BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rebellion and revolution is possible in America today

workman 2012 for starting this debate. I would also like to thank him for giving such a warm welcome. You usually wouldn't get this kind of courtesy in other debates. 1. American views on freedom- 79% of Americans believe that it is a free country. The 79% is 237 million Americans out of the 300,000,000 Americans. Most of the people that don't believe that it is a free country are very educated, and have a college degree. But the 79% of America make up the majority of America are still under the illusion that this country is free, therefore they would not have a reason to revolt. 2. Who do Americans blame- According to Pewsocial, The average middle class American blames congress for the well-being of the middle class. They don't blame "The American Government", but the "Republicans" for there well-being. This is result to people supporting Obama, and listening to MSNBC. But the average middle class American still view this country as being free. 3. The new generation- According to Pewsocial, the new generation has high hopes for there futures. 71% believe that Obama is going to fix this economy, and is going to turn around. In that percentage, we see teenagers that think that they are going to become famous, popular, and accumulate lots of money when there older. Also this percentage thinks that America is still free. 4. Newstations- There was a lawsuit on Fox News publicly lying to its viewers about a case that is "unknown to a lot of people". Fox News went free, because in the first amendment it protects free speech. So basically news stations can say anything they want to on TV. So if there is a potential threat to the American Government, it either won't be covered by news stations, or be lied about to the public. I think that my opponent agrees that a rebellion could happen in America, but what this argument says is that even if it does happen, news stations will lie about it, or not cover it. 5. Military Budget- So lets say that the rebellion does happen, and it gets so strong that it is able to take on the government. We spent 769 billion dollars on our military budget. In 2014, it has went over a trillion dollars. This makes America's military in the top ten militaries. Even though people might have lots of guns, America will always have more. I would also like to thank my opponent for starting this debate, and giving me a warm welcome which is usually not done in other debates. . http://www.gallup.com... . http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... . http://ceasespin.org... . http://militarybudget.org...
THW not punish people under the poverty line that commit economical crimes

Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate. org, so here it goes. Good Luck! Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e. g. jail, fines. I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery. For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third. Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again. There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc. This concludes my first point.
THW not punish people under the poverty line that commit economical crimes

Dear Sonofcharl, The way you defined economical crimes is exactly the way I meant for it to be. It benefits the criminal, and at the same time is still a crime. Economic crimes refer to illegal acts committed by an individual or a group of individuals to obtain a financial or professional advantage. In such crimes, the offender's principal motive is economic gain. Hope this addresses your misunderstanding.
THW not punish people under the poverty line that commit economical crimes

I'm sorry about that. It must have been such an inconvenience for you. Here it is, with my opening statement edited: Thank you for accepting this challenge. Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate.org, so here it goes. Good Luck! Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e.g. jail, fines. I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery. For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third. Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again. If the rest of the people that are in poverty don't steal or rob?, why should they? There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, and may not have the time to accept debates for fun just for the sake of a grammar error, which I agree was wrong on my part. I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you would have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc, which will definitely reduce the chances of them being a repeat offender. This concludes my first point.
Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

Thank you for your quick response. I will begin with defending my arguments. "Schools will not be able to charge the same prices..." My video is simply an exapmle of the fat that it IS possible. Food does not have to be internationally recognized, but by simply using decent ingredients. Look at this: http://www.thelunchlady.ca.... Simple, yet effective. A nice, balanced meal works for the same price as fast food. "Lee has tried making her own burritos, her..." My previous video and the link above proves this wrong. "This a an absurd source and statistic..." How is this absurd? You yourself agreed that she was a world-renowned chef. "In non insulin-dependent diabetes, heredity may be a factor..." Wow. I thought that my opponent would be above this. In the text, it says that heredity MAY be a factor. The scientists aren't even sure whether it is or not! But right below that, it claims that being overweight increases your chances of getting it. This is usually unhealthy eating with not enough excersize. "ADHD is a genetic disorder.." Again, I am baffled. "Certain components of the diet, including food additives and sugar, can have clear effects on behavior. Experts believe that food additives may exacerbate ADHD, and that refined sugar may be to blame for a range of abnormal behaviors." Are you sure you are using the right sources? "Fast food chains do give plops about health..." Nutrition tables are mandated by the government. Advertisements are actually made to attract customers: ad⋅ver⋅tis⋅ing   /ˈï¿½dvərˌtaɪzɪŋ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ad-ver-tahy-zing] Show IPA –noun 1. the act or practice of calling public attention to one's product, service, need, etc., exp. by paid announcements in newspapers and magazines, over radio or television, on billboards, etc.: to get more customers by advertising. 2. paid announcements; advertisements. 3. the profession of planning, designing, and writing advertisements. http://dictionary.reference.com... "Children gorge on these..." A recent study by Yale University proved that children are not likely to make up for junk food not eaten at school. "And if children to do come for 5 more portions at one time then that's absurd." Agreed. This was just an overstatement to highlight the significance of the statement. I await your response.
Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

True. Fast food is a big souce of revenue, but... Schools can implement a healthy, balanced and tasty lunch program for the students, providing a fair amount of revenue. If students eat healthy food and pay the same amount of money for it, schools will make the same amount of profit. This is not a fantasy: http://www.californiaconnected.org.... A recent study shows that 1 out of three Caucasians and 1 out of 2 Hispanics and African-Americans will get diabetes befoe they are adults (watch the video in the link above). Do you want this to hapen to your child? I await your rebuttals
Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

Thank you Cpt. price for starting this debate. Good luck! I negate. Resolved: Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias. Definitions: Fast food chains- McDonalds, Subway, etc. junk food- soda, chips, etc. should be- ought to but have not done so. banned-officially or legally prohibit Cost benefit analysis will be the judging criterion to both sides. C1. Fast foods and junk food are a large source of income. S1. Sodas are a source of income. Say a 20oz coke cost $.75 and they sell for $1.25, the profit is .$50. Sodas are bought by the hundreds every day at a high school, so that's...alot. This profit along with profits of chips, candies, etc can go to academics, sports, art, or music programs. The students also enjoy the refreshing snacks. The companies also earns profits and those money can go into humanitarian programs. Ever since CA banned junk food and cutting funding my school district has lost money and began firing staff members, this creates a tougher environment for students and faculties. So by banning junk food causes job loss which then creates and increase in unemployment. Impact: The income of junk food benefits the students. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com... states "In 2007, the Company and Foundation spent $6 million to support active, healthy lifestyle programs. S2. Fast food chains a source of income for the school and business. Companies do offer a fraction of the money they earn to the school, thus the school has another source of income for academics. In turn the chains receive a large profit that goes to programs that promote or gives environmental, charity, scholarships, etc. Impact: The income of fast food chains in school cafeterias benefit the students, teachers, and society in general. http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com... http://www.subway.com... Therefore by banning chains and junk food we are ultimately degrading human welfare. I will post my rebuttals in R2 due to a large amount of rounds.
Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

Fast food chains should be banned from school cafeterias. Why? Children are getting obese every day from regularly eating fast food at school. No laws are being made to enforce it. This low-quality food is casing many illnesses, from cardiovascular disorders to ADHD, making children perform worse in school and their life. Some parents don't care enough about their child and don't decide to give them home lunches. Many children enjoy the food and don't think about the long-term effects of the chemicals that they put in their mouths. In a recent study, it was shown that kids consume more calories that nutrients during days when they eat junk/fast foods. Today's teens are three times more likely to be obese that 20 years ago. Are children actually capable of saying no to fast food when the glorious smell of burgers rules the halls? Of course not! Are parents able to withstand the outrageous cheapness of a filling lunch that their kids savour? Again, of course not!!! Children do not only consume this food every day, but they order more, supersize their portions and engorge until they can hardly breathe. Fast food chains don't give two plops about a child's health. The cashiers just want to make more money. If children come for another five portions, who's going to stop them, really? I await my opponents response.
Fast food chains and junk food should be banned from school cafeterias.

Excuse the forfeit. I was a bit too busy and forgot about the debate. 1. I'm sorry to say that I don't understand Canadian...... Did I generalize? No, of course not. I am using varied sources because it is more advantageous. But in the US we are financially tight..... OK..... A Big Mac meal costs about 6.50. One of these meals costs 4.00. Yep. Talk about financial tightness. 2. I quoted you. You are saying that your information is a bad source. Are you sure that you can debate? 3. Since when were we talking about metabolism? 4. So? Your sources say exactly the same. You claim they are correct. 5. Ads about the food being healthy are made to promote the product. A Big Mac meal has 1850 calories, 93 grams of sugar and hardly any vitamins and minerals. Where is the nutritional value? Nutritional tables are mandated by the government. Fast food chains only do this because they are MANDATED. They probably don't want to show the absence of nutrition. 6. Interesting. An Ivy League University is not a source. I laugh. 7. I said that this was an overstatement by me. If you are using a figure of speech as an argument, then you must have poor other arguments. 8. Again, I said that THIS IS PROOF THAT IT IS POSSIBLE. Please read my arguments. I have successfully defended my arguments and destroyed my opponents'. Con, I beg you to make your last round worth it. Best regards, Cpt. Price :) P.S., I apologize again for the forfeit.
Science and Faith/Religion are NOT Mutually Exclusive

Thank you for initiating this debate.Science and religion do not conflict insofar as religion keeps its nose out of scientific matters, i.e. matters of fact. As Richard Dawkins writes, "Did Jesus have a human father, or was his mother a virgin at the time of his birth? whether or not there is enough surviving evience to decide it, this is still a strictly scientific answer in principle: yes or no. Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he himself come alive again, three days after being cruicified? There is an answer to every such question, whether or not we can discover it in practice, and it is a strictly scientific answer. The methods we should use to settle the matter, in the unlikely event that relevant evidence ever became available, would be purely and entirely scientific methods."To me, a "Christian" is someone who believes that Sin (and death) entered the world through one man (as per Romans 5:12) and consequently, mankind is damned. Luckily, God came to Earth in human form, performed miracles, imparted us with wisdom, was cruicifed, and rose from the dead. By accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, our Sins may be forgiven and we may spend eternity (in the afterlife) in the presence of our Creator.Obviously, there are many kinds of Christian. But every branch of Christianity makes factual claims, to one degree or another. A devout person of faith may be a person of science in the same way that a rapist may be a person of compassion. A rapist may be incredibly compassionate...apart from when he's raping a woman. A person of faith may be incredibly reasonable...except when it comes to his faith.Just like rape is fundamentally not compassionate, faith is fundamentally not reasonable or scientific. In the case of Christianity, there is not sufficient reason to accept any of its essential claims: Jesus was born of a virgin, Jesus is God incarnate, Jesus rose from the dead, by accepting his sacrifice we will be saved from an eternity of suffering in the afterlife, etc.
Only Violent Offenders Should be Incarcerated

Contention 1: Difference between Violent and Non-violent offendersMy opponent doesn't really clearify what Non-Violent offenders do so let me show you the people who you would be with in the streets. Here is a list of these crimes "28-BURGLARY, STRUCTURE29-BURGLARY, DWELLING32-BURGLARY/TRESPASS, OTHER33-GRAND THEFT, OTHER34-GRAND THEFT, AUTOMOBILE35-STOLEN PROPERTY36-FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING37-WORTHLESS CHECKS38-FRAUDULENT PRACTICES39-OTHER THEFT/PROPERTY DAMAGE40-DRUGS, MANUFACTURE/SALE/PURCHASE41-DRUGS, TRAFFICKING42-DRUGS, POSSESSION/OTHER46-ESCAPE48-DUI, NO INJURY50-TRAFFIC, OTHER51-RACKETEERING 52-POLLUTION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS" (http://prisontalk.com...) I'll get to why this is so important here in a bit.Contention 2: Downsides to Prison My opponent talks about how much it costs to keep prisoners incarcerate each year, but crime costs the US $674 Billion a year. ("Cost of Crime: $674 Billion," U.S. News and World Report, 17 January 1994, pp. 40-41.) If we do not jail the non-violent offenders then that number will increase and the US economy will be greatly harmed. The Medium age for crime has dropped to 13-15 years of age. Meaning that teens are more inclind to break the law. Crimes does not pay, 500,000 burgalries are made each month, 250,000 are reported to the police, 35,000 arrests are made, 24,000 are convicted, and 6,000 are sent to jail. You see here that most of the criminals who rob people don't even go to jail for it. That's a 1% effective rate! (http://www.probe.org...) It's becoming inevitable that these people must be incarrerated in order for any type of effectiveness to work.Contention 3: AlternativesMy opponent has not shown how this would work, but a similiar study was done in Australia and they showed that higher fines do not deter nor reduce the risk of someone reoffending. This study is done for non-violent offenders. ( http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...) and (http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au...)
Only Violent Offenders Should be Incarcerated

The Difference Between Violent and Non-Violent OffendersWith a violent criminal the harm that they can cause is much more immediate, more irreversible and more possesses more potential to end or ruin lives. While Non-Violent offenders should be punished the drawbacks of prison seem to outweigh the positives in treating prison as simply a punishment. Downsides to Prison as a Punishment 1. Prison is inordinately expensive (in the US to keep one prisoner incarcerated for a year costs $167,731 [1]).2. Simply sentencing an offender to a certain amount of time in prison doesn't help the re-offending rates and is often portrayed as such. In fact prisoners who are not violent are more likely to emerge as violent criminals. 3. Current prisons are overcrowded [2], this means an alternative should be sought. Better AlternativesWhile prisoners still need to be punished there are better ways of doing it, for instance financial penalties, having to check into a police station every day ect. These alternatives would also help stop the social stigma that comes with prison even for minor non-violent. [1] http://america.aljazeera.com...[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
If infinity exists the middle of it cannot be defined

If infinity is like the line of a circle then no, there is no middle of infinity but if infinity is like an infinite line, then yes, there is a middle that can be defined. I perceive infinity as a staircase with steps with steps in between the steps. The staircase is finite but the number of steps is infinite. I say that the number of steps is infinite but since the staircase is finite, the middle can be defined.
If infinity exists the middle of it cannot be defined

Where have you read this is it your opinion did you read somewhere nontheless pretty interesting. So the middle of infinity is infinity.This is your statement right I would like to say that I disagree we need to define rules that logic can be applied too.I would like to say but your statement sounds pretty good and aligned with my thoughts so this debate is yours you did not explain it as I would like to hear it but you are pretty close into my own thoughts. I had a debate over a post with guy that claimed endless exists.Endless percieved in a linear way I said that the circle makes more sence for the creation of the universe the beggining = end and every time that happens a transition that changes the nature of the universe happens .These are purely my thoughts.But they sound more interesting than a never ending line .I would like to hear your thought about it so how to your perceive infinity aka the universe.Observable or not.
If infinity exists the middle of it cannot be defined

By linear infinity, I think you mean real infinity, an infinity that exists everywhere, between every real number, after every real number, and before every real number. Infinity is forever. So the middle of forever cannot be something that is not infinite. Infinity is made up of infinite copies of itself. There is an infinite number of integers in infinity. There is an infinite number of numbers between each consecutive integer. There is always in between. So the middle of infinity is infinity.
The Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ave.I am challenging Cauhtcoatl, an atheist, to a debate about the soundness of the cosmological argument. Soundness means that the premises of the argument are true, and that the conclusion follows logically from the premises. God is defined as the timeless (therefore beginningless), immaterial, spaceless, omnipotent, and personal cause of the universe existing.The cosmological argument for this debate will be the one that William Lane Craig Uses. Everything that begins exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe had an uncaused cause.The first round is for acceptance. In round two, I will present my argument and allow Con to give a rebuttal. After that, I will respond to Con's rebuttal in round three. In round three, Con will reinforce his rebuttal while asking me a few questions as part of a Q&A. In round four, I will answer his questions and give my own. The final round will be Con answering the questions I asked of him.My burden of proof in this debate is to show that the cosmological argument is more plausible than the negation by inference to the best conclusion. Con's obligation is to negate my argument.General rules of conduct should be followed.Vale.
The Cosmological Argument is Sound

1: If god is timeless, then god is outside of the realm of reality, as time, although losing all meaning with nothing to be compared to, still exists. Therefore, god is either infinitely old or began at some point.2: I'd rather have logic, reason and evidence.3: If there's a probability that's not certain, it's random.http://www.youtube.com...4: Empiricism is the way science works, by definition. Science is defined as using experimentation, evidence, et cetera.