BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should school lunches be healthier and should they offer more variaties of food

I'm not looking for a 5 star meal I'm looking for something that is healthier then our pizza and casadias every day. I looked at the vegetables and said yum peas those were the bright things about my lunch the other foods were some Mexican cheesy thing and bosco cheese sticks then they had soft pretzel's and that's what I ended up with. a soft pretzel water and a bag of chips. I would pack a lunch if I had food at my house or maybe enough time in the morning also. I already wake up at 530 in the morning and I still l am rushed so I'm not about wake up at 5 just to pack a lunch that I don't have. here's a proven fact I use to have focus problems I tried everything fish oil, protein shakes heck I even sat on a bouncy ball for gosh sake. sure they worked but when I didn't sit on a ball or the Med's wore off it would start again. anyways back to the fact the fact is a better nutricous appetite for all 3 big meals + the 2 snacks and 8 bottles of water you need a day will lead to a better attention span. when I started getting into my health more I tried that and it all worked I'm now an A-B student and am doing great! what you eat dose improve attention spans.
should school lunches be healthier and should they offer more variaties of food

It seems that this debate will not require the time or effort I normally put into these things. Instead of a nice long case I have presented you with other options besides eating your wonderfully delicious junk food. 1. You have the option of bringing your own lunch from home. 2. You are not being forced to buy the food. 3. You have an option on what to buy. You did not have to pick the foods with the cheese. 4. The food is required to have a minimal health standard. Your food is considered healthy. 5. The school is not required to offer you a range of food options. You are there for an education, not to be served by a five star chef. 6. The school would have been required to provide you with other school food options (non junk food ones) if you had informed them of your medical issues. 7. I would put something witty here but I don't have enough motivation to do so. I rest my wonderfully short seven statement case.
The NHL season is too long.

1. The whole point to this argument is to show that sports with long seasons are prosperous I'm sorry if you never understood that. When I said that MLB has 182 games i telling that it is a contributing factor to its success and popularity. So yes its a longer season but like you said MLB trumps NHL. 2. I was using the NFL as an example nothing else. It was to prove that there are no in way good coming from taking away games. Its less for people to watch, and less income for the teams. Nothing good just bad. 3. I brought up revenue because thats what they use to pay their players to play. If players are not paid then we will have a second lockout, and boy will there be less games. Following my opponent grouping arguments 4. 5. and 6. These are not inconsequential arguments, each one plays a key factor when deciding something like you are proposing. As an avid sports fan I personally love when I can sit down and watch a game. If there are less games then Ill be disappointed when there inst anything to watch. By having less games there is less to watch, less to enjoy. Something my opponent still cant answer because he knows the answer and he would lose if he stated the answer. Less games lead to less to watch, bring the reasons above. To those voting vote on the arguments made Thank You for the Debate Paul
The NHL season is too long.

1. The point of bringing that up is to show that spots with a longer season are just as popular if not as popular. So thank you for agreeing with me 2. It wouldn't relate to the NFL in this case because there is a set number of games, canceling some of those games would hurt the sport. As would canceling a number of hockey games from the NHL season. The cancellation is the part that hurts the sport. 3. Revenue plays a huge role so I am right to bring it up because through the revenues team pay for expenses like players wages or have we all forgot the lockout More Games = More Money, Less Games = Less Money, its simple logistics 4. The first point is flawed because it comes down to the last few games of the regular season for that playoff hype the more games means more fun for everyone. 5. Thank you for conceding that its about the playoffs so in terms of popularity it shouldn't matter the season length, so really by having a longer season it can only be more profitable. 6. Also I'd like to point out that my opponent disregarded my point on what else to do during the gaping hole in sports schedule, so vote Neg on this position
The NHL season is too long.

-"1.82 games is hardly much of a season when you compare it to other sports like baseball have 162, it hardly deters any of the popularity of the sport." In terms of popularity, MLB trumps the NHL. Why bring MLB into this discussion? -"2.Canceling a month worth of games would in no way "help" the sport, if anything there will be less income for each team as well as a drop in viewers since there are less games to watch the viewer's for those what would be another month of games." Here you are making a correlation between the amount of games played to the amount of viewers. Based on this logic the NFL would be the most unpopular major sport since they only play a 16 game season. On a side note, bringing up revenue is irrelevant. -"3.The importance of the regular season wouldn't be heightened, each game would matter the same, its the playoffs not the season that draw the real hype." This is a flawed statement. First, it is quite logical to say that if one team plays an opponent in less games during the regular season than those games become more important. Second, you say it's all about the playoffs and not about regular season right? Well, the focus of my argument centers around a shortened regular season. This would help the popularity of the game and perhaps attract viewers such as yourself who tend to not watch regular season hockey games.
The NHL season is too long.

To address the points my opponent made 1.82 games is hardly much of a season when you compare it to other sports like baseball have 162, it hardly deters any of the popularity of the sport. 2.Canceling a month worth of games would in no way "help" the sport, if anything there will be less income for each team as well as a drop in viewers since there are less games to watch the viewer's for those what would be another month of games. 3.The importance of the regular season wouldn't be heightened, each game would matter the same, its the playoffs not the season that draw the real hype. For a few of my own points... 4.If anything the more games means more time to celebrate the joyous game of hockey and to watch your players get owned or own other teams to shorten the season would just leave a gaping hole in our sports schedule Vote Negitave 5. Sorta tying in with four what else would we watch on those odd nights soap operas? 6.Just as a rule of thumb people enjoy watching sporting games shortening the season would be like limiting the football schedule by thirteen games because you think 3 games would add more suspense, its just not practical.
There should be death penalty for murderers.

I believe the death penalty is a cruel and inhumane decision and will result in more, not less, murders and murderers including the government. I am not saying we should let these killers roam free but that we should give them a punishment that is reversible if the presumed killer is the wrong person such as a lifetime sentence and community service. Remember, if a person is framed or wrongly accused we have, therefore, killed an innocent life we can not get back. If we are giving such a punishment as a lifetime sentence the wrong accused can walk out and get their life back, pretty much, unharmed. I would like to thank the opponent although I was hoping to see an argument from you. Hopefully I might see on in this final round. Thank you to all those reading this and whom are going to vote and, please, if I have convinced you the death penalty is wrong vote con!!!
There should be death penalty for murderers.

A death penalty is wrong, If we are sticking to morals, for starters, that each murderer must be murdered in return are we not making murderers of innocent people? That one person who is sentencing the criminal to death, they would be doing their job but to put it in perspective they are, to an extent, a murderer. That one person arranging the death is, also now a murderer and that person hired to do that job is now, predictably, a murderer. You may fight that they are doing their job but so are assassins and hit men, they are doing their job yet they would, without doubt, still count for a death penalty. "The death penalty is murder by the government. As a nation, we have prided ourselves in our government, its justice and truth. However, can we continue to call our government fair if we do not hold it to the same rules we do its people? Murder by a citizen will have consequences, yet a government-approved "murder is not only acceptable, but enforceable. What message do we send the American people, and other countries, for that matter, if we continue to be a "nation that kills its citizens, a nation that enforces the most barbaric form of punishment?" [as stated by teen ink http://www.teenink.com... paragraph 5] If an individual is murdered, even for death penalty, it is not going to remain unknown. If we are raising children to a law that tells us that death is the best 'revenge' for death is it not possible come to believe that one turn deserves another? Does this not make it possible that if a child starts being violent to another they'd believe that violence is perfectly ok for that situation? Could that not lead to that child growing up to believe a lost life for a lost life is a worthy moral? Let's say his or her sister was murdered, is there not the chance that this person will see fit to kill the murderers sister? We now have 2 murderers in need of taking care of. By applying the death penalty we are ensuring murderers that would not have been if humane morals and laws were put in place.
Feminist Radicals Hurt Families.

Since my opponent has not challenged my definitions, they will be accepted for the remainder of the debate. I will begin by pointing out that my opponent has made a number of assertions in the previous rounds, none of which are backed up with facts. He states that women are discouraged from being a stay at home mother, however provides no evidence for this. Obviously there are a wide variety of views within radical feminism, some of these may discourage staying at home as a "house wife." Because of this diversity in opinion, I narrowed this down in R1 with my definition. According to the provided definition that was accepted by my opponent, feminism is not the discouragement of being a stay-at-home-mom, it is the fight for equality. It is the idea that women should be able to have absolute free choice in deciding what they want to do with their lives politically, economically, and socially. Men can be stay at home parents and provide the same nurturing qualities that women can provide, in fact, several studies have shown that fathers have essential roles in their children's developments [1], so perhaps it is more advantageous for the father to stay with the children and the mother to work. There is no reason to box a family in and say that a certain parent should have this role and a certain parent should have another role. Feminism is simply the idea that families should be able to have the ability to make the decisions for themselves, and have equal opportunities for employment so that they can implement whatever they decide. My opponent said in R2 that "The truth is, they should not feel inferior for this life choice, and no Feminist ideology no matter the credibility of the source, can successfully downplay this vastly important role that many women choose to make their lifestyle."Feminism, as definined in R1, does not claim that women should not be able to make the choice to stay at home if they so desire, it simply means that they should have equal pay and employment opportunities. Source:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Feminist Radicals Hurt Families.

I believe most intelligent people realize now that its smarts and drive, rather than sex or race that can make a person successful. Rather it is the woman or man in the relationship with the career, a highly demanding job will leave you with much less family time. Should a woman with children be willing to sacrifice that family time? Its an individual decision, but anyone that talks down on a stay at home mother is simply wrong, yet successful women today are often scorned when they choose family over their career. Since when is MONEY, more important than your family? Since when are nanny's better than a mother? Since when are we smarter than nature? Women are so sacred to the human race that they are the only ones that can bring new life into existence on our planet.. shouldn't that hold a lot more clout than any job...Funny how we try to be on the side of nature in our politics and economics now days but we would rather ignore it for our personal lives due to hype downplaying the importance of being an involved mother. It is obvious that intellect and IQ vary from person to person despite sex, however, acknowledging this equality and still placing an often sexist political ideology before the needs of the family as a motivation to be more successful is simply wrong. Despite what a woman is capable of career wise, if she chooses to have children while maintaining a highly demanding career she will often be hard pressed trying to find a balance as a nurturing mother and bread winner. So, why do women often feel due to the propaganda in our society, that as a "housewife" they are fulfilling an inferior role, when in fact, they have the most influence on the most important thing of all..our future generation. The truth is, they should not feel inferior for this life choice, and no Feminist ideology no matter the credibility of the source, can successfully downplay this vastly important role that many women choose to make their lifestyle.
Feminist Radicals Hurt Families.

Pro has the BoP to show how feminist radicals hurt families. Definitions:Radical Feminism can be broken down into:Radical- favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms:radical ideas [1]. Feminism- the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rightsof women equal to those of men [2]. Hurt- to affect adversely; harm [3]. Family- a basic social unit consisting of parents and theirchildren, considered as a group, whether dwellingtogether or not: the traditional family. b. a social unit consisting of one or more adults togetherwith the children they care for [4]. I look forward to my opponent's evidence to back up the statements he made in R1. Sources: [1]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Feminist Radicals Hurt Families.

First, I would like to point out that my opponent has not directly refuted anything I said in R2. Next, I will take on my opponents arguments in the previous round. Basically, what he has done, is to provide two examples of radical feminism, the first of which merely shows the consequences of someone's actions in relation to their decisions on work and family. The second provides an article on one way a mother parented her child that was wrong, however, this cannot be said to capture the majority of radical feminists. He then counties by posting a link to information about becoming a single mother by choice which he claims is propaganda. This website is a provider of information. They say on their "About" page, that "We believe that single motherhood is a viable option but we are not an advocacy group," and "We feel the choice to become a parent is a most individual one and is not right for everyone." My opponent has presented the unfounded claim that this website is propaganda. Wikipedia defines propaganda as "a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position" [1]. This is not propaganda because Single Mothers by Choice is not an advocacy group. They are simply providing information on a viable choice for some women to make. How is giving women who are not in a relationship information on how they can become mothers hurt the family? In R1, family was defined as either a tradiontal family or a single parent family.Next, he claims "The true Feminist movement seeks equality, and in fact puts special stress on being a good mother, but with statistics like these, and the prevalence of more and more Radical Feminist propaganda people seem much more likely to quit on family to become independent when things get a tough at home." This is another unfounded claim, and he blames the increase in single parent families on feminism without any evidence.Finally, he provides two quotes from the feminist movement, neither of which he provides a source for so I, nor the reader, has any idea of the context of the quotes. Because of this, I will hope the reader can see why they are not a valid argument.He closes with the statement "Many Radical Feminist leaders by and large, tell women that they can have it all, and that men, especially in the roles of husband and father, are not necessary." He has provided two examples. I would contend that this is in no way a reasonable representation of the majority of feminism. Feminism today is, in large part, focused on such issues as equal pay and preventing rape [2]. The radical part of the phrase simply means that big changes need to happen to achieve these goals.I thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Sources:[1]- http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]- http://en.wikipedia.org...Vote Con!
Feminist Radicals Hurt Families.

This article was written by the first woman director of policy planning at the State Department, she speaks in depth about being discouraged, and looked down upon for making the choice between work and family. http://www.theatlantic.com... My mother's feminist principles coloured every aspect of my life. As a little girl, I wasn't even allowed to play with dolls or stuffed toys in case they brought out a maternal instinct. It was drummed into me that being a mother, raising children and running a home were a form of slavery. http://americanphoenix.net... The above segment was written by the daughter of a "Radical Feminist" We Agreed the definition of Radical was "Favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms:radical ideas". Here you have a woman not letting her little girl play with dolls because it might bring out "maternal Instinct" And that being a mother was a form of slavery. I could just continue posting links in this vein, but the point is, that both of these women while in feminist environments encountered opposition when it came to the subject of parenting, one being taught not to have a family at all, and the other being looked down upon by her colleagues. Women are bombarded with media like this website, "single mothers by choice" http://www.singlemothersbychoice.org... and exposed to propaganda that speaks out against a traditional family unit as a support system. The uninï¿½tended conï¿½seï¿½quences of Radical femï¿½iï¿½nism have had negï¿½aï¿½tive effects that have taken a few genï¿½erï¿½aï¿½tions to present themselves. Now one out of every two children in the United States will live in a single-parent family at some time before they reach age 18 according the United States Census Bureau, in 2002 about 20 million children lived in a household with only their mother or their father. This is more than one-fourth of all children in the United States! In contrast, in 1970, only about 11 percent of children lived in single-parent families. The true Feminist movement seeks equality, and in fact puts special stress on being a good mother, but with statistics like these, and the prevalence of more and more Radical Feminist propaganda people seem much more likely to quit on family to become independent when things get a tough at home. Here are some Quotes by members of the movement. "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan "The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." Linda Gordon Many Radical Feminist leaders by and large, tell women that they can have it all, and that men, especially in the roles of husband and father, are not necessary. While true, they can go at it alone, should we be filling womens heads that this is actually a more respectable "independant" lifestyle choice?
Argumentation skills are generally more important than geography to most educated people

1. Did you know that; The largest city in the United States is New York with 8,008,278 people (2000 census data). There are 9 active volcanoes in the United States? Did you also know that All but 2 are in Alaska ? That the deepest of the Great Lakes is Lake Superior at 1,333 ft. Did you know that the tallest building in North America is The Sears Tower in Chicago? It Stands at 1,450 ft in height. 2. Notice that you were probably not persuaded by my first argument of this round. In fact, not only were you most likely not persuaded- but it did absolutely nothing to enhance my character. The use of geography has few real world applications, whereas the use of argumentation skills have many. Argumentation skills can be used from having fun on this website, to business, to courting the girl you fancy. 1R. I will respond to 1 later in the debate if I have time, I think we can both agree that there are more important things to discuss right now. 2R. You try to draw up the argument that lack of argumentation skills simply means a lack of argumentation skills, whereas a lack of geography skills is ignorance. I find this wrong in a few ways. 1. It implies geography should come up in general use. Geography skills will rarely, if ever come up in somebody's regular life. Practically speaking, argumentation skills will be used much more often than geography skills, and even if people put a higher regard to to geography than argumentation skills, judging argumentation skills will come up far more than geography skills. 2. Argumentation skills are still far more important than geography skills. The inability to construct a good argument can cause serious issues with the credibility of the speaker when he is trying to make one, whereas geography skills may cause a speaker to lack credibility while using them. Argumentation skills are used from everything from courting, to business proposals, to fun, to trying to get your family to do what you want to do for the weekend. In fact, argumentation skills are often used in scientific fields, even geographers must use argumentation in their field- arguably even more so than geography itself! Geography, however, is not usually needed in any of those contexts, and might only be mentioned in passing while talking about current events. While getting a state capital mixed up with another might lead to some minor embarrassment for you in the debate, I'm sure that nobody would actually vote against you for it. People would, however, vote against you if you lacked argumentation skills- for example, if you claimed that "Well, your name is duco, sounds a lot like doucho to me, douche" I am afraid it would reduce your credibility far more so than getting a simple geography trivia wrong. 3. True, but that doesn't mean that it's not important for a educated person. In fact, lacking the attribute of argumentation skills might make somebody who is formally 'educated' seem as if they are not.