BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

Before I begin, I would like to respond to your statement: "...doesn't prove of disprove religious intolerance towards other people's faiths beliefs or anyone." If it doesn't disprove or prove religious intolerance towards others, why do we have it? Why can't we change the pledge if it really isn't that big of a deal? And the bigger question, why was it added in the pledge in the first place, then? (You will notice I ask a lot of rhetorical questions.) The fact is, the government should not be asking impressionable, vulnerable children to pledge their allegiance to a God at the same time that they are pledging their allegiance to their country. This is easily seen in the pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag... ONE NATION, UNDER GOD... (I'm not yelling, just adding emphasis) Anyone saying the pledge is pledging to their nation, which is "protected by a god". It is only indoctrination because only one religious view is present. Like I've said before, if it wasn't biased, why don't we put "under Zeus?" or "under Allah?" in the pledge? Why just "God"? "Under God" is not a rhetorical statement; there isn't any way you can't take it literally. "Under God" doesn't have any hidden meanings, either. It was a mistake to put it in the pledge, and it is not patriotic and and it is definitely not American. I await your second argument.
The words "under god" in the US Pledge of Allegiance

I would like to say that even though church and state is separated from the government that saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance isn't monotheism and doesn't prove of disprove religious intolerance towards other people's faiths beliefs or anyone. These same people tried to argue the same foolishness about Ohio's State Motto which says " with God all things are possible". I will further present some brief evidence that these sayings aren't indoctrination of our children. Once again thank you for this chance to debate this topic.
Obesity is a disease.

Though you do make a few valid points, stating their will be people who will become healthy if obese and change their life style there is still the fact that there are those who can change their life style yet will remain obese. Side effect or not, obesity is directly correlated from illnesses that effect a person hormones. You do make a valid point in your second argument but that is more or less off point from the point i was making when i brought it up. I was simply stating a fact that obesity does in fact lead to march harmful diseases that cannot always be fixed by simply eating healthy and exercising. That is to say if an obese person does eat healthy and exercise before they become sick with the various illnesses related to obesity (Heart Disease, Diabetes, etc.). True family history does also play a factor in those illnesses affecting a person's health. Obesity greatly increases those factors. In Conclusion may it be a side effect of some illness or be directly correlated to a person's life style obesity in the long run is a disease. A disease that effects tens of thousands if not millions of people in the United states, and across the globe for that matter. It is a serious issue that should be taken seriously and not written off as a poor life style choice.
Obesity is a disease.

Majority of the population will loose weight if they eat healthy and exercise as i stated originally. There will always be people with issues such as imbalanced hormones that will cause different results. The hormone imbalance would be considered a disease leading to obesity. Obesity is not a disease. Obesity can cause illness and be a result of other conditions but being overweight in itself is not a disease. The genetics that cause diseases such as diabetes and heart disease is absolutely real. Being healthy and good lifestyle choices only helps reduce your risk of being subjected to these diseases. In many cases no matter what you do you will become diabetic because it is in your family but it will always help to be healthy when trying to fight a disease. Overall, eating fatty foods and lack of exercise will result in obesity. You decide what to put into your body and how active your life is. While there are genetic disease that can result in obesity, obesity in itself is not an illness but rather a choice.
Obesity is a disease.

1. Though you make a valid point on the fact that the choices of exercising and eating healthier there are many other factors that go into a person suffering from obesity. There are plenty of people who eat healthy and stay active yet still remain overweight, or obese. This is not because of any choices they made; it is because of a medical issue. Though this not mean it is entirely a genetic issue. Obesity is still largely related to ones genetics. A person can make all the right choices in life, eat healthy, stay active, and never sit still in a sense and yet they will remain overweight, or obese. Bottom line they remain this way due to the fact that their body's genetics simply can't lose weight because of its genetics. 2. Congrats to your father. 3. Though there is no illness that causes a person to eat all those fatty foods in the world. There are illnesses that cause them to be unable to lose the weight they do gain though the foods. These illnesses lead to them becoming overweight and then soon enough becoming obese, or just really overweight. It cannot always be helped, and just because some over the top BS pill will create a temporary fix for their weight. It does not mean every obese person should run out and get a lifetime supply of hydroxi cut or whatever the hell it's called. For that solution is exactly what it says it is. A temporary fix for the larger issue unless of course they constantly use these pills. For once the body has an outside source take over a bodily function it is difficult to return to a pure body experience. So every morning the person would have to wake up and take pills in order to stay "healthy" or skinny again. So i remain with my point that obesity is directly correlated to the fact that some people just have poor genetics that cause them to gain weight, but never lose it. While on the other hand there are people who can go out eat obscene amounts of unhealthy food and then sit on their couches all day and never gain a single pound. So as i said a person's weight is directly related to their genetics.
Obesity is a disease.

Consuming calories and not exercising is how a person gains weight. Exercise and eating healthy food only helps control problems with hormone imbalance. In addition to good lifestyle choices there are medications a doctor can suggest to help. You aren't born obese and overweight individuals make changes everyday. My father was obese and made the choice to get off the couch and exercise. He made the choice to stop eating KFC, Taco Bell and Burger King on a daily Basis. His choices have resulted in loosing 100 pounds and overcoming what he had done to his body for so many years. The point of the matter is there is no illness that forces you to take in fatty foods and ignore exercise. You are correct that being overweight does lead to heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure and that only suggests that indeed being overweight is a contributor. A factor that definitely can cause an real disease such as diabetes. Obesity is a result of not caring for your body.
Obesity is a disease.

Simply put obesity is an uncontrollable pandemic on our society. People do not have to have to eat an unprecedented amount of calories in order to become heavily overweight or obese as some people put it. People can just live their lives and become obese. It is a health issue not a sheer disregard of a person's health; some people just cannot help themselves when it comes to this issue. So just because someone gets a Super-Sized double quarter pounder from McDonalds with a coke, and milk shake does not mean they are obese. For if that logic was correct then soon enough most if not all of children will soon be obese. Sure it means there making a terrible choice with their lunch but it will not make them become obese as you have suggested, though it is not the bone of your argument or i would hope it wasn't anyway. But yet you make it seem that anyone who enjoys Fast Food will start to live a lifestyle of obesity which is a sad mistake and probably a biased outlook on a major issue of today's modern society. Anyone can become obese no matter what they eat. Foods are not the issue in obesity as media and people who are looking for a scapegoat make it seem. The real issue in this matter is a person's body. As a person's body can have many natural parts, act very unnatural, such as hormone imbalance, issues affecting a person's glands, as well as a slow metabolism. All these and other factors can play right into the hands of obesity and the risks that come with it, like Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, and Heart Disease. These are all health issues not lifestyle choices, well last time i checked they were health issues not social, I could be mistaken, just saying.
Obesity is a disease.

Obesity is not a disease. Obesity is a lifestyle. People chose what to put into there bodies. No one drives you to McDonald's, forces you to buy a quarter ponder and consume it. These actions are choices. When you choose to eat burger containing 3x the amount of recommended calories, you should expect to gain weight. Not to mention the ones who wash down the burger with a coke and biggie size french fry. If you make these decisions you are not ill, you are negligent.
'Merica Round 2

Well, this is interesting. Twice I've been invited to debate in the past 30 minutes by "Ark428". The first time he presented me with no arguments, this time he presented me with 3. I'd like to carry over all my arguments from our previous debate. http://debate.org... Now, on to my refutations. 1. 'Mericuh is not awesome. America operates under an imperialistic evil capitalist society that functions on a large upper and small lower class. We fight pointless oil wars in the middle east that wreck our economy strictly for short term profits by large corporations. Our privacy is every day treaded upon by the conservatives in our congress. Land of the free indeed. I also found your part on commie's being bastards hilarious. 2. All other countries are run by little girls. On the contrary, most countries are dominated by a supreme patriarchy whether it be a dictatorship or a parliamentary system. In fact, women make up the largest part of the senate and house in our country than in ANY other form of government if I'm not mistaken. 3. We have the best food. We have no original food of our own. All of our food is borrowed from other countries, with no innovation involved. The only difference is that we process everything before eating it. You COULD argue that we have the worst food because of lack of real ingredients, but then again, we have no real food of our own. This concludes the second debate between the two of us. I hope the next one will be better.
Obama is Worse than George Bush

I do not think you are posting an actual argument. They're feeble and unbelievable. Are you getting your sources from FOX News? Iraq and Afghanistan did not have anything to do with 9/11, nor were they terrorists at birth. You are fed by lies FOX states every day. I should let you know that you are watching conservative propaganda. Obamacare is not evil: unless you have Sarah Palin's mind and you think they have death panels. You should be happier it's easier for people to get healthcare. And actually, we are at an all-time LOW in taxes. This again, is a conservative propaganda "fact." And you cannot prove Osama is a Muslim terrorist because his father is Kenyan and his middle name is "Hussein," and his last name is a letter different from "Osama." I don't think he's with Osama either: did you know he's dead? Or do you think Obama made it up because someone that was on FOX suggested it? I don't know what your arguments have to do anything with George Bush. I'll give an argument against him: he attacked several countries over WMDs that don't exist, and the Bush's have a pretty sketchy connection to the Bin Laden family through through their oil companies, and George H. W. Bush even took a picture with a Bin Laden a day before 9/11: don't believe it(?): [1]. The wars also cost us over $5 trillion [2]. You have no sources, and you have a bunch of Tea Party concpiracies in your arguments. [1] http://www.globalresearch.ca... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Obama is Worse than George Bush

Obama is evil because he pulled the trops out of the evil Iraq and Afghanistan. Howver, Bush invaded the terrorists, so he must be a lot better. Obama created the evil Obamacare: now taxes on the poor have been increased greatly. Also, Bush cut the taxes on the rihc, whereas Obama has broght them to an all-time high. Obama is a Muslim, so he must be with Osama. There's a reason we of the Tea Party Patriots call him "Barack HUSSEIN OSAMA. "
The gender imbalance in STEM subjects is due to socially constructed gender roles.

Please bear in mind that I say 'socially constructed' gender roles, rather than biological ones.It is very trendy to say that everything we have in society is socially constructed. Initially we had sexuality as being a social construct, and so along came the 'okay to be Gay' movement. To an extent we had race with operations going ahead to turn people like Michael Jackson who didn't feel black into a different race. It has now come to gender with the progressive left pushing the idea that genders are made up by society, and so women act like women and men act like men only because of what they are told is the norm. There is plenty of evidence which I will cite, which implies very strongly that difference in the choices men and women make, as well as their general abilities, are due to biology. The first is a paper published by D.F. Halpern et al. about 'The Science of Sex Differences' (1) which presents numerous papers comparing the abilities of men and women across the board. They found that girls consistently outperform boys in reading and languages, and boys consistently outperform girls in maths and sciences. Indeed this can be partially due to the differences in male and female brains, as when performing language based tasks, women use both sides of the brains when men only use one half. Likewise men have larger areas in the hypothalamus that are commonly associated with visuospatial abilities. The article suggests that the increased size of the inferior pariental lobe in men indicated a 'the tendency to rely on spatial representations for solving mathematical problems' whereas women have a 'tendency to represent mathematical problems in a verbal format'. The spatial representations mean that men have a slightly advantage when it comes to logical puzzles that are often found in physics or engineering. However women would have an easier time when confronted by language based problems. This would explain why men gravitate towards sciences, and women towards humanities.To contrast with scientific evidence, the variation of women in science is interesting as you move around the globe. UNESCO found that there are more women in STEM subjects in Khazakstan, the Sudan, and most of the Middle East than in Britain or Norway. This could imply that the more liberal a country is, and the more choice women have over their lives, the more women that choose humanities. The countries I named of course are renowned for their intolerance of women. Norway however, with a lower proportion of women in science that Britain, is known for being one of the most gender neutral countries in the world. (2)That's enough for now I think.(1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...(2) http://www.uis.unesco.org...
The gender imbalance in STEM subjects is due to socially constructed gender roles.

This debate is about the impact of gender roles on society and how they affect women when choosing career paths. Do women choose humanties due to societal expectations? Is there a biological case for the differences in choices? I am arguing that women avoid STEM subjects due to biological reasons, and that gender roles have a minimal impact on how women choose their futures.First round: AcceptanceSecond round: Opening statementsThird round: RebuttalsFourth and final round: Closing statements (no rebuttals)No forfeitingNo trollingNo ad hominem or personal attacksPlease try to use evidence to back up cases rather than anecdotes or simple opinion.Good luck!
Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Torture shouldn"t be used on anyone, including suspected terrorists. I believe this because torture is extremely unethical, proves nothing and is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Torture as explained above is inflict serious pain/discomfort or psychological distress to get a confession or the subject to perform a task. For starters, it"s unethical, a crime against humanity, inflicting so much pain on one person to get them to bend to your will is a horrendous thought. From a young age, society has taught us "treat other how you"d like to be treated", clearly this isn"t demonstrating that phrase (unless you"re a masochist) Next, it proves absolutely nothing against the person. Torture forces you to confess. Keyword being "forces". Thus meaning, you may be innocent of everything but because you want the suffering to end you plead guilty/confess, it"s a very catch 22 moment. It is estimated that one in four people make false confessions if evidence against them is great. But it is estimated that up to two thirds of people put in torture conditions will make false confessions! "www. innocenceproject. org Finally, it is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. I"m going to assume you aren"t too concerned with the whole "following international law" thing. So, I lay down another reason. Whatever country you live in will be hated by the rest of the world for breaching this basic human right, regardless of the subject. I look forward to hearing your intro, try hold back rebuttals to R3-4 but if you must, I won"t cry.
Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Hello, This Debate is about "Torture should be able to be used on suspected terrorists." Definitions Torture- "the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something." (on top of that, for the purposes of this debate, I will include psychological torment such as waterboarding or sleep deprivation, I'm sure my opposition will agree and if not, don't accept) Suspected- "have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof." Terrorist- "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." Terrorism- "the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." All definitions are direct quotes from www.dictionary.com R1- Accept R2- Intro R3- Body/Rebuttal R4- Rebuttal/ Conclusion
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

I would like to thank Jesus Christ for Resurrecting Ronald McReagan for debate. I will respond to his contentions one by one. 1. So if a guy was downstairs drinking milk from your fridge you would shoot him? He is really putting your life in danger. I know your response will be "He could be putting my life in danger!" With what? Because the burglar is probably aware that there are hicks who shoot to kill for them stealing there china, so like you said "the only true conventional way of stopping a person from continuing to put your life in IMMEDIATE danger is to pull a firearm on him/and or kill him." So when you go down stairs, and say "Put your hands up or I will kill you" (If you have the decency) To your theory his life is in immediate danger, so he will have to pull his firearm at you, and shoot. That bullet could hit you, or it could hit your wife who is watching fox news in the other room, and kill her. So if guns didn't exist that wouldn't have happened. You would have walked in, and said "I will stab you." Well you have to be close to stab someone so he could conventionally leave without any trouble or deaths, which I bet he probably would because who wants to get into a knife fight? So without guns there would be less murders. 2. In Native American tribes in the 1600's crime was probably non-existent to very small amounts like stealing a pear, and they didn't have guns? Without guns there would be no gun deaths. 3. The supreme court supported segregation so is that really a good source? Maybe it is, because you Ronald McReagen in said this ""If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so" And opposed the Civil Rights act of 1964. I hope to hear from my opponent soon, and hopes his Alzheimer's that he had in office (http://www.mediaite.com...) doesn't affect his debating abilities.
Resolved: That the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States

I reject the resolution that the private ownership of handguns should be banned in the United States of America. Firearms, especially handguns, play an important role in our society: they help those who otherwise could not defend themselves effectively defend against forms of aggression. It is realistic to think that handguns has lead to many crimes in the USA, but it seems it will only be more of a detriment to ban them. Definitions: private ownership: Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent. handgun: A handgun is a firearm designed to be held and operated by one hand, with the other hand optionally supporting the shooting hand. United States: North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776 Contentions: My first contention is that those who are otherwise unable to absolutely defend themselves would be unable to absolutely defend themselves. My second contention is that (being USA is a densely populated country) banning handguns would cause violent crime to rise. My third contention is that it directly violates the Second Amendment right of United States citizens. I will now elaborate on my contentions. 1st) There are a wide variety of people who actively carry handguns on their person on a daily basis, as well as those who keep them at home for home protection against burglars, murderers and other home intruders. Realistically speaking, the only true conventional way of stopping a person from continuing to put your life in IMMEDIATE danger is to pull a firearm on him/and or kill him, in this case with a handgun being the most preferable carry firearm. 2st) It is widely known that gun control on high population areas results in a negative way. A good example is the Draconian handgun bill in the United Kingdom, in which resulted in a violent crime increase of 69%. This also can be seen in Australia, where Australian tax payers paid over 500 million dollars for the government to confiscate 7 million firearms. The direct result to this was a 3% increase in homicide rates. 3rd) The Supreme Court of the USA ruled that the Second Amendment applies to citizens abroad the United States. Banning firearms would directly violate the Second Amendent of law-abiding citizens, and the counter-argument to citizens who do NOT abide by the law is not valid, for legallity is clearly found in my definition of private ownership. *I will cite definitions and articles of my statistics UPON REQUEST*