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

We agree on the first two points and the last point that my opponent has raised, though the third and fourth one are subject to questioning. I would argue that schools should not become "institutional nannies," always catching students a.k.a parent's kids when they're doing something wrong. Schools are there to provide knowledge and wisdom, and in wisdom there are always choices involved, that's why a school should not inhibit, let alone ban junk foods on their cafeterias because we believe that's not what schools are made for. Even if you ban junk foods in cafeterias, those junk foods are still a mainstay in the local communities; this can be seen if that same school is just a drive or even a walk away from the nearest Taco Bell, McDonald's, or Kentucky Fried Chicken. I would argue further that banning junk foods from schools, would mean: > The decline of the processed food industry. There are people depending their whole lives on manufacturing these foods, and it would only hurt.
Junk food should be banned in schools

A 2001 Surgeon General report found that 14 percent of American children are obese. This is compared with 4 percent in 1963. The report also noted that 300,000 people die each year from obesity-related illnesses or conditions made worse by obesity. Junk foods, high in fat and sugar, contribute to weight gain and obesity, which in turn puts children at risk for diabetes, heart disease and other health problems. " One of the Surgeon General"s recommendations is that schools provide healthier food options and restrict access to junk food in vending machines. USDA rules state that school lunches should contain no more than 30% fat, but the national average is 34%. It is estimated that high school lunches provide only 20% of the proper vitamin levels. " Eating lots of sugary food makes students less able to pay attention in class or perform well on tests. " Parents should monitor a child"s diet, but while a student is away from their parents, the school must function as a parent and do what is best for the students. While the parents cannot be there to oversee a student"s meals, a school should make sure those meals do not include junk food " Schools should set a good example of nutritious eating for students. This would fit in well with nutrition curriculum in health classes.
A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society.

Definitions: 1) Modern Democracy: government where the power is vested in the people through representatives. 2) Should: moral obligation. Value: Moraltiy The Value Criterion is Consent of the Governed. In order for any government to be considered moral(or just) then therefore it must operate under the consent of the people it is governing. Without this consent the government will neither survive nor uphold the obligations a moral and just government must uphold. I offer a sole contention: That the people must be able to elect their representatives in order to protect their rights. Let's think. If a government is violating it's people's rights, then how do the people put a stop to this? They vote, thus removing the leaders violating their rights from office, and placing leaders in who will protect their rights. If the rights of the governed are to be protected, then the governed must have the ability to change their leaders of government.
Bring our troops home!

I would first like to point out my confusion to my opponent and to the voters. While refuting all three of my arguments, my opponent stated that she would go into further detail in the next round. However, there is no next round so... When refuting my first point, she claimed that America wasn't fighting for freedom, but she didn't back up her claim and show how America wasn't fighting for freedom. While refuting my second contention, she said that the countries won't collapse; however, they will collapse. She said herself that there was a civil war in Iraq, thus proving my point that things would get worse if America withdrew and let the country fight the civil war by itself. Also, in afghanistan if we withdraw the country will go into civil war when the Taliban tries to retake the country from the government that the US has set up. According to my source and my opponent's source around 6000 troops have died so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, compare those numbers to any other war. 6,000 is nothing compared to the 47,000 of Vietnam. Or the 33,000 of the Korean conflict (which technically wasn't even a war). [1] Finally, my opponent cannot win because she did not provide any reason why we should withdraw our troops. Vote Con! http://www.historyguy.com...
Bring our troops home!

Thanks to the contender for responding. Now, let's go over your three main reasons for staying in war with Iraq and Afghanistan. 1) The United States is fighting for freedom which is a good reason to fight. On the contrary, the United States is indeed not fighting for freedom, but for an ultier motive. I will not get into much detail in this round but we are definitley not there for "freedom." 2) Even more lives will be lost if we withdraw our troops at the moment. The countries we are in right now are unstable and will collapse if we withdraw. The countries will not collapse. They are corrupt, but they have been. The United States can not intervene every time a country has problems because sometimes, countries should have the right to solve problems themselves. We started a civil war in Iraq by going there, so we've done enough damage. Again, more detail in the next round. 3) There haven't been that many US military deaths in the current wars. This statement strikes a nerve, personally. 4452 lives have been lost. 4452 American lives have been affected, as well s families who were caught in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. 33023 were wounded, which in some cases, is very serious. 1,566 have died so far in Afghanistan. 1,566 families, some with children, have been affected. I will go into more details in the next round. I wish you the best of luck. Sources: http://antiwar.com...
Bring our troops home!

For many reasons I disagree with my opponent that we should bring our troops home. However I will only list three. 1) The United States is fighting for freedom which is a good reason to fight. 2) Even more lives will be lost if we withdraw our troops at the moment. The countries we are in right now are unstable and will collapse if we withdraw. 3) There haven't been that many US military deaths in the current wars. [1], [2] http://usliberals.about.com... http://icasualties.org...
What do you think of this quote? "A womans place belongs in the kitchen."

According to your profile as of 2:10 PM EST you are 19 years old which makes your comment about being in middle school or your age a falsehood [1]. The resolution of the debate is "What do you think of this quote? 'A womans place belongs in the kitchen.'" I have stated what I _think_ of the quote and I _think_ that it is not sexist because of the reasons provided in previous rounds. You do think that it is sexist and are interpreting that sexism from a similar quote that reads in many ways, such as: "A woman's place is in the kitchen." "Women belong in the kitchen." Those quotes are sexist, and you claim that whatever quote you have in your head is "probably the most sexist quote I've ever seen." In my round two response I provide multiple quotes that I believe are much, much more offensive and sexist than the quote you are thinking of. It is now not an unreasonable claim to make when I say that you have now seen the quotes that I have posted. Making them, at least from my viewpoint, the most sexist quotes that you have ever seen. It is up to the voters to decide whether or not this is the case. I believe that I have successfully negated this confusing resolution and urge a Pro vote. [1] http://i42.tinypic.com...
What do you think of this quote? "A womans place belongs in the kitchen."

I am in middle school right now not in high school,college, or older. You need to stop dissecting my sentences and start focusing on my points & arguments. You know what I've noticed, that you only focus on one point of my argument. You focus on one thing, you need to start looking at what else the opponent is saying. Yes, I understand that I said it's the most sexist quote I've ever heard, & yes I said women's. Big deal, this debate needs to start focusing on the points, not the grammar. I understand that people will penalize me for incorrect grammar, but I'm getting the point across. I said it was the most sexist quote I'VE ever heard, does that mean I've heard all the quotes in the world that are sexist towards women? No, it does not, I'm stating something I have heard not you.
What do you think of this quote? "A womans place belongs in the kitchen."

This quote is not sexist at all. You say that it is the most sexist quote that you have ever heard, after I disect the quote I will provide some that I consider to actually be sexist. *First word, 'a,' in the quote's context meaning a singular object. *The phrase, 'womans place,' first off it utilizes a misspelling of the plural form of the word 'woman' or it forgets the apostrophe after the letter 'n' to make the word possessive. In the corrected forms it referes to either the place that belongs to a woman, or a place for woman, both places are transformed to objects by the use of the word 'a,' even though places are typically not objects. *Fourth word, 'belongs,' as in the place where an object or idea is meant to go. *Phrase, 'in the kitchen,' indicates where said object referred to as 'womans place' is intended to go. This quote still doesn't sound sexist, mainly because it doesn't really make any sense. Here are some quotes that are actually sexist towards women: "Why don't you go make my another sandwich and grab me a beer. That's all you're good for anyways." Said from a man to a woman. "I wonder what fish smelled liked before women went swimming?" Said about women in general by a man. "Unless you make a million dollars a year, you must completely ignore and demean a woman to gain her affection. If you completely disregard her existence, she'll die for you." Said about women by a man. "I'm not sure I understand the problem. Perhaps you forgotten to scrub the toilets, wash his favorite bowling shirt, or do any of your other womanly duties." Said to a woman after she complains about something. ~ I am sure that these quotes illustrate what true sexism sounds like.
What do you think of this quote? "A womans place belongs in the kitchen."

My opponent claims that the quote in the resolution is a sexist one. I do not see any sexism at all. This is because I am unaware of what a 'womans place' is or where it would belong. The quote may not be very coherent but I see no reason that a person would be in the wrong to say it. I therefore stand in affirmation that the phrase, "A womans place belongs in the kitchen." would be perfectly fine to say and is unoffensive.
What do you think of this quote? "A womans place belongs in the kitchen."

This quote is probably the most sexist quote I've ever seen. I'm not exactly sure who came up with this quote & why, but I am appualled. Not only do I disagree with this quote I loathe this quote. Analogy 1: How do you explain all the man chefs in the world? Are men going to be considered badly because they think their place is in the kitchen? What about all the independent woman in the world who are in the business offices right at this moment, are there places at the office?
Age of the Earth

I am not aware that the God taught in the Bible has anything to do with time. Time on Earth is relative to the time it took for the Sun to orbit the flat Earth, since we were perceived as the center of the Universe. However, depending where one might be in the universe, time would probably be measured by some other physical phenomena. What clock would an existence use if that existence had always been, and will always be, as taught in the Bible. I doubt that Adams first thought was to find out what time it might have been, or that he decided that the Earths clock would be based on the revolution of the Sun. In other words, I am arguing that Moses was using conventional wisdom when he wrote Genesis. Maybe, one day, we will find the Garden of Eden, dig up Adam, and carbon date him. Yes, God created time! My premise is that God, Himself, has no use for time in His existence. Do you believe it took "time" for God to create anything? Is God limited to the 5 senses of smell, sight, hearing, touch, and taste? How can He possibly communicate with us when we are limited by these senses and time. For us to understand, he must use our awareness's, but they most likely have no relationship to His awareness. In other words, He must use some sort of analogy, metaphor, parable, etc. As in Peter, ". . . one day is as a thousand years. . ." Peter is not saying "is" a thousand years. Regarding Genesis, before there was light and days consisting of light and dark, there was "confusion." How long did this "confusion" last before we had a time measurement? Could it be one earth day, 6,000 Earth days, 13,000 Earth days or 13 billion Earth days? I think it mattered not to God how long it took in time. If we accept modern science's estimate, will God care? If he would care, why? Can we agree that God created time, but He has no use for it in His Realm, and neither will we?
Age of the Earth

God has everything to do with time, he created the Sun to orbit the Earth which like you said gives us time. Genesis 1:14 " Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the Heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." Now since God is in the Heavens and not on Earth then his time would be different from ours. Moses wrote in Genesis that it took God 6 days to create the earth and he rested on the 7th, but in 2 Peter 3:8 it says "..do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." So what I get from reading that verse is that 7 days could very well have actually been 7,000 years. Then if you believe that from Adam to the Flood was 2,000 years and from the Flood to Jesus was 2,000 years, and it's been another 2,000 years since that, then the Earth would roughly be 13,000 years old. I'm not claiming I'm right. This is just my take on it until I am presented with new information that can prove other wise. Thanks for you input @rwmmiller
Age of the Earth

I am not aware that the God, taught in the Bible, has anything to do with time. Time on Earth is relative to the time it took for the Sun to orbit the flat Earth, since we were perceived as the center of the Universe. However, depending where one might be in the Universe, time would probably be measured by some other physical phenomena. What clock would an existence use if that existence had always been, and will always be, as taught in the Bible. I doubt that Adam's first thought was to find out what time it might have been, or that he decided that the Earth's clock would be based on the revolution of the Sun. In other words, I am arguing that Moses was using conventional wisdom when he wrote Genesis. Maybe, one day, we will find the Garden of Eden, dig up Adam, and carbon date him. Maybe that 9000 year old tree was the original apple tree.
Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use

I shall now post the lyrics of one of the world's most famous Marijuna consumers, Bob Marley.Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music! Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music! Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music! Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music! Hey, Mister Music, sure sounds good to me! I can't refuse it: what to be got to be. Feel like dancing, dance 'cause we are free; Feel like dancing, come dance with me! Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music! Roots, rock, reggae, yeah! Dis a reggae music! Play I some music: dis a reggae music! Play I some music: dis a reggae music! Play I on the R&B - wo-oh! Want all my people to see: We're bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread! Play I on the R&B; want all my people to see: We bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread! Roots, rock, reggae: dis a reggae music! Uh-uh! Roots, rock, reggae, ee-mi duba! Dis a reggae music! Play I some music: (dis a reggae music!) Play I some music: (dis a reggae music!) --- /Saxophone solo/ (Dis a reggae music!) (Dis a reggae music!) --- Play I on the R&B; I want all my people to see: (doo-doo-doo-doo!) We bubblin' on the Top 100, just like a mighty dread! (doo-doo-doo-doo!) Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music! Play I some music: (dis a) reggae music! (Dis a reggae music!) (Dis a reggae music!) ______________________________________________________________________________________Bob Marley ladies and gentlemen. May he rest in piece.
Marijuana Should be Legalized for Recreational Use

*Con has forfeited round 2, therefore I will not make any new points, to give Con the chance to catch up.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I will proceed by restating my main points so far. If Con forfeits the next round, I will state more points.-The accessibility of cannabis to children and teens will be more limited.-Cannabis does less harm healthfully than alcohol and tobacco, which are legal drugs, so why should it be illegal while alcohal and tobacco aren't?-Legalization will reduce Crime.-The problem of too many people in prison will be solved. -I would like to add on to this. If there are less people in jail, the government would spend less on funding th prison system, which could result in tax reduction or availability of funding to other things.
burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl is inconsistent w prolife message

And I answered that question. It could be argued by a prolifer that saving the six year old would be morally permissible if the prolifer knew the test tube babies were scheduled to be terminated the next day. And since you've made no attempt to refute my argument, it has been dropped and assumed to be valid. I have not lost. I have won.
Marijuana is healthier than alcohol.

I will be very brief with my reasons as to why marijuana is healthier than alcohol. Being that is the topic of the debate... 1. Marijuana unlike alcohol has been found to have no linkage to cancer. Use of marijuana and marijuana alone will not give you cancer. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Alcohol use on the other hand has been linked to SEVEN types of cancer. http://www.cancer.org... 2. Studies of even "heavy-users" of marijuana, (People who smoke daily) proved old refer madness myths about smoking pot causes brain damage to be plainly false. http://www.webmd.com... While alcohol, being that it's kinda poison, has been proven to be quite unhealthy to consume with regards to your brains health..http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... 3.THE DEATH TOLL! 75,000 people have been estimated to be killed by incidents relating to alcohol abuse. This year alone (going by the numbers) 10,839 people will die in drunk driving crashes. Would you like to know how many people who will die from marijuana use this year??? ...... 0, nothing, nada, zilch. Reason why? Marijuana does not kill. http://newsflavor.com... MORE SOURCES :DDDDDDDD http://www.madd.org... http://alcoholvsmarijuana.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Marijuana is healthier than alcohol.

I accept. I hope this debate is conducted in a way that the two extremes (alchoholics and "junkies", or burnouts and hopeless addicts, will be avoided as examples) I would start by conceding that inherently marajuana has better health benefits, but I will be arguing that the lifestyle, crime, addiction, cancer, deterioration of the brain and sister drugs that even a small amount of marajuana promotes are far riskier than the usual lifestyle of alchohol consumption. In other words, I will be arguing that the "marajuana lifestyle" if you will is much more dangerous than alchohol. I also have the burden to show how even the smallest engagments in marajuana consumption will lead to activity in the "marajuana lifestyle". I hand this debate over to my opponent.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

"6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses." Due to my opponent's forfeit in the previous rounds, he has conceded the debate by not answering the questions previously asked. I heavily urge a CON vote. My opponent has essentially forfeited this entire debate. He has not answered any of my questions. I heavily urge a Con vote.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

"6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses." Due to my opponent's forfeit in the previous rounds, he has conceded the debate by not answering the questions previously asked. I heavily urge a CON vote. However, I will once again make another list of ten questions. 1. Should the government be responsible for the entire welfare of the society it governs? 2. Should the government be held responsible for any disadvantages held by the society it governs? 3. Are you a Christian? 4. Do you believe the United States government represents the true Constitution of the United States? 5. Should marriage be considered a religious institution? 6. Did Michael Jackson spark a revolution of the pop culture? 7. Do you enjoy the ocean, as well as other bodies of water? 8. Are you ignorant? 9. Should people be responsible for the actions of their government? 10. Did you enjoy this debate? Please, keep in mind that my opponent has conceded the debate by forfeits. I heavily urge a Con vote.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

"6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses." Due to my opponent's forfeit in the previous round, he has conceded the debate by not answering the questions previously asked. I heavily urge a CON vote. However, I will still make another list of ten questions. 1. Can you swim? 2. Do you believe war is justified? 3. Should liberty be valued over life in times of conflict? 4. Do you eat meat? 5. Do you support nationalism? 6. Do you support gay marriage? 7. Do you support Adolf Hitler? 8. Have you ever plagiarized? 9. Is the Bible a good source of morality? 10. Do you expect people to be generous towards others? Please, keep in mind that my opponent has conceded the debate by forfeiting. I heavily urge a Con vote.
I will not contradict myself in this debate.

1. Do you believe homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals? 2. Do you support the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy? 3. In times of conflict, should liberty be valued over security? 4. Do you believe people should live in accordance to their biological imperatives? 5. Do you think it is dumb when guys fight over girls? 6. Do you support patriotism? 7. Do you support the writings of The Constitution of the United States? 8. Do you make fun of people with disabilities? 9. Should the federal government be in charge of the definitions of words? 10. Do you support homosexual marriage?