BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fatness

I have had a lot going on this week and I am sorry I have to rush. Before I sum up I would like to just question one or two things that you have said. Normality: Even though in the bigger picture it is not normal to be fat, If for whatever reason you can describe fat as normal it still makes it no less deadly. In shape: I was intrigued by your point about fat athletes, so I researched it. It turns out that the definition of 'fat' they use, is a roughly someone with a 40inch waist. People with 40ich waists don't look what I would call 'fat'. Also the research said that it was exercise that makes them healthy, if they didn't exercise then they would be more unhealthy presumably. America most unhealthy: My mistake, America is not the most unhealthy. Although the countries I miscounted are ones infested with aids, HIV, drought and famine. I mean in the modernized world, America is one of the most unhealthy. Your summary: "If someone wants to go get fat it is their choice and we should not inhibit their choices. One can be fat and still healthy and athletic. Fat people are still shunned and not accepted and society is not glamorizing being fat." Yes I totally agree, this argument was supposed to be that this should be maintained, and the glamorization not made. I stated in my opening argument: "(we should) not encourage...people who are overweight" and also I gave a statement: ""Fat" is a word that has a negative connotation, and it shouldn't! It should be a descriptive term, like "blonde," "cute," "short," et cetera" and I said "I do not believe this too be true". You even said that you understand my argument as: "That we should not try to move towards accepting fat people as beautiful. We should not encourage fat people to 'feel comfortable' about their size, as we are trying to do" and so you seem to have understood my point in the beginning. So my summary. There is a movement towards trying to make fat seem beautiful (this is not the debate, I don't want to argue with someone who disagrees with this, I want to argue whether there should be such a movement). So, my arguments for why it should not be glamorised are as follows: Being overweight causes premature death. That should be enough. Salty diets, which cause fatness, cause 2.3 million deaths a year in the US. Someone who is very much overweight, is almost like a blackened lung from smoking, the only difference is that the lungs are hidden. People would copy if fat became cool. Humans like to have an identity and if they are fat, and its not uncool to be so, kids will have little motivation to change. For future health prospects don't effect young people as much as the urge for fatty foods and friendship/identity. I will also say that I am not against fat people getting on TV by merit like everybody else, I am not talking about discrimination. This was supposed to be a more subtle, serious argument about whether we should forcefully de-stigmatize fatness or just leave it as it is. Thank you
The Wii is better than the PS3!

The problem, though is, the gimmick factor. The Wii will NEVER be accepted by hardcore gamers, because of the gimmicks. Because of the lack of adult themes, because of the it's cartoon-like appearance. Just because people are making games for the Wii doesn't mean it is good support. Good support would be increasing their gaming demographic to include hardcore gamers. All they basically get are ports, and shoddy replicas of otherwise good franchises, such has far cry, or call of duty. By better, you have to judge by how it is accepted, because "better" is an opinion. The Wii may be doing good in sales, but it does not mean it is accepted by hardcore gamers, which is the most important demographic in videogames.
The Wii is better than the PS3!

Sorry, my computer was actin weird! Here is what I would say: It is marketable. Hardcore gamers are beginning to change their minds, because of games like Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Zelda Twilight Princess, etc. Nintendo HAS never had third party, yes. But now, that has changed. Companies are making games SPECIFICALLY for the Wii, all the way, and many are doing well(Ubisoft has REALLY got it well) The new system has gotten Nintendo back on top with third party. Sony will make money, but will continue to be in LAST.
The Wii is better than the PS3!

While the Wii had great features, it isn't very marketable. Yes, it appeals to casual gamers, but hardcore gamers scoff at it's childish look (i don't believe that, but a lot do). Also, Nintendo has never had third party support, pretty much the only thing keeping them afloat is themselves. Sony will continue to make money regardless of sales, and has a more hardcore audience, and therein lies the success of a video game, appealing to the ones that criticize you the most.
The Wii is better than the PS3!

No doubt! The Wii is KILLING in sales, has great games, and almost all of the features the PS3 has! PLUS more! I challenge someone to explain why the PS3 is better! Here are my advantages for the Wii(Yes, I am on the debate team) 1) Better Games 2)Great Features 3)Cheap Price 4)Gamecube, and VC Games 5)Wide range of games Note: This debate is for FUN, so if ur gonna take this very seriously, and start swearing and stuff, plz don't join!
Should College Athletes Be Paid (Scholarships Included)

Some college athletes can receive up to $125,000 per year that covers tuition, room, and board. They also receive free nutrition support, athletic coaching, medical attention, and physical therapy. Not only are these athletes given all of this free attention, but they also receive constant exposure for their abilities. This is an excessive amount that the college has to pay for, and it all comes out of the tuition of the students who have to pay for all of the things that these athletes get for free. Also, due to all of the scholarships that the college gives to athletes, many students that have earned a scholarship based on their grades and other extracurricular activities have been denied the scholarship and the chance to go to the school of their choice. This mindset of athletics over academics is only detrimental to the education of our country's students.
Fast-Food should be permanently banned globally.

Nearly 34% of adult men and women over the age of 20 are obese. 2 out of 3 Americans are overweight (67%). In less than 10 years, a full 75% of adult Americans will be overweight. Childhood obesity has tripled in the past 30 years, to 25% of those less than 19 years of age. Americans consume more than 500 calories today than we did in the 1960s. Just looking over these statistics presents a frightening reality to us all. The decline of the "greatest country on earth" is not a steady one. We're heading downward at a rapid speed, and fast-food, contributing heavily to the obesity and laziness of both our cultural essence and our way of life, is making the gravity of the fall even greater. Fast-food, clearly, is an easy option, for, as you say, college students and the like. Those who do not have the time to cook for themselves. But it's an irrefutable fact that almost the entirety of "fast"-food is poor for your health. The case of John Cisna you present is an interesting one. However, simply because one man makes a personal change does not mean the entirety of America will too. The issue of fast-food is a detrimental influx of obesity and the prospect of an indolent future. As shown above, the overall obesity of not only adults, but children as well, has risen dramatically. Is this the country we want to present to them? Yes, as you stated, the revenue across the board is climbing, but I think you may be forgetting that our country is still $16.394 trillion in debt. Conclusively, the fast-food industry will ultimately do nothing for our economy, and, through the glaring statistics, those showing rapidly rising obesity rates and incessant declines in health, will merely continue to represent the downfall of our once great nation.
Fast-Food should be permanently banned globally.

Fast food should not be banned because in the U.S. alone there are over 200,000 restaurant locations. Revenue has grown from $6 billion in 1970 to over $160 billion last year at an 8.6% annualized rate (1). The fast food industry also creates around three and a half million jobs for people who would lose their job if fast food was banned (2). As well as creating revenue and jobs, another obvious reason not to ban fast food is that it is fast and simple to get. For college students who are too busy with school and don't have enough time to cook their own meals or workers whose lunch breaks are not very long, fast food restaurants supply a very quick way to get food. While some people may believe that it is a good idea to ban fast food because it is unhealthy, a man named John Cisna proved this theory wrong. John Cisna, a high school science teacher in Colo, Iowa, has lost 56 pounds, lowered his cholesterol with a 32% decrease, and lost a total of 21 inches off his chest, waist, and hips while dining only at McDonalds for 90 days (3). (1) https://www.franchisehelp.com... (2) http://www.statista.com... (3) http://www.today.com...
Einstein Was Wrong

Thanks for accepting.According to Relativity, all reference frames are equally valid. In other words, it's equally true to say the sun orbits earth, and earth orbits the sun. This is because the first claim utilizes the earth as a reference frame, while the second claim uses the sun as a reference frame.Also according to Relativity, time slows down as speed increases. Thus, if one twin blasts off into space at an incredible speed, time will pass slower for him and he will age slower than his twin on earth. But note that this claim utilizes the reference frame of the twin on earth. In other words, from the perspective of the twin on earth, the twin shooting through space is moving faster and aging slower.Since all reference frames are equally valid, let's check out the other reference frame: that of the twin shooting through space. From his perspective, it's not him that's shooting away; it's actually the earth, and his twin standing on it, that is blasting away from him into the distance at high speeds. But this reference frame is equally valid. Therefore, it's equally true to say the twin on earth is traveling faster than the twin in space. So time for the twin on earth passes slower than time for the twin in space, and the twin on earth ages slower.Let's recap:Time passes slower for the twin in space, and he ages slower than his twin on earth.But time also passes slower for the twin on earth, so he ages slower than his twin in space.That is a clearly an absurdity, but it is what Relativity says:The space-twin will age slower than the earth-twin, but at the same time,the earth-twin will age slower than space-twin.I think my opponent will agree that, if Relativity were to state this, then Relativity would be illogical and therefore, wrong. I expect that his arguments will focus on denying that these statements are actually made by Relativity.
Einstein Was Wrong

The argument I will advance in this debate is that the Twin Paradox has no resolution. "[I]f the argument is correct, relativity is wrong."(1)Relativity is Einstein's idea, so if Relativity is wrong, so is Einstein.First round is for acceptance only. PLEASE use the comment section for clarification of terms, etc.The reason I put this debate in the Philosophy section instead of the Science one is because it's about a thought experiment.(1) http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au...
Skyrim is better than Witcher 3 (Doing this so I can vote)

Skyrim is better that oblivion, I agree, but witcher is not so much better than skyrim, I think they are equal in their own standings, mainly because withcher is set to 3rd person views while skyrim is primarily set up for 1st person views. So controls, graphics and game play would be different to each other, I don't believe the two can be compared really.
Skyrim is better than Witcher 3 (Doing this so I can vote)

I believe Skyrim is a better video game than Oblivion because of its superior graphics and combat. I have both games and tried them. I thought Witcher 3, with its dazzling graphics and complex story line would keep me interested but I was wrong. It is anything but amazing. Don't get me wrong though- Skyrim has anything but a complex story line but is more appealing thanks to mods and open-world. I felt more engaged playing someone that I created, I felt like I was in the game.
Joke Debate: Hippies Fuel Nasa

(Note: I am playing a different character, who is not me. Again, this is a joke debate, so voters, don't take the voting to seriously)Hippies, for years, have enjoyed to smoke marijuana in there parents garages, over the 20th century, usually consisting of 3 to 5 people. Now, the worlds hippies gather at a yearly festival deep in the heart of the Mohave. The name of this festival provokes a very homicidal image, that some might find sickening...............Burning Man. An annual arts festival that consists of live sized statues, fashion shoes, and all the kite flying marathons your grandson can dream off. This festival takes its roots deep into the Mohave desert, but you know who else use the Mohave as a portal to outer space.......Nasa.Tickets for this years festival have sold out, making a whopping 5 million dollars. But here's something you can think about, How much did money did Nasa's official documentary Apollo 18 use to make. That's right you guessed 5 million. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not. The film also fails to mention the Nasa base in the Mohave. Coincidence, maybe, maybe not.
comprehensive factors to be considered in policy making

they are not contradictions. these are only general policy factors. if you look at them as either/or, then you are the one who does not comprehend what these factors are good for. for example. if the government gets in the health business for those making not enough to afford it, and insists on large co pays to entice shopping around.... then a basic minimum is being given, and personal responsiblity is being employed. your analogy does not fit, that this is like mixing poison with food. to say either/or has no basis in reality, most of the time.
comprehensive factors to be considered in policy making

"effective policies like welfare, unemployment, health care" Those are not effective policies. The only effective policy on such issues is a no. A policy that "comprises liberal and conservative values" is a contradictory policy if liberal and conservative are to have any meaning whatsoever. For example: " basic minimum, at least if you're working personal responsibility" contradiction. " subsidiarity" Subsidiarity is not a value or a principle. It is an attempt to substitute for them. The lowest competent authority might be competent- to oppress human beings. To pass the matter off to such an authority is suicide. " charities role v government's role (balancing capitalism v socialism)" There can be no "balance" between socialism and capitalism. There can only be a war of aggression by socialism against capitalism (e.g. like the one waged by the Keynesian government of the United States). Values like capitalism do not and cannot brook compromise, the only compromise between food and poison is death. The only proper considerations in a government's policy are "What are an individual's rights?" and "How can the government best provide the service of retaliation against rights' violators without itself violating rights?
comprehensive factors to be considered in policy making

when making effective policies like welfare, unemployment, health care... one that compromises liberal and conservative values, the common factors that must be considered are hte following generally: personal responsibility freedom to fail equal opportuinty a basic minimum, at least if you're working subsidiarity finding the right level of government solidarity: charities role v government's role (balancing capitalism v socialism) i am arguing that this frame work gives a comprehensive list of things that must be considered in the policy making i acknowledge this debate is a little abstract. honestly i'm looking for any major fact that one might reasonably add to this (so not talking about things like communism etc since it's not a balance of typical con and liberal), but am willing to do this in debate form.
comprehensive factors to be considered in policy making

" for example. if the government gets in the health business for those making not enough to afford it, and insists on large co pays to entice shopping around.... then a basic minimum is being given, and personal responsiblity is being employed. " No, personal responsibility is not being "employed." Personal responsibility means that you are the only party responsible for your health care. That "basic minimum" is an abandonment of the notion of responsibility- because it provides something to people when they have not earned it. It abandons the notion of liberty- because it has to enslave one party to pay for the health of another. It is an attempt to reverse causality, by putting the distribution before the production. Capitalism is the principle that man shall receive what he has produced, socialism that man shall receive what he has not. Socialism therefore puts the brakes on production. Production being necessary to life as food, and it's negation being as deadly as poison, the analogy is apt. The beneficiary of mixing socialism and capitalism is the former, and thereby death.
The ELO ranking system is bad

Hello! This debate will be unique from most other ones. This will be pure logic and sources won’t be required. Full Resolution: The ELO ranking system is, on balance, not beneficial to the DDO Community. Definitions: ELO: the ELO ranking system gives instigators a small bonus. It compares the ELO’s of both debaters and who won. A high-level debater who won against a low level debater won’t get much extra ELO, while a low level debater who beats a high level one will get lots of extra ELO, and visa-versa. Rules: No new arguments, only rebuttals in the last round No semantics No trolling BOP lies on pro (me). Arguments: Case 1: The ELO ranking system discourages new debaters from making new debates. Experienced debaters will likely avoid accepting these debates, because losing makes them lose a lot and winning only gives them little ELO. This causes many debates to be stuck in the challenge period. Case 2: The ELO ranking system can be unfair to users with extremely high or low ELO rankings. For example, people with low ELO get avoided due to reasons listed in my first point. People with high ELO rankings, however, do not get their ELO increased much. Case 3: The ELO ranking system contains a lot of loopholes. For example, it does not take into account of how people can deactivate their old account and set up a new one and get 0 ELO again, changing how they will be treated by the rules. It also does not take into account of vote bombing and unfair votes, allowing people to “gang up” against a strong debater to lower their ELO.
Small Federal Government.

My opponent is wrong in number of occasions. :| Our constitution is lacking. It needs swift amendment, or we’ll fail to compete with other nations. How did America go from 13 small colonies to the single most powerful country in the world? It’s not due to the constitution that’s for sure. Just look at other countries. Dubai is highly respected around the globe, and it’s not because of ‘constituted permanent laws’, it’s because of their will to thrive in a very competitive environment. The education, healthcare, electricity is all ‘free’ un-like America where the cost for education is doubling every 4 – 5 years. You’ve said So far all of his jobs programs have failed, hes brought us $5,000,000,000,000 more in debt that we where when he started”. That’s a false statistic. These are Sean Hannity’s arguments if I may say so. He’s created thousands of jobs, in just about every sector. If you’re looking for a full evaluation of what kind of jobs was created, and how many were created, then go to the official website for the White House. I’m not trying to defend Barack Obama, as I’m an Independent, but I have the right to point out the facts. In order to compete effectively, you’ll need a constitution that would futuristically function in 100 – 200 years’ time. Take Dubai’s constitution for example: Part Three: Freedom, Rights and Public Duties Article 25 — All persons are equal before the law, without distinction between citizens of the Union in regard to race, nationality, religious belief or social status. Personal liberty is guaranteed; no person may be arrested, searched, detained or imprisoned except in accordance with the provisions of law Article 28 — penalty is personal; an accused shall be innocent until proven guilty Article 29 — freedom of movement is guaranteed, within limits of the law Article 30 — freedom of expression is guaranteed, within limits of the law Article 32 — freedom to exercise religious worship is guaranteed in accordance with established customs and provided it does not conflict with public policy or violate public morals Article 33 — freedom of assembly is guaranteed, within limits of the law. You’re not even allowed to build Mosques in America. They’re making laws to destroy these buildings and no matter how hard the opposition fight, they’ll still be ignored. It’s absurd! The constitution of the United States needs an upgrade. On round three, I’ll layout precise examples on specific areas of the constitution which I believe is ruining our country.
Small Federal Government.

Im arguing for a small federal government, it is what the founding fathers intended, im not talking about anarchy, im talking about a free society, where your property is yours and the government should respect that unless they follow the constitution fully. A government entirely base off of the constitution, allow free use of firearms and purchasing or things that the government has put laws against using. Currently there are 300,000 regulations on the federal level, as well as 4500 laws. Known as Overcriminalization, many of these laws are poorly written, many more not being constitutional. I believe that the FBI should be abolished and the states should handle there own problems, the the federal reserve should be abolished, and that President Barack Obama be impeached for his unwillingness to follow the constitution, for his ignorance of the procedures of the Executive branch, and his signing of bills entirely unconstitutional, this country spends 5 Billion dollars a day, 3.8 of that borrowed. There is consequences to spending that much money, and the consequences are, a failing government, a collapsed economy, no money to fund any sort of military. In light of these I would like any and all to debate my ideals, no profain language, no vulgarness, racism and the such, please I want to have a fullhearted debate.