BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Junk food should be banned in schools.

For me, junk food is food containing high levels of calories from sugar or fat with little fiber, protein, vitamins or minerals. All you said, including pizza, cheeseburger, is considered to be junk food. Nowadays the large number of teenagers and children in the US suffer from the overweighting. Most of them don't have enough wiil power to force themselves to eat healthy food. In that case, the school policy of "healthy nuitrition" can help them significantly. In additionif schools create the "Pizza Wednesday", it would seem like school manipulate and bulldose children with the help of junk food. in that case, children won't trust to the school any more
Junk food should be banned in schools.

Hello Foliya, I look forward to our discourse. First off, I believe a proper definition of "junk food" is required for this debate to have any real meaning. I'm sure we can all agree that a candy bar, ice cream, or a bag of chips would fall under this definition, but what of food that are considered unhealthy, but certainly qualify as a meal? Is a cheeseburger junk food? Or chicken nuggets? Or pizza? One could argue that, while having a normally, relatively healthy menu, a school could announce "Pizza Wednesday" to boost student morale and enthusiasm while having a (in the grand scheme of things) low impact on their overall health. Children are naturally drawn to junk food, with a biology that encourages consuming as many calories as possible but lacking sufficient wisdom to know the danger that can bring. Using this desire to reinforce good behavior could provide a net benefit in children's academic careers and life. Children enjoy junk food, but instead of banning it, we could seek to use that to our advantage. My second point is simple. Junk food is cheap. While it would be lovely to put all the children on a strict, natural diet with all their nutritional needs met, it's a rather expensive endeavor. Serving anywhere between a few hundred to several thousand students requires that the kitchen function in certain ways. It's called a cafeteria for a reason. Things will need to be frozen. Anything that spoils quickly is unrealistic. Food needs to be mass produced everyday within a few hours, and there needs to be be an excess, to be absolutely sure no student could possibly be refused a meal. Junk food fits perfectly in this category, being cheap, easy to mass produce and store. It only amounts to one meal out of presumably three to a student and can be offered at an affordable rate to both the parents, and the taxpayers. On top of all that, this is more a problem for parents of children to deal with rather than the state. I would presume under your changes to the system, children would still be allowed to bring their own lunches. If a parent truly cared about what their child consumed and was financially stable enough to send them with a quality meal, they would, and do. The ban of all junk food also encourages a form of a black market to form within the school. I can speak personally about going down to my local store on my bike to purchase Coca Cola only to pack it in my "lunch" the following week. I would sell this "contraband" to my fellow classmates and use the profits to purchase things to make my own lunch more enjoyable. A market will form whenever there is demand. And whether you'd like to admit it or not, the demand for junk food at school lunches is very real and won't go away as long as children are children.
No it is not a good idea

I think the lottery is a good idea in spite of what my opponent said. I have two reasons.Reason 1: It is a voluntary tax.The purpose of the lottery is to raise state revenue. It is an alternative to a tax in which people have no choice but to surrender their earnings to the state. A voluntary tax is better than a mandatory tax because it leaves people without any room for complaint, and it preserves personal freedom. In Texas, for example, the state lottery is what prevents us from having to have a state income tax. Most of us would rather have a voluntary tax than to be forced to pay a state income tax.Reason 2: It is entertainment.Most of us are willing, from time to time, to pay up to $10 to go see a movie. That gives us about two hours of entertainment for $10. It benefits us in no other way. The lottery typically only costs a dollar, but the entertainment value lasts two or three days or up to a week. People who buy lottery tickets derive their entertainment from crunching numbers on their calculator and imagining what they might do if they won. For some of us, the entertainment value of gettting a lottery ticket is well worth a dollar. It's certainly cheaper entertainment than a $10 movie. One does not need to win the lottery in order to derive pleasure from getting a lottery ticket.Responses to my opponent's arguments:1. It wastes money.It's not a waste of money as long as you get something out of it, and what lottery buyers get out of it is freeom from mandatory taxes as well as entertainment.2. It will be impossible to win.That is factually incorrect. People do win the lottery.3. The only way you could win is through luck.People are lucky from time to time.
American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform

Thanks to tcow2970 for initiating the debate.Opening statement will be short, as the nature of the debate demands that pro must uphold the proposition that Taxes were indeed *excessively high* prior to tax reform. Government SpendingOver several decades, overall spending as a percent of GDP has followed a positive trend, as noted by reference [1]. That being said, to supplement such increased levels in spending, we either (a) raise taxes, or (b) accept higher levels of national debt. Option b) is undesirable because long-term debt does play into the devaluation of US treasury bonds, which would eventually reduce the ability to defecit-spend your way out of a recession. Thus, we are left with option a). Suggestions could be made to decrease spending, but such discussion is outside of the scope of this debate.Effectiveness of Reducing Corporate TaxesAs I am not intending to prove that lowering the tax is effective, but rather that the taxes prior to the tax cut are not excessive, I am not required to advocate for any specific position. Instead, I intend to question the impact a reduced tax rate will have on the general economy. Commonly it is said that lower taxes often produce a 'trickle-down effect' - that is, essentially when corporate taxes are lowered, they are better able to finance the cost of a larger number of workers at higher salaries. However, such logic has never actually been verified in practice. It is also important to note that corporate income taxes aren't fixed at the 35% number often thrown around by Republicans. The corporate income taxes rates also follow brackets. [2].References[1] https://blogs-images.forbes.com...[2] https://www.thebalance.com...
American Corporate Tax Rates Were Too High Before Tax Reform

"The American People are not under taxed, the government in Washington is overfed." It is because Ronald Reagan pinpointed the issues with the overtaxing in America I believe that the corporate tax rates (before the tax cuts) were too high. To hopefully convince everyone viewing this debate I provide some points. First, we had some of the highest tax rates in the world NPR News in 2017 found the claim that the United States had the highest corporate tax rates in the world to be "generally true". There are even some instances in which corporations pay upwards of 50-60% of their profits. If that doesn't scream borderline socialism / government abuse, I don't know what will. Second, the super high tax rates cause international outsourcing The Balance in 2013 found that United States companies have 14 million employees overseas in jobs that could be employing Americans. Why? Because of my first point that corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Congressional Democrats from the ways and means committees reported that at least 47 major corporations have moved overseas in the past decade alone. Those are millions if not billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of jobs. How do we bring them back? Lowering the corporate tax rate. Finally, outsourcing jobs causes unemployment which leads to more crime This is a pretty self explanatory point, but the example I will be using is the rust belt. The place that used to be the manufacturing hub of America but is now a crime ridden ghost-town. Places like Chicago, Detroit and Pittsburgh all used to be flourishing economies in America that were known for being vibrant and industrial revolution havens. Now, due to the outsourcing of jobs, their unemployment has skyrocketed and their crime rates have skyrocketed. Thanks for reading! Format for debate 1. Opening Cases 2. Responses to opening cases 3. Final addresses
prisoners and should they be able to vote

We live in a society that accepts 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via votingSee Declaration of Independence Eric H. Holder, JD, US Attorney General, stated the following in his Feb. 11, 2014 speech. “In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore – it is also too unjust to tolerate… Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans – 5. 8 million of our fellow citizens – are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. That’s more than the individual populations of 31 U.S. states. And although well over a century has passed since post- Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable… It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values.” (1) It is unjust, it affects millions of Americans, it is contrary to societies values, and undermines the role of government. As Eric Holder concludes, “These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.” (1) Through repeal of laws that remove the right to vote we can eliminate all harms associated with them. 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. (1) www. Justice.gov
banning semi-auto guns

I'll play Dyler Turden, Devils advocate for this round. I am pro second amendment and I believe in the inalienable right of self defense by equal means and that also means firearms. The power of the second amendment is really to keep our government in check so it does not drift into a despotic authoritarian regime. Anyways, Here goes the devil's advocate: Look at all the northern European countries, Look at China, Look at Japan, And take a good look at Australia. Gun homicides have gone way down in those countries, It looks like it works, Look at the number of gun homicides in the US. How do you justify not banning semi-auto weapons.
banning semi-auto guns

I feel guns should not be banned. Mostly because how would you protect your self? (I think that shooting/ hunting is fun) Take this for example. You are sleeping in your apartment when suddenly you hear a noise. You have a pistol on your desk you roll over grab it and are able to protect your home. On the other hand you lay in bed and cower while you get robbed. Or you get up grab a bat or something that is not a gun and get shot.
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

You must remember that you wanted throughout the argument you asked for a practical test. I have given you two each of them being more than applicable. You are trying to prove a statement disproved by logic, experience and not to mention nothing says there is no hidden variable to the mathematic equation. You have proven nothing and have no ground to stand on with an obvious answer to who is the winner. To a contest which has been beaten by the probably weaker Jesse Owens against the obviously faster horse. VOTERS, WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?!?!?
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

My opponent states ". .. the second of recording you implied would be needless as the most un-biased observer, a computer would make the calculations without a second of rest. " However, even the fastest computer in the world still takes some time to calculate every iteration. And since it still takes some time (even if only a millionith of a nano second per iteration), it still holds true that upon testing the paradox by calculating every iteration yields that there still is a paradox and that Achilles will not pass that tortoise. We all know that the Achilles will, in fact, pass the tortoise, that much is common sense, but why is it that this paradox, which also, on a mathematical level, makes sense in saying the opposite, that Achilles will not pass the tortoise? Even when we test the paradox (not the race, but the actual paradox, that requires us to calculate each iteration) that the paradox holds? Even using the calculus that originally showed that the paradox is not really a paradox, backs up the paradox when actually tested. This has been shown by both the logic of the paradox itself, and by the very math that was suppose to disprove it. Thank you very much.
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

I'ld like to ask what your trying to prove. The fact the paradox exists (which it does.) or the fact that it's true (which common sense dictates is not.) The definition of a paradox is when two things are not equal when a mathematical equation says they are I.e. The mathematic equation and real life. If that is the case than logically something is not accounted for in the equation and if real life is false than our senses dictate otherwise according to Descartes-esque logic. You asked for a practical solution and I gave you one. And the second of recording you implied would be needless as the most un-biased observer, a computer would make the calculations without a second of rest. The most damning evidence of all is that jesse owns beat a horse in a hundred meter dash. The horse was given a headstart. (1)http://kottke.org...
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

My opponent defines two separate types of graphs. I have no issue with these graphs, but fail to see how my opponent plans on using them for his case, since the observer in our test of the paradox is already defined as being "100% unbiased" with "100% perfectly accurate measuring capabilities. " I will go ahead and show that calculus, the original method used to disprove the original paradox, will also prove that the test supports the paradox. We can go ahead and toss some arbitrary numbers into this. Let us assume that Achilles is running at 4 mile per hour, the tortoise is running at 2 miles per hour, and the tortoise is given a 2 mile head start. Remember that these numbers are arbitrary and so long as Achilles is running faster then the tortoise, he will mathematically catch the tortoise. Conventional algebra will tell us that it will take Achilles 1 hour to catch the tortoise (Achilles will have run 4 miles, and the tortoise will have run 2 miles plus the 2 mile head start). The use of sums, in standard calculus, in the first iteration of the paradox, Achilles runs 2 miles (to where the tortoise was) and it takes him 1/2 an hour, and the tortoise will have run 1 mile. In the next iteration, Achilles runs 1 mile (to where the tortoise was) and it takes him 1/4 an hour (so total time is 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4 hours), and the tortoise will have run 1/2 a mile. As we keep going through these iterations, we start to see a pattern, 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + . .. + (1/2)^n + (1/2)^(n+1) + . .. When we add these countless iterations, we see that they get closer and closer and closer to 1 hour (the same result we get from the algebra solution, thus showing consistency). This is called a convergent series (as all the terms are added, they converge upon a single number). Now, in our test, we must remember that at each iteration, Achilles and the tortoise stop for a second so that the observer can measure the paradox. This means that for each iteration, along with the time of running, there is also 1 second added for measuring. So the first iteration take 1/2 an hour and 1 second, or 1,801 seconds. The second iteration takes 1/4 an hour and 1 second, or 901 seconds (for a total of 2,702 seconds when combined with the first iteration). This may seem like an insignificant amount however it does begin to add up. If we show it with the pattern (now measured in seconds, not hours, like the first one), it come out to (3600/2 + 1) + (3600/4 + 1) + (3600/8 + 1) + (3600/16 + 1) + . .. + (3600/(2)^n + 1) + . .. If we add these together, we'll see that they don't appear to be coming to any particular number. As it turns out, that little +1 second on each iteration turns a convergent series, into a divergent series (meaning that it does not converge on any number and goes to infinity). So our testers find that when they test this paradox through measurement, that even after an infinite amount of time, Achilles does not pass that blasted tortoise. Thank you, . http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk... . http://mathoverflow.net...
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

I would first like to apologize for the lack of length in my argument as I am typing on the Ipad a device so infernal that when you are writing anything in complete sentences (or even texts due to their annoying spell check) you will feel like you are doing daft hands. But to go back to the subject let me define two charts. The first of these is a discrete chart (1). This chart measures absolute numbers that generate automatically representing them with dots on a line graph(ex. On day one we had 15 customers on day 2 we had 16.) However a graph used on 100% of distance graphs is the continuous graph (2) one which is basically a line graph without units as they are either smaller than detectable or nonexistent. Xeno, a philosopher, would with current knowledge of Descartes and the tree in the forest problem would have agreed with me upon saying that perception is reality and if no units of basic time for a creature to move being perceived therefore none would exist. My second argument is in fact an answer to your craving for practical testing I myself being a far weaker man than Achilles and morbidly obese raced a turtle (a tortoise was not available) and giving him a head start and a carrot for incentive proceeded to race. What followed was what I assume was the easiest race I ever committed myself to as I beat this tortoise substitute at walking distance as the turtle proceeded to defecate rather than run much although the wind did pick him up slightly forward. You may say to yourself upon this message that experiment was invalid, Achilles had a morbid fear of turtoises or that my lovable reptilian was biased against you and wanted to impede you research but for some reason this theory is farce. In fact Xeno himself considered it a curiosity as common sense dictates that Achilles would win and therefore realized it must be some unseen law of nature. 1)http://wiki.answers.com... 2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Achilles and the never ending tortoise, practical test

This is a spin off of Zeno's classic "paradox." What I would like to consider is in the practical testing of this paradox. Let us assume that Achilles, a very well trainned tortoise, and a 100% unbaised observer with 100% perfectly accurate measuring capabilities, set out to test this paradox. The Paradox is - If Achilles is attempting to pass a tortoise (assuming that achilles is running faster), which has a head start of "x" feet, he will, after a certian amount of time, reach where the tortoise was, but by then, the tortoise will have moved ahead some distance. After another amount of time, Achilles will reach the tortoise's new position, but by then, the tortoise will have moved again. This process repeats indefinately in so that Achilles, can never pass the tortoise. Now, I fully agree that Achilles will eventually catch that tortoise (and hopefully turn it into a stew so this can never happen again). However, this debate is about testing the paradox. If the paradox is tested, where achilles runs and stops where the tortoise was, and the tortoise runs and stops at the same time as achilles, just for a second, for the observer to measure and record his measurements (to ensure that the test is legitimate) before continuing again to the next stopping point (and repeaeting the process), we find that Achilles never does pass the tortoise. I contest that by simply testing the paradox in the mannar desribed, we cannot help but find that the paradox is, indeed, true. The goal for CON is to argue that this test does not show that the paradox is true. Define "Paradox" - A statement that logically appears true/false, but is actaully false/true. Please start the first round with any suggested definitions and allow arguments to begin in round 2. Thank you.
Pascal's Wager Stands to Reason

As Pro stated in R1, "Pascal's Wager stands to say that it is of greater value to believe in God than not to. If one believes in God and is wrong about his beliefs, He loses nothing. Though, if one doesn't believe in God and is wrong about his beliefs, he loses everything; namely God, eternity, heaven, and infinite gain. Pascal is wagering that it is greater to believe in God than it is not to." PW makes no claims about the nature of a possible God.Yet, Pro goes through his final round by stepping outside of the topicality of PW as he tries to claim Christianities superiority over Islam or other religions. PW does not make any claims about one religion over another, therefore I am under no obligation to refute arguments of this sort. Not only does he go outside of the topic at hand, but his argument has multiple flaws.First, he argues that the Qu'ran's description of God contradicts the definition of God. Pro mentions no specifics regarding this claim and in then raises questions about a definition of God without saying what this definition is. Next, Pro says that "Christians make a number of good arguments for there existing a God, specifically, the Christian God." Once again he mentions no specific arguments and has gone outside the realm of the reasoning of PW.These unproved and untopical premises serves as the bases for his argument that Christians have better odds at "winning the prize of eternal hope," than atheists. Because of their unsound footing, they can be discarded. Continuing on, Pro raises the following point: "In what case has a belief in a God punished those who've believed." The answer is that there is no evidence for this, but there is also no evidence for a God of a different nature that has been presented in this debate. More importantly, as I have previously said, PW makes no claims about the nature of a possible God, therefore all possibilities should be valued equally when analyzing the soundness of PW.While Pro has inadequately proved the sound reasoning of PW, I have demonstrated that it does not stand up to reason and offers a completely false dichotomy. Vote Con!!