough, and evidence-based answer given in the 2nd Con Speech compared to that of the 2nd Pro.
Cats and Fleas

If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat. which is the same bloody thing as saying if you don't have a cat then you don't have fleas.. all this statement is saying that it's necessary to have a cat to have fleas, not that if you have a cat that you necessarily have fleas, as i've said already and heard no argument against.. if it were to say that if you have a cat, you have fleas.. then yes you'd have fleas if you had a cat.. but that's not what it's saying.. i'll phrase my aids example to suit if you do not have aids, then you have not had sex. is this not the exact same question only substituting aids for fleas and having sex for having a cat? and is this saying that if you have had sex then you have aids? no it is not. like with the cat question it's only saying that having had sex is a necessary requirement for having contracted aids. is it saying that you must have aids if you've had sex? obviously not.. should the answer to the cat question not obviously be the same? yes i really don't see how people aren't getting this? and i'll leave my argument at that cos i'm obviously bloody right. to myself anyway at least :)
Cats and Fleas

First, I'll show how my opponent's argument is not logically following the initial premise, then go on to show that Pro is correct. My opponent starts with "so i'll have to explain why it doesn't logically mean that..right.. if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas.." Again, he says "it you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas," please see that this is not what we are arguing. In the OP, it is given (just as it was in the thread), "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat." "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat." =/= "if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas." I will show that you cannot simply flip flop the two ends of a statement and hold its logic. Example, "all black men are people" =/= "all people are black men" and "all little league players are children" =/= "all children are little league players." I will also show that you can't flip flop the ends with If/Then statments. "If you shoot yourself in the head, then you will die" =/= "If you die, then you must have shot yourself in the head," Since I have shown that his statement cannot accurately be derived from the initial given statement, everything that is based upon that false statement falls apart. Now, I will move on to supporting why the Pro stance is accurate. We are looking at two different varaibles here, Cats and Fleas. With each variable, there are two possibilities, yes or no. That means that you can either have cats or not have cats, and you can either have fleas or not have fleas, there is no middle ground (you can't kind of have fleas). This means, that when looking at both variables, we have four possible options. A) You can have a cat and fleas B) You can have a cat and no fleas C) You can have no cat and fleas D) You can have no cat and no fleas Now, let us take our GIVEN statement, "If you do not have fleas, then you do not have a cat." This statement applies to "B" and "D" (the two variables with no fleas). So let us look at just those two. B) You can have a cat and no fleas D) You can have no cat and no fleas The GIVEN tells us that B is not possible. So we only have A, C, and D as possibilities. A) You can have a cat and fleas C) You can have no cat and fleas D) You can have no cat and no fleas The only option, with a cat, is option A. That means, logically, that if you have a cat, you have no option but to get fleas too. The only way to have a cat with no fleas, is by removing the GIVEN statement, but that is not allowed on a logic test, since you are suppose to be testing your logic around those GIVENs. Thank you.
Cats and Fleas

so i'll have to explain why it doesn't logically mean that.. right.. if you don't have a cat, you don't have fleas.. what can be taken from this? 1. that you need to have a cat to have fleas. 2. see 1 3. see 1 4. nothing else really to be taken from it but 1. what not to take: 1. if you have a cat, you have fleas reasons: it just doesn't logically follow.. becuase you have to have a cat to have fleas does not mean that if you do have a cat that you must have fleas. it just means that having a cat is necessary for having fleas. not that having a cat means you necessarily have fleas. a similar example: if you do not have aids, then you have not had sex. why is this similar? well it's the same question only i've swapped flea with aids and cats with sex. is the premise saying that if you've had sex that you necessarily have aids? no it bloody isn't.. it's only saying that if you have aids then you've necessarily had sex.. you can still have a cat and not have fleas! it's only that you definitely don't if you don't have a cat.. like how you've definitely not contracted aids if you haven't had sex.. i dunno why i'm giving examples.. what's obvious is obvious.
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

My opponent brought up several points last round. First of all, my opponent accuses me of redefining words. However he is the one who is creating a definition that is self-defeating. He is trying to do this, if you say that omnipotence means able to do anything logical or not he will say you can’t do something illogical, if you say an omnipotent being can’t then he will say then they aren’t all powerful. It’s a really dishonest technique. The reason I brought up the God making a rock argument is that it is along the same lines. Another common one is “Can God make a married bachelor?” No? Can he be omnipotent then? Yes because a married bachelor is a contradiction in terms. This is the type of argument my opponent is using. Something that is a logical contradiction does not exist in any possible place. [1] You can’t present an argument that is logically incoherent and expect it to be taken seriously. If however an ultimate being could do things which are contradictory then any argument my opponent presents could be refuted simply by saying the negative would also be true since this being must be able to anything regardless of if it is logical or not. SO anything my opponent could say would be defeated on this way.[2] On the question of free will which was a central part of my opponent’s argument, free will is a debate for how humans interact. An all-powerful being would not be bound by such a concept. If you want to say that knowing what is going to happen means you can’t have free will then in that sense there wouldn’t be absolute free will on the Omniscient being however as with the argument above this is not a limitation. On the other side of it however is who determined those outcomes in the first place? So then perhaps the ultimate being did have free will to choose what outcomes would ultimately be. Ultimately however free will is a standard that applies to humans not something that is all powerful. [3] Thanks again to my opponent and I look forward to the next round of debates. 1 http://creation.com... 2 http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com... 3 http://carm.org... http://www.youtube.com...
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

(No I'm not going to bring up the "Can god create a rock god cannot lift" conundrum that has little relevance in this debate). The redefining of omnipotent is something that kind of gets my goat. Omnipotent means the ability to do anything. Omni=all Potent= great power. It means all powerful. All powerful is not limited to what is possible in fact it is not limited at all. Yes you are correct that if a being is all powerful then it must have to power to be omniscient in a way I am arguing that omnipotence is self contradictory but I did not frame the debate in this way. Until we actually agree on the definitions then the debate will be difficult.
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

Thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate. I will address my opponent's points. “If a being is omnipotent it can do anything (this itself opens up some issues) essentially it has ultimate power.” Yes, it can do anything that is logically possible to do. “If a being is omniscient then it knows everything that it possible to know, what will happen in the future and everything that happened in the past.” Exactly correct again. “This is where the problem comes up. If that omniscient being knows everything then it knows the actions it will perform in the future and is therefore not free to perform any actions that it is not predetermined to do and cannot do everything therefore it is not omnipotent.” I think my opponent is bringing up a problem of free will. Here’s the problem he oversimplifies it. Free will means a will free from something implying there is something greater to be bound to. I anticipate this leading toward a question similar to “Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?” Since the question has an illogical foundation you cannot expect it to have logical answer. Knowledge is power so an all-powerful being would have to be all knowing. If the being is not omniscient then they truly couldn’t be omnipotent. So not only is it possible for an omnipotent being to be omniscient, it is necessary if they are truly omnipotent.Thaks again and I look forward to the next round.
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

If a being is omnipotent it can do anything (this itself opens up some issues) essentially it has ultimate power. If a being is omniscient then it knows everything that it possible to know, what will happen in the future and everything that happened in the past. This is where the problem comes up. If that omniscient being knows everything then it knows the actions it will perform in the future and is therefore not free to perform any actions that it is not predetermined to do and cannot do everything therefore it is not omnipotent.
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

So I can more or less assume that since you yourself admit that my use of the word omnipotent would make my position correct No I said just the opposite, no matter what you say you couldn’t wiggle out of this one. Such as where I said this last round ” If however an ultimate being could do things which are contradictory then any argument my opponent presents could be refuted simply by saying the negative would also be true since this being must be able to anything regardless of if it is logical or not. SO anything my opponent could say would be defeated on this way” Therefore my opponent’s arguments are self defeating. Once you have something that can defy logic then any argument you use against it will fail. So my opponent by demanding God act contrary to logic is actually defeating his own argument. “yes definitions can be correct or incorrect. ” Of course this is definitely however if an omnipotent being cold defy logic than in his eyes he could make Alabama and Scotland be the same thing. My opponents arguments actually defeat his own case. I thank him for this debate.
A Being Cannot be Both Omnipotent and Omniscient

So my opponent is accusing me of changing the definition of Omnipotent. I would like to remind him that the definition I use was the definition used more or less universally used until someone realized that the definition caused more than a few problems for their deity of choice. The general definition of definition is "a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary." now the common dictionary definition of omnipotent is "(of a deity) having unlimited power.". So I can more or less assume that since you yourself admit that my use of the word omnipotent would make my position correct that you would also have to make that concession for the dictionary definition meaning it is my opponent who is changing definitions to suit himself. Also before you make the argument that no definition can be incorrect or correct yes definitions can be correct or incorrect. If I create a debate called "Scotland should vote for independence" and the person who accepts the debate decides that the definition of Scotland is Alabama then he is using the incorrect definition.
Education is currently, primarily focused on females' education in society

I Pro, will be arguing education is primarily being focused on females more so than males in today's society. Furthermore, I will be arguing male's education should be held at a higher importance than what it is currently. Con must argue education isn't primarily being focused on females, and it is rather fair the way it is today currently regarding the importance of education according to both genders. Perhaps, con may even want to argue females' education should be held at a higher importance than males. Either way these are the basics for this debate. 1st round: Acceptance only 2nd round: I (Pro) will present my case. Con will rebuttal my claims and perhaps present his/her own case that claims the opposite. 3rd round: I (Pro) will refute Con's claims and present more evidence that supports my belief. Con will give his/her closing arguments along with rebuttals.
Education is currently, primarily focused on females' education in society

hm...... pro, as your evidence is provided but such websites, searching a few websites making claims and statements, but is that society ? because if that the overall society then anything can be consider society. These are just simply websites that claim to have studies, and groups that are expressing their personal opinion,its a population of billions of people in the world, some not everyone is going to have the same views when it comes to education,but because we have a few popular websites that are stated based on women education does this mean as a whole that education primarily focused on females education ?? I Disagree P1: Look up a lot of education sites, there are many many websites that has nothing to do with it being primarily focused on female education such sites as academic earth, big think, bright storm, and so on i would go all day naming sites just strictly on education P2: Plenty of sites for black males and if you do not believe me just google it up and see how many sources of black male education sites it is , but what do this mean ? That society is mainly on black male education as a whole ? No it doesn't but there is a balance of male education and female education. P3: When we go to school as a kid as we learn about education and it comes to history what gender they try to make us glorify ?? Males and a small part of it talks about female education and the history of them, but its all mainly what the males has done in the past that made the united states what it has became today.Schools have female and male education they even have books for male and female its double standard. P4: There is all types of popular education that are not strictly just female education. P5: Due to males having so much power over females in the past and the males were so self centered when it comes to education work, mental, and physical ability of between a man and women and how women was look at in the past, are the reason why in some cases they have female education there is a lot of history within a women that is not taught to us. My conclusion All the way through after high school society is mainly focus on basic education when you hit college its optional The evidence you provided me are about female education but i do not think their are trying to make it the main focus i think they just want it to be apart of the education system so they wont feel left out and also have equality when it comes to education. That do not mean society is mainly focus on female education sorry about my grammar
The federal government should provide funds/subsidies to ensure that all poor children attend pre-Sc

The reasons that the government should provide funding so that every child (especially the poor) can attend pre-school and various education programs like it is because doing so would increase the educational attainment of these children, meaning they get better jobs and are more productive. A policy providing fund for pre-school essentially teaches boys to fish and allows the poor to pull themselves up by their out boot straps. It would also result in them being healthier due to education making people healthier. Also because these children would have better jobs they would need less social services and welfare. Overall pre-school creates more economic benefits then it costs to provide it. 1)There have been dozens of research studies analyzing the benefits of pre-school for poor children. A)A study done in Chicago found that two years of pre-school for poor children resulted in $5 dollars in economic benefits for every dollar spent. The benefits included lower crime rates, increased productivity and income, and lower health costs due to lower use of illegal drugs. http://www.eschoolnews.com...? B)A New York study found that pre-school created even more benefits 7 dollars for every dollar spent. It found that it made the kids chance of being on welfare 50% less, made them 23% more likely to be employed, and 50% less likely to be arrested. http://nieer.org... C)A study on head start which is a government pre-school program found 9 dollars in economic benefits for every dollar spent. http://news.prnewswire.com...= D)In North Carolina another pre-school program was analyzed it found 4 dollars in benefits for every dollar spent. While another study found pre-school created 6 dollars in benefits for every 1 spent. One study even found 12 dollars in benefits. There were 3 other studies that came to the same conclusion. http://www.publicpolicyforum.org... http://nieer.org... The reasons that pre-school creates so many benefits is because education is a very important thing. Another reasons is that at pre-school kids have access to a nurturing environment and they also have access to healthy food choices. The nurturing environment is a big part, proven by a study that shows that young children who live in a bad environment in their early years of life are forever irreversibly damaged. http://www.tnr.com... Conclusion: Government funded pre-school for poor children creates so many benefits that it pays for itself and then some several times over. Not only is this good for the economy but the programs would reduce crime, make people healthier and help poor people get out of poverty without the use of welfare. And that is why the government should fund pre-school.
The poor (in this case, poor means illiterate) should not vote.

I do believe it is annoying when politicians take advantage of those people, but it is the American right to vote no matter what your education is. What about someone who has a learning disability? Being illiterate doesn't mean you don't know what is going on in the world. As long as you are an American citizen, and of course the age requirements, you should be aloud to vote. You also have to think about the history of that person. Say that they had bad guidance as a child, and want to vote for a president or some kind of politician that wanted to do something about education? They shouldn't have the right? And what do you mean by no education? Where is the limit? IQ wise? What type of school you went to or no school at all? I don't think we have the right to say "your to dumb to vote". The founding fathers made us have the right to vote for American citizens, and having a poor education does not make you a non-citizen.
The poor (in this case, poor means illiterate) should not vote.

Hello! Im Arisha and Im new here! :)) So let's get to the arguments. Exactly why don't I want the poor (in this case, poor means uneducated and illiterate) to vote? Simply because it defeats the very essence of the voting process. It undermines the essence of why we vote. Why and for what, that is. I concede to the fact that the poor also has the right to vote because they are also part of the society and that they should have a say, but let's accept it: a misguided vote is worse than no vote at all.