BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Low-fat diets are not really healthy

There were some great points by my opponent with the studies that was found, but I believe they don’t have much relevancy in this debate. My opponent opening statement in regards to depression states "A diet that's too low in fat “especially essential fatty acids, which your body can only get from food “might hurt your mental health. Both omega-3s and omega-6s play roles in mood and behavior." You are assuming if someone eats low-fat diets they will not eat healthy fats. A person can eat healthy fats and still be considered a low-fat diet. I do often. The same with the increased cancer risk. My opponent states "If your diet lacks healthy fats, you could be increasing your risk of cancer” Again this says nothing about low fat diets it’s just suggesting you intake healthy fats. The American Heart Association states "The American Heart Association recommends eating fish (particularly fatty fish) at least two times (two servings) a week. Each serving is 3.5 ounce cooked, or about ¾ cup of flaked fish. Fatty fish like salmon, mackerel, herring, lake trout, sardines and albacore tuna are high in omega-3 fatty acids. " That’s roughly 26 grams of fat per week from those fats. http://nutritiondata.self.com... And you also can take fish oil supplement which is recommended to take about 6 grams per day of fat per day for those healthy fats. Pretty much every point made has addressed the importance of eating the right fats as opposed to showing reasons why low-fats are not healthy. Another point the Pro made was Low-Fat diets can make you fatter because of the packaging and people will eat more. Eating too much of anything can make you fatter. This is not a low-fat diet issue this is a packaging issue. The food being low-fat is not causing people to be fat the amount they are eating is causing them to be fat or unhealthy. The last point made was "Cant' fight off infection" and the Pro cited "Studies suggest that any bad fats ingested in the body are actually used for the very important role of fighting off any infection which tries to penetrate the body. A recent study has discovered that a small amount of saturated fat can actually be good for the body and people on a low-fat diet don’t have the means to repair their body if needed." This quote echoes my points; it says "a small amount of saturated fat can actually be good for the body and people on a low-fat diet" A person can get the fats they need and still be on a low-fat diet as that study suggests. Having a small amount of bad fat can be helpful, just like having healthy fats. Again this still doesn’t give evidence that a low-fat diet is unhealthy. The debate is about Low-fat diets not Non-fat diets. If someone is not eating any fat then your statements will be more valid in this argument. A person can eat a low-fat diet and still get their dosage of healthy fats.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

Our past debate does not matter in this debate. They were different premises, with different scenarios that have no bearing on this debate at hand.But again I will clarify. Unlimited Universe means a separate realm from ours where there are NO LIMITS. This means neither an immovable ojbect, nor an unstoppable force can exist at any time in that universe. You argued one cannot exist while the other one does. I argued that neither exist ever in that universe.NOW onto our debate.I will quote a few of Pro's Round 3 debate." God the otherwise unlimited who is limited by logic. if you want to say God is not truely unlimited, i won't argue, but it's only as a matter of logic.""i've actually entetained the idea that we can just say 'immovable objects' and 'unstoppable forces' just do not exist, at least in terms of whether they'd abide by our natural laws. but, if we entertain that they are possible, which i would, then we then have to ask all the stuff we've been talking about above." Why are we entertaining the idea of illogical, or against nature, objects when the god we are arguing about has to abide by these laws of logic?Pro has said God must abide by logic, yet deems the two opposing forces, immovable and unstoppable, do not apply to the laws of nature. He is putting an unlimited omnipotent god in a limited universe. This does not apply as an unlimited all powerful god is not restrainted to "our world" and our "laws of nature"."there's effectively immovable and there's infinitely immovable. effectively, if it has most of the energy in the universe, there's not or in some cases wouldn't be likely going to be anything that can move it."Establishing a difference in immovable at this point in this debate seems meaningless. But still able to struck down in argument. If this immovable object has "most of the energy in the universe" and this omnipotent god has unlimited power/energy in this universe, it is therefore movable by this god. This renders the object movable, failing to meet the criteria of 'immovable'.If it is infinitely movable, it must have infinte mass, or ALL of the energy in the universe. This is illogical, as nothing can have infinite mass.This means we are dealing in the realm of illogical. This god should not be tied to logic, if were assuming the objects created are tied to logic.I do not need to entertain the ideas of these objects existing within our laws of nature, because this god does not exist with our laws of nature.Concluding, an unlimited, omnipotent god who can create illogical objects deemed immovable, should also be able to perform more illogical tasks. Such as moving said immovable rocks.Thank you for the debate.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

i don't see how con is arguing that there's a difference between an unlimited world, and the world we live in with a said unlimited God. "In a universe without limits, immovable, and unstoppable do not apply as they have imposed limits." con in the past debate said that those two forces could in fact exist, and that they couldn't exist at the same time. there's no reason we should make the world with God mean anything more than a world with supposed unlimited potential. if there's immovable objects there can't be unstoppable forces interacting with it. in the past debate or this one. "We are now arguing if an unlimited entity can create powers beyond his limit. These premises are different and do not coincide with one another." there's no reason why an 'unlimited entity' would change anything that is different than an unlimited world. if there are restrictions as there were in the past debate, there's restrictions in this debate. that is, God the otherwise unlimited who is limited by logic. if you want to say God is not truely unlimited, i won't argue, but it's only as a matter of logic. "The only way this rock could be considred immovable, or too big, is if it had infinte mass. This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass " i would suppose there would be a tipping point, where a humongous rock, or a rock with dense energy making it immovable, would not need infinite mass. i mean, there's effectively immovable and there's infinitely immovable. effectively, if it has most of the energy in the universe, there's not or in some cases wouldn't be likely going to be anything that can move it. "This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass " i've actually entetained the idea that we can just say 'immovable objects' and 'unstoppable forces' just do not exist, at least in terms of whether they'd abide by our natural laws. but, if we entertain that they are possible, which i would, then we then have to ask all the stuff we've been talking about above. we do not need to resort to con's point about god being able to do illogic in the second step if he can do illogic in the first step. it's not illogical to begin with. there can't be two effectively immutably opposing forcing that can interact with each other. it this was true in the past debate, i'm still not clear why it wouldn't be true in this debate.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

Pro is misinterpretting our last debate about the ability of an unlimited universe. In a universe without limits, immovable, and unstoppable do not apply as they have imposed limits.Therefore any arguments regarding "limiting the unlimited" have not been said in this debate and should not apply.We are now arguing if an unlimited entity can create powers beyond his limit. These premises are different and do not coincide with one another." the rock wouldnt need to take up the whole univers fo it to be immovable, it would merely be too big for any other existing force to move. therefore such a rock is not impossible."The only way this rock could be considred immovable, or too big, is if it had infinte mass. This is logically and physically impossible as infinte mass If we agree this rock can be created, we must do so agreeing it is logically impossible (but illogically possible).I stand by my argument: if an omnipotent god is capable do doing an illogical act (creating the rock) he is should then be able to move the rock, despite its logical impossibility; as this omnipotent god's power does not apply to logic.(if he can do one, why can he not do the other?)
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

"MY simple rebuttal is why can he not do both at the same time." because it is a logical impossiblity. there cannot be at the same time an immovable force and an unstoppable force acting on each other logically. it is impossible, logically. con even admitted as much in our last debate about the 'unlimited paradox'. he now says it should be possible for God but not for a general notion of an unlimited force? what's the difference? there is none. con tries to apply physics to the immovable rocks, and i'm not sure he's doing a proper job. the rock wouldnt need to take up the whole univers fo it to be immovable, it would merely be too big for any other existing force to move. therefore such a rock is not impossible. and why would con say an immovable force be possible in the other debate, but not an immovable rock in this debate? i never claimed God can do the impossible. in fact, i stated the opposite. con argues that the unlimited cannot be limited to logic or it is not unlimited. but, we have no reason to think anything other than the logically possible exists. or, we could at least say the otherwise unlimited force of God is limited by logic. and again, con was before acting as if an unlimited force cannot cause two infinitely opposing forces to come together... so what has changed?
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not at same time

Thank you for the invite to this debate.You are asking two questions of an unlimited/omnipotent god.1. Can this god create an immovable rock2. can god, with unlimited power move this immovable rock.(you are asserting a third point...3. yes, but not at the same time)MY simple rebuttal is why can he not do both at the same time.First we must look at the rock. The only way a rock to be consider absolutely immovable is if there is no space for the rock to moved to. This means the rock is as big, or bigger than space itself. However the space-continuum will keep expanding to fit any objects inside of it.Therefore creating such a rock is logically impossible. Pro has claimed it is possible for an omnipotent god to complete a task that is illogically impossible.Second, the movement of the rock. This god has unlimited power. By the definition of unlimited, he should be able move such a rock (an illogically created rock).The problem arises as we have given this illogical rock the inability to move. How could this god move something that is immovable.The question is not how he could do it, but simply...If we agree, the omnipotent god can do an illogical task in creating this rock, why are we limiting him to the logic of moving it?Is there any reason god is only allowed to perform one illogical task and not two?An unlimited god is not LIMITED to logic. Therefore the illogical is possible as agreed by Pro, in the creation of an immovable rock.
George W. Bush is a great President

Phil, President Bush ran on a non-interventionist foreign policy. That alone is enough for me. Also, does Scooter Libby mean anything and if that doesn't do it for you then the fact the any president would abuse the office of the President by using line-item vetos and Presidential Orders would put me over the edge, not to mention the postal act where the President wrote at the bottom of the bill that because of the "war on terror" the U.S. Government could now open our mail, but no one seemed to pay attention to that one. Let's talk about the "War on Terror"......you can't have a war on an idea! You will never win a war against and idea.....think about this for a minute. It's the perfect tool to make people scared to keep them in a perpetual war so you can usurp power. Your arguements sound a little too Hannity for me, but hey, "You're a GREAT AMERICAN!" Check out Ron Paul and you'll see what a real leader with REAL principles is all about. Also, you might want to watch Aaron Russo's movie America: Freedom to Fascism. If you would like to e-mail me privately I can mail you a copy. Good luck searching for true governmental principles, some good reading is John Locke, Montesquieu, Bastiat and there's always Orwell to mention a few. I sincerely hope that you check some of these things out.....you just might change your mind. All the best, Cristy
George W. Bush is a great President

George W. Bush is a great President, and has served the U.S. honorably. While there appears to be significant outrage by a majority of Americans, I believe it is in fact a minority whose voices are being hyped by the leftist media. The far left never recovered from Al Gore losing in the 2002 election, and as time has gone on, the leftists in this country have done everything possible to find fault with President Bush. Despite the fake outrage portrayed by the media, President Bush in fact a great leader for several important reasons. 1. The President has kept his promises when he was elected. He is guided by principles, and is kept in check by his belief in God almighty. 2. Despite the perceived outrage of some of his policies, he stays his course. This is the sign of a true leader, not one seeking power or wealth. Past presidents often look to the poles in the media (which are unreliable as proven in the '02 presidential exit polls(1)) for direction. President Bush has proven his greatness by in fact doing what he thinks is right and just, not what is popular or perceived the be popular. 3. Despite the constant attacks personal against him, his administration, and family, he has never retaliated. Most people would be publicly outraged if they were accused of such things, however President Bush has held his ground and his course. He recognizes that bending to the will of his counterparts in Washington or the liberal press, would be contrary to his promises to the people whom elected him twice. This makes President Bush a very honest man. (2) To sum up my opening argument I would add that the harder road to walk is more often the right road to walk. In the case of President Bush, he could have taken the easy path, but then those who would murder our neighbors for the sake of their religious beliefs would not be kept at bay. (1) http://www.gop.com... (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
George W. Bush is a great President

Here it is, my closing argument... Your analogy leaves out a scenario where the bully is attempting to behead other children. A fair analogy would be, "If your neighbor is loading up on ammunition and telling everyone he's going to cut off your head in the middle of the night, you take action before he delivers on his word." The fact that you think our actions are creating terrorists is absurd and unfounded. These talking points come straight out of the leftist's think tanks. To answer your question, I'll quote an experienced Navy SEAL Chief from whom I had the honor of listening to several weeks ago during a SEAL graduation. He said, "this war will not be won by you (addressing the new SEALs), but by your sons, for this war will wage on for forty of fifty years." We must stay over there (the sandbox) until the Islamic Jihadists are no more. If we don't, then they will make their way over here again, and murder more of our brothers and sisters. It's as simple as that, and your "let's just be nice" ideology is putting us all at risk. It's ironic that you would quote Churchill. He spent many years warning his fellow countrymen of the threat of the growing Nazi regime. Just like now, the people then were apathetic to the warning signs. The world is a very dangerous place, and when a group threatens us, we need to take them out. Because of George W. Bush's commitment to go after the terrorists, despite the misguided opinions of the public and the leftist-agenda of the media, he will ultimately be remembered as a great president. It is clear to me that President Bush gets no joy out of sending our troops into harm's way. His tears are genuine when he meets with the family members of fallen heroes. It's often said that doing the right thing, and the harder thing, are often the same thing. I cannot subscribe to the belief that changing the direction of our foreign policy should occur every time a poll say's the American people don't like the direction. We elect our Presidents based on the hope that their principles will guide them when action is necessary. If President Bush changed his direction every time there was media pressure, he wouldn't be a leader at all, he'd be a pushover. Thank you for the lively debate...that was a lot of fun. It will be interesting to see where the votes come in. Best of luck. You can pick the next topic of debate. ~ Phil
George W. Bush is a great President

Dear Phil, You said, "There is however a misconception in the world that peace is only obtainable by not firing any bullets. Let me correct this fallacy…peace is ONLY obtainable and sustainable when one side has victory. I would prefer that winning side to be America." Is that the advice you'd give your child for dealing with the kid he has issues with at school? Do you say, "The only way you two are going to get along is if you kick his butt son." Seriously?! You are making my point for me. In the "war on terror" WHERE does this victory occur? And how will you ever know you have won? Are you sure you got them all???????????? Hello! You can't get them all because you keep creating them! It is a war that will never end. The enemy has changing faces. You can't win fighting a new kind of war with old tactics. That's how the British lost the American Revolution. Regarding Signing Statements, Line-Item-Vetos, Presidential Orders and the Patriot Act it's just a bummer now for those "suspected" terrorists. Innocent until proven guilty is just a crazy idea from a couple of old dead guys from England anyway. I hope YOU never get suspected, but of course you wouldn't, because when the color is orange you "act accordingly". But I guess we need to do all this to keep us safe and secure, right? I'm so glad Big Brother has everything under control. In honor of your opinions of WWII, Churchill said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." Here's a little for you.......The left and the RIGHT media spin it equally! You've been duped as equally as all the liberals you don't like. That's why I know my opinion is slightly more objectionable because I don't belong to either side. It is hilariously terrifying to watch. One last piece of truth for you. http://www.lewrockwell.com... Peace, Cristy
Waterboarding is a justified method of interrogation

" The people who are doing the water boarding are a biased source. Obviously they will claim that they gained useful information, because they do not wish to be punished. Has there ever been outside confirmation that these "dozens of attacks" would have occurred, and that it was not just him making things up because he did not want to be tortured?" This report is from CNSN News. It tells about the CIA report on a recent case of water boarding. I would consider the CIA a "credible" source. http://www.cnsnews.com... "While I agree that saving lives is the first obligation of the government, the Pro must show that lives actually have been saved, otherwise we are simply torturing people for no reason. And that is bad." Yes, lives HAVE been saved. Please see the previous report. "The scenario you give is flawed. It is not that the US is responding, it is like a kid was pretending to kill another kid on suspicion that he would in the future, attack a different kid." I don't see where you are getting that. It is showing that if an attack is imminent, it is justified to take the necessary actions to prevent it. You agreed that it is the government's responsibility, so what other way is there to uphold the responsibility? "The problem with that is the only way the decision-makers can actually know a ticking time-bomb scenario is happening is if they already know about the attack. Which defeats the necessity of needing information." We knew an attack was coming, just not the important details. Please read the entire article, and you will see specifically why we were OBLIGATED to water board the terrorist. "Waterboarding is not used as a punishment. If it were, then it would be a sentencing option for those who have gone through the court systems. As such, it is irrelevant whether it would be a good punishment." Fine, I will agree with you. "First, has there EVER been any confirmation of information that was gained from waterboarding. You know, getting the same information from a different source. Cause if there has not, the info is worthless. The dude could be just making things up." So could yours. I provided a legitimate example. "Causing someone to feel like they are drowning 83 times definitely falls under acute physical and mental pain." Well if it felt comfortable, then they wouldn't tell us anything, now would they? "Ah, so their brutality justifies our brutality. Well, that just throws out any moral superiority or life saving arguments you want to bring up. It means we just devolve into an endless "Remember the atrocity they committed against us last time, which will excuse the atrocity we are about to commit today". An endless cycle of violence." This is a non-unique argument. The same applies to jail, or any other kind of punishment. What are we going to do if we do not punish them? Will we stand by as they terrorize America? I would hope you don't think so. OK, so you say that we cannot use brutal methods to gather information. Then tell me, what are we going to do? I will leave you and the voters with this question. Thank you.