BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should junk food be allowed a school

I strongly negate the following resolution: Should junk food be allowed a school?My opponent has given no definitions, so I have provided the following:School - an institution for the teaching of children[1]Junk food - food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content[2]ArgumentAs per my definition, schools are educational facilities reserved only for sentient, thinking, breathing, human beings. Specifically, the children type of human beings. It makes absolutely no sense to allow junk food their very own school. Junk food is not sentient and thus incapable of learning anything. Erecting a school solely for junk food is absolutely ridiculous. It is a waste of time and money. If my opponent truly feels this change to the status quo is necessary, they must justify their reasoning with logic and evidence. My opponent has done neither of these things. Now, onto my opponents arguments. " it can help kids that have diabites and can it them for more energy."This is a valid point, but my opponent has failed to explain why it would be necessary for children to have MORE energy. They have enough already if you ask me. So in summation, my opponent has failed to meet their burden of proof to prove that junk food should be allowed it's very own school. I see no other vote but con!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Just because you call it 'marriage' doesn't make it actually marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman, so gay marriage would actually, legally, not be marriage. It would even deny the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Gay marriage always denies children a father or mother. "It is in the child's best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother." Gay marriage actually created a naturally sterile union, instead of a family like how marriage between a man and woman should actually be. Gay marriage defeats the State's Purpose of Marriage. "The State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State." So gay 'marriage' doesn't provide the conditions. The primary purpose is the gratification personally of two people whose union is sterile by nature. For those who don't know, sterile means to not be able to produce children or young. By letting gay marriage be legal, the Stat becomes the official and active promoter. It calls on public officials to officiate at a new ceremony, and even orders public schools to teach the acceptability to children, and also "punishes any state employee who expresses disapproval." Objecting parents would see their children exposed to more things about this new 'morality', because of businesses offering wedding services forcing them to provide them for gay or lesbian unions, and rental property owners would have to agree to accept gay or lesbian couples as tenants. "In the 1960s, society was pressured to accept all kinds of immoral sexual relationships between men and women. Today we are seeing a new sexual revolution where society is being asked to accept sodomy and same-sex "marriage."" "The gay movement, whether we acknowledge it or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even a sexual liberation movement, but a moral revolution aimed at changing people's view of homosexuality." Sources: www.dictionary.com/browse/sterile https://www.researchgate.net... http://family.findlaw.com... https://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

First, I would like to point out that you are comparing homosexuality to bestiality and incest. This is a ridiculous comparison, as liking someone of the same gender is not like loving your mother or your pet cat. And if that is the case, then heterosexuality can be compared to these sexual tendencies as well. After all, homosexuality in animals has been sighted many times, meaning it IS natural. Also, many of your statements refer to Christianity, and in my opinion it isn't factual enough to display as an argument. After all, we do not know how the world begun. It would be absurd to say that homosexuality is disgusting because god made us as heterosexuals, as we don`t have any evidence. Back to my first statement, homosexuality has been sighted in many animals, including dogs, rams and other common creatures. They naturally are happy to mate with any sex, so a male cat would happily mate with another male cat. This is a factual piece of evidence that can explain how humans may have developed the trait to be sexually attracted to the same sex, as this behavior is shown in apes including our ancestor the chimpanzee.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

'Why would you want to get in the way of people loving each other marrying each other? Anybody who wants to be able to get married to anybody else should be able to.' These are the words of Ben Affleck, and in my opinion they are some of the most truthful words I have read. Why would you hate on gays? They are just normal people who happen to be attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite. If two heterosexual people wished to be married, would you stop them? Then why would you stop two men or two women being married? It isn't their fault that they are homosexual. They just want to marry the person they love. But you think that they shouldn't marry, that they should just never properly connect and that their love is 'unnatural'. However, I am sure that you would happily attend a wedding with a bride and a groom. Do you realize how hypocritical that is? So, lets set the scene. Assuming you are female, you meet a handsome young man who you instantly fall for. You begin chatting, and soon after a few months you fall in love and want to marry. You live happily ever after with your new husband. Now, lets say that instead of a man, you fell for a pretty woman. Instead of marrying, though, you are frowned upon by peers and not allowed to marry. People regularly call you and the woman disgusting and think you are sinners. The pressure is so much that you forget each other. Sound terrible? That is basically what you are wishing for.
The proof for bornofgod's theory

My opponent claimed in this round he accepted the debate to give me an understanding of what our creator has given him as witness. However it clearly states in the description of the debateRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Proof of the evidence. Publication list, equations,experiments etc, in brief of course.Round 3: Me either admitting he is right or delusional. Then bornofgod and the audience agreeing/disagreeing with my conclusions.My opponent has failed in everything and as such I think it is fair to say he is delusional.Additionally, he claims I don't understand science "You can give me all the equations from scientists and mathematicians you want but I know that you will be copying and pasting something you have no idea about". However in my one rebuttal to his openeing rant i said "yet in the next section you want to prove that Satan (or entropy) causes fear. By the way entropy is also a form of energy so that means that Satan is also vibrations and is god?" and this was never addressed, so I think he has no understanding.I leave it up to the audience to agree or disagree if they believe he is delusional.Personally, I think it is a pretty easy decision.
The proof for bornofgod's theory

To my opponent I would like to remind you that you agreed to the following when you took the challenge presented.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Proof of the evidence. Publication list, equations,experiments etc, in brief of course.Round 3: Me either admitting he is right or delusional. Then bornofgod and the audience agreeing/disagreeing with my conclusions.The first round was meant to just be acceptance, yet you went on a rather lengthily rant about energy and vibrations. However, at the moment you have not shown any evidence at all regarding your energy is god proof. Yet in the next section you want to prove that Satan (or entropy) causes fear. By the way entropy is also a form of energy so that means that Satan is also vibrations and is god?Additionally, I think you are missing a very important part of understood and well established quantum mechanics. That is the particle wave duality, you cannot say everything is waves and get rid of the particle problem without extensive evidence to back it up.Please supply your publication list and equations and experiments as you said you would by accepting this debate.Thanks, and now over to my opponent.
The proof for bornofgod's theory

Bornofgod has claimed he has proof for the existence of god in respect with wavelengths of energy."I'm the only saint to get the knowledge to know that we're only God's thoughts stored as wavelengths of energy. Scientists are getting closer to knowing who we are but do you think they're willing to admit that we're information spoken into existence by a Creator?"and "I could go on and on about energy but hopefully you can see that I have information that is not understood yet by scientists."As such I challenge him to a three round debate.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Proof of the evidence. Publication list, equations,experiments etc, in brief of course.Round 3: Me either admitting he is right or delusional. Then bornofgod and the audience agreeing/disagreeing with my conclusions.
Having a president is not really necessary

"Many of his/her decisions are driven by politics, money or influence." And? What else should executive policy decisions be based on? Number of likes on facebook? "Conversations and negotiations with foreign nations can be accomplished by ambassadors and emissaries reporting back to a committee or collective body in government." Ambassadors and most heads of executive departments (Homeland Secretary, State, Defense, Federal Reserve, Justice Department) are all appointed by the President. US ambassadors also report directly to the President and serve as diplomats and negotiators to his foreign policy (not the Secretary of State). In order to replace the President you would still need some sort of decision-making manger to formulate plans and manage officials for all the different departments of government – who in many ways, will still be forced to act like a President. "With the influence of money and power the position can be just as destructive and authoritarian as any king or dictator can be and can do it in far more subtle ways." No. Unlike a monarch or dictator, the President is representative of all the people through democratically free elections, is bound to obey a constitution, and can only serve for a maximum of two 4-year terms. Presidential powers are also limited through three branches of government (Checks & Balances) who control the legislative and judicial parts of government. Also keep in mind that the Office of President of the United States was originally set up by the founding fathers to replace the need for a king and absolute ruler in the first place. "Money and political clout gives citizens very limited choices for president. Without millions of dollars in the bank or without a serious backing by a political party a common citizen rarely can have a chance at serving in an elected office." In the United States, any person of appropriate age and place of birth is legally able to run for Office of President of the United States. This includes women and minorities. Women and minorities are not legally eligible to run for office in Saudi Arabia. And in many other countries (like Russia & China) they would still face cultural discrimination. "I'm not saying that the president or the office can't do good things for the country, but with some adjustments I don't really believe that a president is a necessity." Even in a tiny Athenian style direct democracy, the Athenians were still obligated to appoint stategoi (military generals, central chairpersons) to conduct military affairs and execute the laws. In a country as big, vast, diverse, and complex as the United States, it is altogether more important and vital for the government to have a strong executive leader, which is accomplished through the Office of President of the United States.
Having a president is not really necessary

In my opinion I say not necessary and here is why: 1. Many of his/her decisions are driven by politics, money or influence. 2. Conversations and negotiations with foreign nations can be accomplished by ambassadors and emissaries reporting back to a committee or collective body in government. 3. With the influence of money and power the position can be just as destructive and authoritarian as any king or dictator can be and can do it in far more subtle ways. 4. Money and political clout gives citizens very limited choices for president. Without millions of dollars in the bank or without a serious backing by a political party a common citizen rarely can have a chance at serving in an elected office. I'm not saying that the president or the office can't do good things for the country, but with some adjustments I don't really believe that a president is a necessity.
'Adoption of the Populist Party's ideals would/is beneficial for the United States of America."

I will now be going over the Populist party's platform as created in 1896 (. http://projects.vassar.edu...) piece by piece and explain how it is either needed now or how it has benfitted this nation. Money As stated in principle number one, states that the US should adopt a uniform currency that is legal tender for all debts and payments. As you see in this link here, . http://www.oanda.com..., the US dollar, though not the world's most valable, is still rank as one of the most valable currencies. You see the reason that this was a large issue back then is that the 'Greenbacks' were starting to fail and the poor had only the 'Greenbacks' while the Big Buisness wanted to switch to the Gold standard. . http://ecclesia.org... They also demanded the Progressive Tax as in the Income Tax. They stated this to show that the poor could not take the burden for taxes as the farmers, who only got paid once a year, were having a hard time. The rich, however had plenty of money to spare and this would keep the same profit for the government, but the poor would not be burderned. . http://blogs.reuters.com... Transportation/ Buisness Regulations. Much of the people in the Midwest were having their money robbed from them by railroad companies. The railroads would do crazy things, like rate wars, charging more for a short hall then a long hall, and would charge industries less and farmers more. The Populists demanded that the government takes control of the Transportation Industry so that the Railroads would not get out of control. The Populists movement caused the Interstate Commerse Act to be passed, though it really did not solve their problems. . http://www.ourdocuments.gov...;You might ask yourself is, why is this even relivant today? Rate Wars still happen, look at what the major gas buisnesses did after Katrina. They raised prised rediquiously and many people suffered. . http://www.nbcnews.com... shows why the Populist Party regulations are still required. Direct LegislationThe Populists demanded that Senators and many office members were elected by the people. You may ask why is this important, but you see here that in the 1800s the Senators were choosen by the State Legislature, not the people. . http://www.cliffsnotes.com... 2000, we saw the Presidential election between Bush and Gore occur with Bush winning electorial and Gore winning popular. The Populist wanted the elections to be decided on the Popular vote not the electorial. They demanded pensions for disabled US troops. You see here is that many Americans looked down on troops after many war, like Vietnam (modern day refference), treated terribly. Back then the troops would be dumped on the streats left to fend for themselves. So the Populists were looking after their fellow heros. They also demanded homerule for territories. The reason that this is important is that the US government would send representatives to rule the territories instead of the people living their be in charge. For example, Taft was governor of the Phillipeans.
'Adoption of the Populist Party's ideals would/is beneficial for the United States of America."

For more information see the fallowing link. . http://www.debate.org...resolution is that of which is posted above, but before we head to the debate let me lay down some simple rules. RulesRound 1 is for acceptance and definitions. Round 2-4 are for the debating. No new arguements shall be brought up in round 4. No swearing shall be allowed. No trolling. Now on to the definitions. Populist Party-U. S. political party that represented the farmers and laborers. Also called People's Party. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...+(United+States) Beneficial- producing a favorable results . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;
Lelouch vi Britannia would win against Eren Jaeger in a fight.

==Lelouch's Intelligence== -Mount Fuji: - Not how he kills his men and the enemies. Something a competent general would never do. - Mt. Fuji is quite active recently, and sits on three tectonic plates. https://worldvolcanoes.wikispaces.com...+(22) -The damage done by an eruption of Fuji would have killed him... and every civilian below the mountain's path is sure to have been killed. -The force required to cause an explosion of Fuji would have to be at least of earthquake level. Lelouch would have had to activate a detonation with the force of a nuclear bomb. Said bombs have the nasty habit of giving of EMP conditons http://fas.org.... -He should have crippled his entire Army and the enemies. == Lelouch as Emperor== -If you want to pull this card, he has most of the world gunning for him at this point. -If needed, it would not be hard to get a few of his enemies together to organize an attack against him. I,E, what Lelouch did to Britannia. -If said thing were to happen, the E.U. would surely be able to craft another Damocles and stockpile warheads. -With motivation, Australia could even be swayed (a neutral country). -If using this time period, Lelouch has nothing beyond his Nightmare and Britannia's military. -With the Nightmares of the Black knights, Australia, and the E.U., Lelouch would have quite the fight on his hands. -Rolo is also dead ==Lelouch vs. Eren== -If turned into an Army vs. Army fight, the Colossal Titan, Female Titan and the Armoured Titan would also come into play. They would most certainly attack the larger human stronghold, as their goal is to wipe out humanity. -If the fight happened home turf, the Wall Military would simply have to evacuate to the massive underground section of the city. Due to the knightmare's sizes, they would be subjected to the same weakness a Titan would face. -Given the facts of this battle, it can be assumed Lelouch know's Eren's abilities. I would expect the same vise versa. -Rallied against Lelouch, the Black Knights (Know about Geass) would merely have to opt to share information with their allies. -Due to Lelouch's tendency to lead key battles himself, he would likely try to attack them on their home turf. The E.U.'s more diverse and agile Knightmares (http://codegeass.wikia.com...) would make short work of Lelouch in closed spaces. -Lelouch's forces would also have to deal with an unknown enemy. The Titans. While the Wall Military's allies can brief them on the Knightmares, no one aside from the Wall and it's allies would know about the Titans and their variants.
Lelouch vi Britannia would win against Eren Jaeger in a fight.

=="Geass Counter"== Mao did not use sunglasses as glass does not stop the Geass power, as Lelouch explained in the video I provided, Mao turned his headset so the top was covering his eyes. You can see that clearly in this picture. http://www.pureanimegallery.com... Also, Eren does not normally wear sunglasses, so it would not be expected for him to have any. Another point is that Eren's Titan form is him controlling a Titan that has a will of its own (as you can see when he first transforms to move the large rock and goes berserk). Lelouch might not be able to use his Geass on Eren, but he can on the Titan. =="Personality Counter"== Lelouch does care deeply for his sister, but can it be expected that Eren could find this out? Also, at the end of R2 Lelouch prioritized the Zero Requiem over his sister, showing that he does have the ability to put his sister second. Also, Lelouch's strategies were not very weak when you consider him fighting his brother Schneizel or when he was taking over the world every step of the way. You are now also making this an Army vs Army battle, in which I then have access to the Guren S.E.I.T.E.N. (http://codegeass.wikia.com...) which alone would desimate the entire army you would have access to (http://youtu.be...). =="His Pistol"== It is only nullified while Eren is in Titan form, but if he is a human he is exposed. =="Arguments"== -Towards the end of R2 he was hardly ever at school, and even when he was he had Rolo as protection. Rolo's Geass would allow him to assassinate every single one of your soldiers () as Rolo's Geass allows him to change the perception of time, meaning that to you time is stopped. -Brittania's philosophy of the strong survive and the weak die would make it extremely unlikely that they would help Eren in this situation, especially when Brittania's king has no interest in wars. -If Eren would end up in close quarters he would almost certainly be put under Geass, stopped by C.C., stopped by Kalen, or (if this is Lelouch as Emperor, negating the Brittania as an enemy point and just exchanging the Guren for the Lancelot Albion [http://codegeass.wikia.com...] which is shown right after in the video) Suzaku would protect him. Suzaku is a trained soldier, very fit, and the Geass put on him with the order to live makes him a devastating opponent. -Eren would not have time enough to bash on the shields as Eren cannot fly. Lelouch would easily be able to fly up and get out of range of Eren and use his Hadron Canon or his Diffusion Structure Phase Transition Cannon. -Even though Eren can regenerate he is not immortal. As a Titan they simply need to attack the back of the neck and as a human they simply need to kill him. Using the Hadron Canon against the Titan would easily do this. -Eren might have access to an army that deals with many enemies, but they are all exposed. Eren is the only one with a Titan form. The Guren (or Lancelot) at the 9th generation could kill every single soldier in Eren's army without any problem.