BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Go Out of Business

I have researched McDonald's foods that contain TBHQ and all I found were chicken nuggets- feel free to prove me therwise with a valid source. If McDonald's tried to change, it would undoubtedly be a more healthy restaurant. However, people do not go to McDonald's because it is unhealthy and they want to feel bad about themselves, they go to McDonald's because it is the most sucessful and among the most cheap of fast food restaurants. Take Taco Bell and Taco Bueno as an example (I am going to bring in basic economics). Taco Bell is more popular than Taco Bueno not because it is better, but because it is cheaper. If we were to put this in term of Good A (Bell) and Good B (Bueno), economics state that A would be considered an inferior good- something people only purchase as a substitute for B because it is cheaper, regardless if it was better. You can say the same thing with store brands as opposed to name brands. The point of this, though, is to prove that people don't o to McDonald's because it is unhealthy, they go because it is cheap. Changing McDonald's won't change the prices and therefore won't run the fast food chain out of business.Also, that is your experience with eating McDonald's. I am not an unhealthy person, I rarely eat fast food anymore, but I never grew up accustomed to eating avocados. I tried one for the first time and I almost puked- I hated the texture, I hated the taste. These are just our personal experiences. I am not willing to outlaw avocados because they caused me to gag when I tried one.Basically, the only argument you made in this round is that McDonald's should be banned because they are not healthy and if they were to become healthy, they would run out of business anyway, which I think i have sufficiently debunked. So, there is no logical reason why McDonald's should be banned, maybe changed, but not banned. (But changed is not the debate)
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Go Out of Business

Chicken nuggets may have TBHQ, but so do the burgers. And I said that those snacks should have the TBHQ removed, but if McDonald's tried to change it would be a totally different restaurant. Sodium Phosphate causes a disease that rarely causes death. Not all food have the addictive chemical in it, so you may have not eaten that food. I had McDonald's for lunch today, and I felt sick. Why shouldn't the other fast foods restaurants be banned? Because most of them can be changed and still be the same. However, if McDonald's was changed to become more healthy, it would be a totally new restaurant. The packaged foods should have quite a bit less preservatives, making it healthier, and it can still last a whole. When you say natural sugar, do you mean fruit sugar? If so, natural sugars are a lot healthier and better for you, but still, to some degree, unhealthy.
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Go Out of Business

Do you realize that in order to make them work, all you had to do was refresh the page? You also realize that no one will care enough to match links up with your arguments, so no one will know what is true and what is not- future tip ;). I am in no control of whether or not my links work, but here they are again.http://dailyhealthpost.com...http://wakeupnews.weebly.com...http://www.goodguide.com...http://gluten.lovetoknow.com...;You just pointed out the fact that lots of McDonald's foods contain TTBHQ.A direct quote from my initial argument, there is only one menu item that is known to have TBHQ- their chicken nuggets[1]. So no, I did not point out that lots of their foods contain TBHQ, I proved that there was only one food item that contains it. I also proved that Little Debbie and Kellog's snacks also contain TBHQ, which you seem to have neglected as you did not answer why these snacks should not be banned under the same ruling.The FDA has heard reports of severe hydration after eating Sodium Phosphate.I am assuming you meant dehyradtion. You have not proved that it causes death or that the FDA found a case where it causes death, but only where they found severe dehydration. Many people are often dehydrated as it is anyway, so there is no reason why we should ban McDonalds because a simple few have had this problem. I've eaten McDonald's, so by your argument I have had sodium phosphate, and I guess by your argument, I am addicted to sodium phosphate. However, I haven't eaten McDonalds in months and I have never been addicted to it, which I am assuming is the same for many people.I already proved that Sodium Phosphate isn't detrimental, and I am becoming increasingly unconnected, so I will wrap this up quickly.You stated that because it is unhealthy, it should be banned. However, you neglect to see that fast food isn't healthy in any respect, so why only pinpoint McDonalds. If other fast food restaurants aren't banned,McDonalds shouldn't be either. Also, preservatives and chemicals are put in majority of packaged foods- if not, the shelf life would be less than a wekk like with freshly baked bread. Should we also put an end to these items as they have health detriments?Also, I am laughing that you think I think sugar is healthy. Natural sugars are healthy but an excessive amount obviously isn't. Everyone knows about diabetes dah dah dah dah dah
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Go Out of Business

Many McDonald's food contains tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ).While this is true, there is only one menu item that is known to have TBHQ- their chicken nuggets[1]. However, I feel that putting this on a stance for banning McDonalds is illogical as there are more foods that contain TBHQ such as Little Debbie, Red Barron Frozen Pizzas, Kellog's Pop Tarts and many of their other snacks, and more[2]. Why ban something affordable to the masses simply because it contains a toxin- a toxin that makes up next to none of the product as it is required to pass through the FDA to be served?Wondering what else McDonald's puts in their food? Here is a list:sodium phosphates;bleached wheat flour (nutrients removed);food starch-modified (likely genetically-modified);dextrose (sugar);partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cottonseed oil with mono-and diglycerides, (trans fats);Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil) (trans fats);TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, a petroleium dervived product;Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent (a form of silicone used in cosmetics, and Silly Putty).Sodium Phosphate has no health detriments[3].Modified Starch can be found in things like chips, candy, canned soup, etc [4]. Do you propose we also set a ban out for foods like these?Sugar? Really? Using sugar as a stance on banning McDonalds?I realize that these ingredients may seem bad, but there have been no deaths from someone consuming too much tbhq or sugar from McDonalds.Also, http://abcnews.go.com... another random link to show that McDonalds beef is not the only beef that contains "pink slime." There are rules and laws that allow restaurants and companies a certain percentage of the product to be some sort of meat or vegetable filler. I watched a documentary, the name escapes me but I will find it soon, where I learned that around half of salisbury steaks are required to be meat whiile the other percentage can be filler.You see, everyone is required to pass the FDA's rules in order to serve food. It just seems apparent that McDonalds is the highest violator because it is among the most famous fast-food chain restaurants in the world. If you suggest banning McDonalds, what do you expect for minimum wage families to do when they can't afford meals for their families?Sources: 1- http://dailyhealthpost.com...;2- http://wakeupnews.weebly.com...;3- http://www.goodguide.com...;4- http://gluten.lovetoknow.com...;
The Restaurant McDonald's Should Go Out of Business

Rules - For Me: Round 1: Rules/Argument Round 2: Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Argument Round 4: Argument Round 5: Rebuttals/Argument For Opponent: Round 1: Rebuttals Round 2: Rebuttals/Argument Round 3: Argument Round 4: Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals/Argument I believe the restaurant McDonald's should go out of business permanently. They put disgusting and terrible stuff in their food which can increase risk of diabetes, damage DNA, and much more damage! When you buy from McDonald's, you are deliberately paying to harm yourself and anyone else with you. Many of McDonald's food include tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ). This is a chemical preservative so deadly that only 5 GRAMS of it is fatal! And, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided that you can put a less amount of Trans Fat then what really is inside the food! McDonald's food has lots of Trans Fat. Wondering what else McDonald's puts in their food? Here is a list: sodium phosphates; bleached wheat flour (nutrients removed); food starch-modified (likely genetically-modified); dextrose (sugar); partially hydrogenated soybean oil and cottonseed oil with mono-and diglycerides, (trans fats); Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil) (trans fats); TBHQ, tertiary butylhydroquinone, a petroleium dervived product; Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent (a form of silicone used in cosmetics, and Silly Putty). You may think McDonald's food taste good, but next time you go there, pay attention to how their burgers look like they were sat on! What do you think about that? And, never pay attention to their commercials. They edit them so much to make their place look great! Who knew that McDonald's burgers are "washed" with ammonium hydroxide, a chemical used in fertilizers and cleaning products? Ammonium hydroxide is used in 70% of the meats worldwide, and is not listed because it is not considered an ingredient! McDonald's claims that there burgers are 100% pure beef, and they are lying! When they make burgers, about 75% of the beef is made up of other cow parts that aren't supposed to be in burgers (for example: cow #2)! Why do they do this? Because they pay less and get payed MORE! 15% of the burgers include liquid sugar, which leads to extreme obesity, monosodium glutamate, which can cause stomache aches, headaches, and sometimes fevers, and much more poison! McDonald's also puts chemicals in their food to make you HUNGRIER, so they can make MORE money! One reason they do this is because working at McDonald's is a low-paying job. Once, McDonald's even lied that their food was healthy on Huffington Post! What do you think about McDonald's now? Will you vote for me at the end? Sources: http://www.endalldisease.com...... http://www.care2.com...... http://www.mcspotlight.org...... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... http://www.theblaze.com......
The Religious of The Day

Helllooooooooooooo my friend, long time no see! I will begin by defending viewpoint 11 in particular: 'Those determine right from wrong based on their own personal views'. Makes sense to me, ethics and morals are based on perception and how one is raised. Enforcing it through fear based scripture is unhealthy for one's mind. As mentioned previously religion and narcissism go hand in hand. My gran goes temple every day, but is so very argumentative. Here's how this debates gonna go: 1:Everyone will be logical, you need to back up your statements with more resources other than the Bible,is biased. 2: No blows or personal digs, strictly business, you will defend Christianity, i will defend soul searching over religion. 3: No discrimination, keep it real, God is watching you.
The cosmological argument from contingency is sound

===Resolution and BOP===Pro will argue for the soundness of the cosmological argument from contingency, whereas Con will attempt to show why the argument is either invalid or not sound. The burden of proof will be on Pro to establish and defend a positive argument for the soundness of the argument while Con must only show why Pro's argument is false.===Definitions===God will be defined as a necessary being or agent, one that depends on nothing but itself for it's existence. An argument is valid when its premises logically necessitate it's conclusion. An argument is sound when it is valid and when all of its premises are true.The cosmological argument from contingency (CAC) is as follows:1: Every contingent fact has an explanation.2: There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts.3: Therefore, there is an explanation for this fact.4: This explanation must involve a necessary being.5: This explanation is God.[1]===Structure and rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation will begin in R2.===Sources===[1] http://books.google.com...Alexander Pruss. "The Lebnizian Cosmological Argument", The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.
The Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, as opposed to being several billion

I do not maintain that religion / Christianity are false at all, nor do I affirm that any one interpretation is absolutely true. I believe, as I stated in round 1, that the view that the bible states that the Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old is subject to interpretation, could very easily be a misinterpretation, or completely false. The opposing religious viewpoints I encounter to my claim maintain that it says in the Bible that the lord created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and that it also states in the Bible that a thousand years to mankind is a day unto the lord, therefore the heavens and the earth were created in a timespan of six thousand years. Additionally, this viewpoint goes on to claim that the said time frame of six thousand years occurred six thousand years prior to the bible being written, thus making the earth approximately ten thousand years old. I am in no way claiming that the heavens and the earth were not created by God, or even by gods for that matter. What I am claiming is that due to the uncertainty of the validity of the Bible and the numerous ways in which its content is interpreted, no one can claim for certain that they know exactly when the earth was created based on any scripture or scriptures within the Bible, even if God truly did create the heavens and the earth in a span of six thousand years. I therefore reiterate that the view that the bible states that the Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old is subject to interpretation, could very easily be a misinterpretation, or is completely false. Even if you throw the issue of carbon dating out the window, geological evidence alone provides a wealth of proof / evidence that the earth is more than several thousand years old, despite the occasional misinterpretation of scientific evidence due to constant environmental changes. A good example of proof the the earth is at least older than a few thousand years is the rate at which geological occurrences happen, such as the formation of new land mass from volcanic activity. It would be impossible for the earth to form to its current state at the observed rate of both past and present geological occurrences. Another good source of proof that the earth is at least older than several thousand years is the way layers of soil / rock / ice accumulate year after year, much like rings on a tree. These layers of natural media serve as a solid record / time line, in some cases going back eons. Not only does the physical evidence serve as proof, but the multitudes of scientific theories / principles which are both individually and mutually dependent on such evidence being fact serve to reaffirm the evidence / proof. There are many scientific wonders mankind has achieved, which if such fundamental scientific theories (such as our understanding of how the earth was formed) were incorrect, these wonders would've never taken place (e.g. the development of nuclear technology.)
The Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, as opposed to being several billion

Many people have criticized Christianity or Religion for being false despite their longevity. Similarly, this logic can be applied to the scientific methods of dating. Scientists take for granted that carbon-14 half lives are constant, geological evidence can quite often be flawed due to constant environmental changes and general uncertainty. Radioactivity of all sorts has been scientifically shown to throw off carbon-dating methods severely, and in the cases of small samples, this error is even more apparent. Most if not all evidence for old earth hinges on radioactive dating, and since there is controversy in this process, it may very well be a misconception that carries through to this very day, much like geocentrism. In that case, the earth may not be several billion years old. And it begins to throw the theory of evolution by way of natural selection into question.
The Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, as opposed to being several billion

The belief that the Earth / universe(s) is only several thousand years old, rather than being several billion years old as the scientific community suggests is an erroneous belief. Most of the opposing arguments against the position of the scientific community seem to be influenced by personal biblical interpretations that suggests the Earth / universe(s) is only a few thousand years old. I contend that: A) The view that the bible states that the Earth / universe(s) only several thousand years old is subject to interpretation, could very easily be a misinterpretation, or is completely false. B) There is an overwhelming amount of scientific proof / evidence that the Earth / universe(s) is several billion years old. PLEASE leave your emotions at the door. I am simply looking for a rational debate, and do not mean to attack anyone's personal religious beliefs.
Atheism Is Logical

A significant percentage of the religious people believe in messenger of god, someone who 'heard god' . So it is untrue that they believe in the concept of religion, which according to the pro is - 'no one has ever heard god'. Science tells us that certain things can only be done in certain way(s). A sportsman takes a certain diet to perform better. A regulated and disciplined man can achieve his full potential. If we fall for the desire of 'life we want to live' , how can we achieve the more desirable and meaningful goals of life that require patience and self restraint. A religion may act as a guide to the man in distress, it gives him hope. An animal does what he feels like, by the sheer animal instinct and see, they have yet to step on the moon. Also, many religions do not have any prophet(s), so he should opt for a statement that applies to all religions. In round 1 he has mentioned the word 'religion' not christianity. So, I see no point in defending a particular religion. I wonder if pro has no argument for why atheism is logical.
Atheism Is Logical

Thank you for accepting my challenge, I look forward to a legendary battle of wits ;). The concept of Religion is this- lets worship this god that no one has ever seen, heard, or felt. Lets listen to these men who claim they have heard god. These men say we can only do certain things and live a certain way, but these men are special they do not have to follow these rules.(Prophets being polygamist) How can this be logical. Religion prevents us from living life the way we want to. It was a system that men used to gain power and brainwash the dumb. Religion is stopping us from making scientific advances. It is sad that a majority of Americans believe Noah's Ark, Creationism, and the Parting of the Red Sea actually happened. This is proof that Religion is stopping the prevail of truth, knowledge, and logic.
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

I have explained many times that God can do anything and he has created his miracles in order to believe the fact that he is the Messiah. Rational? I don't even think that works in this debate. Rational or irrational, God doesn't give a damn. He does all things and if you don't believe me, Good for you. I understand that homosexuals have their rights but it didn't mean that he hates them. The first point, Let me define for you what is a debate and it is a social speaking place where people don't criticize each other. Easy speaking, You are very rude. The second point, Your decisions are very irrational. You and I both know that sin is bad but the bible spoke about that if you beg for forgiveness, You will be forgiven. "This supposed god could have started out with peace, Harmony, Care, Kindness, Love etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. Nah. This supposed god of YOURS is more concerned with evil, Anger, Wrath, Vengeance, Rage, Fury, Jealousy etc etc etc. Jealousy? " This is very irrational because God made the world as perfect as it could be and it was humans that caused sin. Do you think its Jesus's fault? Think again because I think you got the wrong information. It was our fault we created sin through Adam and Eve. God's heart will be breaking right now of how YOU believe that he was the one who created the suffering.
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

You see, This person( pro) hasn't been thinking deeply about Christianity. You said that Jesus was not perfect but that was only in the human world. Up in heaven, He is perfect and forgiving our sins. Putting these scenes into reality in these situations is just very irrational. I am a Christian myself and I have seen people go against Christianity. God creates miracles that nobody has ever seen. How do you think the bible was made? Do you think a priest would have written it? Just because these miracles sound like nonsense doesn't mean that Jesus is not the Messiah. Jesus saved us from the demon and he did it to save humans. Atheists are thinking this into reality. How do you think we survived. We are nothing compared to God and all the things he said was for a reason. So if you don't think that's true, You can continue to not believe God but people who are still learning Christianity should know one thing. People shouldn't judge God
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

Children that suffered is nothing compared to what Jesus felt. One day, He was being cheered by people and being praised, Next day he's on the cross. God that does this for a reason. If you feel that, F**k it. I don't f**kin care on what you are trying to prove because I never tried to prove that does facts you tried to prove are good. Oh! So you're giving me bible verses prove that you are right. Hell is bad and I agree with that but why did you even mention that! This is so s**t. People are making fake gods that aren't real. Who made the world, Who forgave our sins every day, How can you compare on how much burden God has and he wants us to survive, So it's just s**t that your f**king saying that people who don't believe in Christ will be damned. God loved us so much THAT he gave his ONLY SON for it to save us. Eventually, That was how much he wanted us to survive. God knows that in order to be his disciple you have to be humble.
The bible is false because jesus is false thus jesus was not the messiah

ALL OF THE COMMENTS are the argument. Good god are you THAT ignorant to not know that? Oh I do understand the perspective of a christian because there's no such a thing as being a christian as proved. And it might be just a little bit nice, Just a little bit, If you could actually prove what you say rather than having nothing to go on, Nothing. Have eternal life? With what? A fraudulent figure that ordered you to get rid of ALL of your possessions, You haven't. Divide your families, You haven't been THAT stupid. Believes that suffering is a GOOD thing. Yeah eternal life with THAT? YOU and other complete imbeciles can have it. Any more moronic things blabbering from your maw?