BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

I would like to start by saying I agree with everything my opponent's said and... *reads comments* Nevermind. OK lets really begin. Definitions (1) Fast food: of, relating to, or specializing in food that can be prepared and served quickly. In this debate I will refer to fast food as the way most people see it. McDonalds, BK, Wendy's, etc. Chain: a group of enterprises or institutions of the same kind or function usually under a single ownership, management, or control Primarily: For the most part, chiefly Responsible: liable to be called to account as the primary cause Obesity: a condition characterized by the excessive accumulation and storage of fat in the body Point 1: Options A. Fast food consumption is purely up to the choice of the consumer. The switchblade is not convicted of murder, the person who used it to kill somebody is. In the same respect, the food must not be considered responsible for obesity, the person must be. Nobody is forcing people to eat unhealthy food. They are making that choice on their own free will. Therefore, since fast food is inherently noncoercive, it must not be considered responsible for obesity. If people eat McDonald's every day, they and they alone are responsible for their health concerns. B. Fast food chains offer healthy alternatives to traditional burgers and fries. McDonald's offers salads (2), Wendy's offers salads and potatoes (3, 4), and numerous places have grilled chicken. If people really want to eat at McDonald's so much, then they can still go there and eat healthy. If they do not make the choice to have hearty foods and go with the double quarter pounder, the McTriple, or Double Big Mac (TM), then it is Rosie O'Donnel's own fault that she gains weight. Point 2: Unhealthy food consumption can be counteracted. The average person should eat 2000 calories a day. But even if you go over that, all one has to do is go for a jog, walk the dog, or do anything else that requires extra calories to burn it off. If obese people make the decision to eat a bunch of unhealthy fast food they can make the choice to get on a treadmill and help themselves. If they don't do so, how can you blame fast food chains for that? People have the right to eat what they want. Fast food chains dont coerce customers into going there. So any negative consequences resulting from eating at fast food restaurants is not the responsibility of the restaurant, its the person. Its for these reasons I urge a con vote. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.mcdonalds.com... 3. http://www.wendys.com... 4. http://www.wendys.com...
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

I would like to state unlike a debate I'm currently in I will take this debate seriously. I would also like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Definitions These are the definitions I will use: Primarily- for the most part : chiefly [1] Responsible- liable to be called on to answer; liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent; being the cause or explanation [2] Fast-Food- of, relating to, or specializing in food that can be prepared and served quickly [3] [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]http://www.merriam-webster.com... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fast food companies are not primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there. According to the Merriam-Webster definition primarily means "for the most part." The majority of the responsibility is on the consumer's shoulders. They have the option on whether or not to buy the product, even with the fact that it is highly caloric known widely through out the population. Diet is not the only producer to obesity, The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute explains weight gain as a "lack of energy balance" this means the energy in (from food for debate purposes fast food) is greater than energy out (energy burnt over the course of the day includes exercise). If you eat fast food you won't gain weight if you exercise. [4] Lawsuits against fast food companies have also been thrown out due to the fact that the judge believed that we should know the fact that overindulgence is not good for your health. [5] Not all fast food is fatty. The definition being used is "of, relating to, or specializing in food that can be prepared and served quickly" Example that fit this definition are, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, pizzerias, and delis. Let me explain why pizzerias, and delis are considered fast food. First off it takes a short time to make the sandwiches or heat up the slice of pizza. Delis are just like Subway except you don't make the sandwich as you go, you tell your server and then they deliver it to you. Pizzerias are just like McDonalds and Burger King. The food is pre-made for you all you do is order and they heat it up for you. Big name Fast Food companies like McDonalds, and Wendy's all have healthier substitutions to french fries. Each of these companies give you the choice between the healthier option or the unhealthy option for the same price. [6][7] Also these and other companies make the nutrition information available to you. Therefore, the consumer is aware of the nutrition information and will know that this option isn't the healthiest [8][9][10] [4]http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov... [5]http://findarticles.com... [6]http://www.mcdonalds.com... [7]http://www.wendys.com... [8]http://www.wendys.com... [9]http://www.mcdonalds.com... [10]http://www.subway.com...
Fast food chains are primarily responsible for obesity caused by eating there.

First I would like to clarify. Due to topic character limitations I was not able to word the resolution the exact way I wanted. However, the resoluton and its meaning are basically what it looks like, except the second part should be "obesity mainly caused by eating there". Probably wont make much a difference though, I most likely wont make some weird argument based off the wording. I'll let my opponent go first, and I thank them for accepting. So that both teams get 3 true rounds each, this will be 4 rounds since this is one isnt an argument. My opponent may present their arguments immediately, but I ask my opponent to forfeit their 4th round so we get 3 rebuttals each.
Gay Marriage

Quoting the Bible a bunch of times isn't that convincing. The fact that the only reason you have is "because the Bible says so.." is in my opinion a weak reasoning. The Bible was written many, MANY years ago. Times have changed. As a society we have become more accepting (well most of us). To compare homosexuality to bestiality is a very disgusting statement (though you are entitled to your (stupid) opinion). With all due respect, I do not believe in a God. But I do have a religion, and that religion I chose is called "KINDNESS". While I am not sure if I will win this debate, I have learned something. I have learned that I am more accepting, understanding, and open-minded than you Follower. Oh, and homosexuality is not a "disease" or a "choice" people are born that way. Just imagine (just please try) if you were gay and you wanted to get married but you couldn't. I know that through your thick bigoted head it's hard to imagine but just try. It's like how you and I can't help it that we like girls or how people that are autistic can't help that they have autism. THEY CAN'T HELP IT. And by the way, quit using "God" as an excuse for disliking homosexuality. That is one of the dumbest reasons you could possibly give. This is the year 2016, get used to living in it and start to maybe actually support people who are struggling with their sexual identity. You and all of the other bible thumpers sure do not make it any easier for them to come out. And since your only reasoning is because of religion (hence your user name and the millions of useless Bible quotes you referenced), remember: SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Religion (church) stays out of Supreme Court rulings (state). As if you're only reasoning was bad enough, you now have no good reason to now oppose gay marriage.
Gay Marriage

There are many different pros to gay marriage. Gay marriage can increase the number of children successfully adopted, and it will diminish teen suicide. Every day people are scared to come out because they are afraid of being judged but if society were more accepting, we could make it easier for them. Now for those of you concerned with RELIGIOUS REASONS, listen up. There is a separation of church and state. Religious perspective should have no place in federal or legal matters in the US. And for people offended by gay marriage, tell me how exactly is gay marriage affecting you. Gay marriage has had no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities. Let's also remember that this is an issue of EQUAL RIGHTS. Denying marriage to two individuals who love each other is to deny them a fundamental freedom. There is no reason to deny gay marriage other than religion (still not a good reason though), but as I have already said - church stays out of state (separation of church and state).
socialism

1 I'll explain yet again socialism is communism. Communism is the perfected state of communism acording to Marx. 2nd Capitolism is when the buisness controlls society and the economy, that's how we got the stock exchange and the con states the stock exchange caused the depression. THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYIN! 3 Con repeatively discounts Locke, but we wrote our constition off Locke's idea's from the Enlightenment.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

But they are trying to get to the same goal. There just going about it in different ways, religion by studying and learning from the divine, science bye studying the earth and universe and things that you cant touch and see and philosophy by studying ideas and thought. Why do they need to run alone? If something is really true then science, religion and philosophy should all mach up to prove it, and help sustain each other. You say that religion is a set of beliefs, and science is fact. But I say my beliefs are fact, if I didn't think it was fact I wouldn't believe it. Also philosophy is based on fact, if it wasn't it wouldn't mater. All these deal in facts and exploring more facts to find the origin of life and morality, and since there can only be one original sores who is God. They should all work together to understand and fallow God. You also say that philosophy precedes science and religion, I say that without religion there can be no philosophy. They all must have each other. Even though in this world, just like man himself, they will never get along.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

You define religion as the pursuit to find the one true religion. And you define philosophy as the pursuit to find what is true. What's the difference there? There has to be one in order for this to be a legitimate debate. Rather, as I already stated, philosophy precedes both science and religion. It is the search for what is true. You say i misunderstand what you meant for religion. This may be. But even under your definition of the search for the true religion, there are many ends to that. I too am "on God's side." But for those who believe something different from me, they believe that they have found the one true religion. This means that there still are conflicting religions under the banner of religion. Therefore they cannot point to the same truth. You give the analogy of three runners who are going in different ways, but need to be helping each other. The first part of this is a great analogy for what we are talking about. The only problem is that if they are going in different directions, they cannot help each other. Either they are all going towards the same end, which i've proven is impossible, or they aren't. Since they aren't, they cannot point to a common and real truth. You say that science should back up religion. I believe that too. But what each individual item is, is not the same thing. One has to do with a set of beliefs while the other has to do with fact. Since they are dealing with two different things, then how can they point to the same end. They do intersperse a little, but not enough to have the same end. It would be like three runners running towards different goals whose paths cross every once in a while. They may be able to help a little, but still are not going to the same goal.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

I think that religion science Philosophy art and all other important studies and exploration to point to a real truth that should be enjoyed by everyone. A lot of people say that religion is fine art is fine science is fine but they don't normally agree and you shouldn't mix them and even more extreme people will speculate that what is true for you is not true for me and that truth its self is relative. If this is so then what is to come of us? If we simply create or own truth then why is the world not perfect, for us at least? And if there is not one real truth then there is no right and no wrong, no God and no salvation in any way you may need it. No point no Love peace and no freedom. The world is simply at the mercy of millions of insane creatures that make up the human race. And in fact by saying that science religion philosophy and so on do not agree all of them being elements in mankind if they all point to different answers then only one can be right, but what about the thoughts and ideas of the ones that are said to be wrong? Aren't they just as credible? Doesn't there need to be a real true answer? Doesn't it all haft to point toward something? And even though it will never happen on this earth, shouldn't we let all of this and more come together to explore that truth, and teach it to other people? Why do we insist on questioning truth instead of looking for it? truth is true, when you are hurt you scream when you are shot you often die when you are loved you feel lite and when you are left you cry when the ground shakes you fall when a child is upset you want to comfort him and when there's pain you feel every inch of it the way it really is whether you like it or not, and when you look at the stars every kid wonders what is beyond the ever looming abyss.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

I have proven that religion science and philosophy should be seperated. Since you aren't talking about a single religion, well you are but you shouldn't be, then all religions, which is religion in general, all of science and all of philosophy cannot be united. It is impossible. And I also have proven how they cannot all point to a common and real truth. One religion may be backed up by science and philosophy. that's great. But religion itself, not talking specifics, is not backed up by science and philosophy. Since it isn't, then it can't point to the same truth as the other two. That means that I have proven both sides of the resolution to be false. first that they should be seperate, and that they don't point to a common and real truth. Also, you are supposed to prove that they shouldn't be seperated, which you haven't because you haven't answered my arguments, and you haven't proven how they point to the same truth. Therefore you don't win.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

I m not saying which religion what kind of religion I'm just saying a religion is right. Obviously I didn't mean all religions are right that would be imposable. I'm just saying a religion is correct I'm not even going to argue on which one. Whatever religion you use should fit in with sciences and philosophy or it's probably not a very good religion. The point is regardless of what religion you believe in it shouldn't be separated from sciences and philosophy and vice versa. "The resolution has two parts, first and foremost, that Religion, Science, and Philosophy should not be separated. I must prove they should." You have not. "And secondly, that they all point to a common and real truth. I must prove they don't." and you have not done ether of those things. (I rest my case)
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

What you are saying about one religion is true. but that isn't what we are debating. The resolution says "Religion" Not one religion. If it did, then this debate would be completely different. Since it says religion, we must debate that religion, science and philosophy should not be seperated. So since religion can't point to the same truth as the others, you can't win.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

I'm not saying all religion is true, that's not what I'm trying to prove. I'm saying that "one" is true. Somebody ells mite say that there religion is true and I would say they are wrong. And "one" of us is right and the other is wrong, but there has to be "one" right religion, and science and philosophy should be able to back that religion up. I'm not trying to tell you what religion is right but that "a" religion is right, and that religion is looking for the same God as science and philosophy. And yes they are all looking for "God", there looking for answers and God has those answers. Science should stop insisting on there own religion (evolution) and start holding religions and philosophies up to the scientific light bulb. And philosophy needs to hold science and religion up to the philosophical light bulb to find the true religion, the true philosophy and the true science. The truth will stand and in all of it you need to have faith in the things you know to be real, like your existence, the existence Love and good and evil, right and wrong and the fact that creations need a creator. These things are the laws that we "know" to be true and even faith in God to reveal himself even if your not sure who he is or if he is at the moment. Even if some people say different, that's what I believe and I think it would be an impossible world to live in without them. But that's not really the issue, the question is "should science philosophy and religion be separated?" I say NO they work together and all come from the same sores which is God! Do you see what I mean? Its all really fantastic.
Religion Science and Philosophy should not be separated, they all point to a common and real truth.

But once again, you are focusing on your religion. There are many different religions. You can't just focus on one and say it works. you have to look at exactly what religion is. And that is every religion. Every religion cannot point to the same truth. it just isn't possible. Since it isn't even possible for one of the three to point to the same truth as itself, how can they all three point to the same truth. You say that you believe your religion is truth. So does someone else who doesn't believe the same thing as you. How can you both be right? it isn't possible.
Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.

My opponent brings up a point that Brown was shot long after the robbery, but the robbery happened at 11:51AM and the shooting of Brown occurred at 12:01 PM. That's a total of 10 minutes later which isn't long at all. (http://www.usatoday.com...)He attacked officer Darren Wilson so he shot him in defense. He even obtained a broken eye bone from the attack by Brown. (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) From the chart bellow you can see that Michael Brown was not shot from behind as his eyewitness claimed. This chart is released from the US District Attorney.
Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.

Yes, but like I said he got shot long after the robbery. He was shot that evening, the robbery was that afternoon, so he wasn't anywhere near the convenience store when it happened. If he was innocent, why would the cop shoot shoot him? I'm sure the people of Missouri aren't very racist, so it makes no sense. Besides, racist slurs don't usually consist of shooting, just cussing them out or calling them racist names. If this is an act of racism, then it's a rare occurrence as far as we know.
Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.

The event started when a police dispatch was sent out over the regards of a robbery of a convince store. Here's the link on the robbery by Michael Brown. (http://fox2now.com...) The police office then came across Brown, who attacked him. Wilson walked away with a broken eye bone. (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) The police officer then fired 6 shots; 4 hit Brown in the arm while the other 2 struck, and killed him, in the skull. On the 10th, news is released about Brown and Ferguson begins to riot as they attack more than 30 stores across the town and several are arrested. The next day school is cancelled and police used tear gas to break up violent protests. To fuel the thoughts of alleged racism it was released on the 13th, that Brown had no previous criminal record while later that night violence spewed out and the police again fought the protesters. On the 15th, violence escalates as 200 protesters attack police officers with a bombardment of rocks. On Saturday, Governor Nixon issues a state of emergency for the Ferguson region and creates a curfew. It was also revealed that the shots were from the front of Brown which contradicts the eyewitness saying that Brown ran. This past Monday, Governor Nixon orders in the National Guard in as the Police confront a violent crowd with flaming Molotov"s. This morning, Ferguson reported their second peaceful night in a row without violent protests. They also found Michael Brown to have comitted several crimes like Homocide. See here for his complete police record. (http://wonkette.com...) Or what about the unarmed white male that was brutally killed by a black cop. Did that recieve any media attention? No it didn't. (http://youngcons.com...) The media did a great part in inflaming the race war in Ferguson. The eyewitness had reported that Brown had turned and ran from the police officer before he was shot 6 times. This riled up the town which was predominately black. There were even tweets from News Reporters saying that they have passed over dead bodies. (http://allhiphop.com...) and (http://www.pewresearch.org...) This only escalated things as there were reports that the extreme left was flocking to the city to only escalate the violence. After news that Brown"s friend was lying and that this investigation was done by an outside party in the nation"s Attorney General. The events, in Ferguson, in the past two days have been quiet as the news of what really happened spread. (http://www.usatoday.com...)
Resolved: Darren Wilson was doing his police duty in Ferguson.

Well I take it I'll be defending the cop. As far as we know, the young, colored teenager was unarmed, and innocent when he was shot. We all immediately go against the cop, accusing him of performing a racist act because he's a white guy shooting a black kid. But was the the kid really innocent? How do we know he wasn't high, or had a weapon in his pocket? For all we know he could have been on a rampage and all the press wants us to know is that a white cop shot a black kid. It is known that he stole a box of cigarettes earlier that fateful day. http://www.oakpark.com.... To add to the list, the security footage showed him physically assaulting the employee, which, depending on how bad it was, could be reason for him to get shot. Did he deserve it? Probably not. But he was still guilty. So he still deserved to get punished, but how harshly is still in question.