BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More Tax money should be spent on the quality of school lunches in the United States.

Now, on first glance, I know, this will appear to be a trivial affair but I will prove the validity of this... What we are discussing is this: the general health of every single person between the ages of 6-16 in the US. I think it insane that some people think that little tax money should go into this area of school. I assert that the health of students is just as important (on the individual level and the idealistic level) as thier education. It is important to have a population of healthy citizens, especially in a nation with really high obeisity levels. In a learning environment, especially, should the children's minds be recieving the proper nutrients and what not. AS a student in middle school, I can tell you, first hand, that the lunches are absloutely horrible in every way. The school districts find the absolutely cheapest available food, and then give it to thier kids, who they are supposedly trying to help in life and educate. It is absolutely the cheapest thing available, next to giving the kids hay, or salt licks to eat. It is one thing having everything frozen, but also it is horrible even by frozen food standards, completely horrible. I understand that many kids get free lunches, such as myself, so many people say that since they do not return any profit, it is not good to make them high quality, but I think slightly higher taxes is worthj the children of America eqating good food. -HArlan
Children should go to academy.

..Alright, it seems there is a language barrier here that cannot be overcome. In England, the Academy scheme is one started by Labour in order to set up less restricted public schools in poorer areas in order to help people get educated in these areas[1]. They do not charge, teach the same lessons as 'normal' schools and simply are less regulated. With this in mind, if my opponent wishes to nullify this debate, I will be happy to do so.Firstly, academies may give stress to students, but no more than any other school. There is no reason why a hard pushing academy will put on more stress than a hard pushing normal school. In my experience of going to an academy, in fact, all teachers seemed to be more lax, and this put me at ease. Second, the academies are public schools, and do not charge.Third, hobbies may help your health, but they do not hold more weight than being able to do basic maths and english skills. "All work and no play" works the other way around. Everything should come in moderation, and education is one of them. Unless the academy runs 24/7, then it is simply the amount of stress outside the school that needs addressing.Also, as a new point. Academies get access to more funding. As the barriers between an academy and the government are less than for normal public schools, the academy system is beneficial to the cash flow of a school. The improvement of cash flow, as well as more deregulation in other areas, allows schools to put more money into the students, and this makes a better education system. This also includes better sports equipment which combats the problem of hobbies. Thank you.1 - http://www.independent.co.uk...;
Children should go to academy.

More and more students are going to academy. most of them go to study math , English , science , Society ……. etc. However student don't like to go to academy. Therefore I think we shouldn't go academy because it gain stress, waste money and time. First, academy can give stress to students. For example, my friend Yeh-won has lots of academy. It will be more than ten. Her mother makes her to go to make her educated. However she got side effects. She has lots of fatigue and stress. Therefore, her scores are getting lower. Second, academy wastes money for parents. If some one pay 400,000 won per month for academy, but the student did not study hard it will be waste of money. People should have few academies not to waste money. Also, there are lots of people who wants to study but cannot. They are too poor to pay for study. How lucky we are? That's why I think we should not waste money. Third, academy wastes time for student. Health is the most important thing. Instead of sitting on the chair and studying, people should do hobbies. When we go to academy, we cannot do our hobbies. In book 'cleaner bob' which is written by Ray Hilbert says that we should do hobby instead of just studying. In conclusion, I think academy is harmful for students because it can make stress and burden for parents and waste time for hobby.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Total Contradictions: 1) New Regulations My opponent said "this is Obama's 4th year. Bush took 8 years." However, it is according to the same time frame. Up into this point into each of their presidencies, Obama has approved about 5% less regulations than Bush thus far. I win here. My opponent says that may cost more. This is true initially, but you are leaving out a few points: 1) The regulations approved under Obama will save money by preventing accidents for example in deep-sea drilling. 2) Some of the Obama regulations such as governing coal ash will actually create thousands of jobs. [1] 2) Ozone Hole Newer information resolved the controversy over if CFC's did cause the ozone hole. [2] Plus, CFC's stay in the atmosphere for 20-100 years. [3] Then ban passed in 1987. 3) Sales Tax on Possible Weapons You said you support a sales tax. However, you opposed taxation on weapons. Unless you specify and say "only formal weapons" this is a contradiction. 4) Healthcare for Poor My opponent is pro-life. However, he is against healthcare for the poor. Lack of healthcare for the poor results in about 45,000 deaths a year. Thus, my opponent cannot be truly pro-life if he is opposed to helping the poor have assured healthcare (single-payer, universal, etc.) [4] 5) Tax Cuts My opponent said that "I am opposed to President Obama's economic actions." He also says he is pro for tax cuts. He doesn't go into detail. He doesn't say "I am against Obama's economic actions - besides his tax cuts." Since Obama helped cut taxes on 95% of working families, [5] he cut taxes obviously. A contradiction. 6) School Vouchers My opponent says he favors separation of church and state. However, he is for school vouchers. Many private schools are religious. Giving them public funding is equivalent of the state funding a church (minor). Thus, a contradiction. 7) Bush and Stimulus President Bush, whom my opponent is "pro", passed an economic stimulus, [6] and my opponent is "con" for a stimulus by the government. A contradiction. 8) Coherency of my opponent In round 1, my opponent says: "Rules: 1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers. 2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No. 3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5. 4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken. 5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins. 6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. 7. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person." However, if I am allowed to ask a question in round 4, and you made a contradiction, I cannot point this out in round 5. This is a contradiction, because questions are useless in round 4 if I cannot use them to made a contradiction, because I cannot in round 5. Sources: [1] http://thinkprogress.org... [2] http://www.nature.com... [3] http://healthandenergy.com... [4] http://www.reuters.com... [5] http://www.politifact.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Contradictions 1) My opponent has said that he is against regulation in general, and generally wants less regulation. He supports President Bush, and is against President Obama. However, Obama has created less regulations in his presidency than Bush so far. [1]2) My opponent agrees that an ozone hole exists, but doesn't want to ban CFC's (chloroflouracarbons) which cause the ozone hole.3) My opponent says I have been coherent, but in question 7 round 2, I misspell "decision" as "decesion".4) My opponent says he temporarily supports a sales tax, but nearly anything can be made to become a weapon. For example, a watch can choke a guy, a shovel can smash a skull, etc. Sorry for the gross imagery. 5) My opponent says that he is pro-life, but he doesn't want the government to protect the lives of the poor.6) My opponent says he doesn't approve of Obama's economic actions as president. However, my opponent also says he supports tax cuts. Obama's stimulus package cut taxes for 95% of working families, a contradiction. [2]7) My opponent says that he is opposed to the government providing healthcare to the poor, but he is reluctant on Bush's actions as president, but didn't express disapproval. Bush increased the amount of community level health centers helping the poor by over a third. [3]******* New Questions **************1) Do you support a separation of church and state?2) Are you good at seeing things that aren't in main focus?3) Do you support school vouchers?4) Do you think tax cuts ultimately increase revenues for the government?5) Do you think that the environment should be protected?6) Do you with tort reform?7) Do you support abortion in any cases? Specify please.8) Do you think that the government should provide some stimulus in poor economic times?9) Do you want to honor women soldiers?10) What figure is noticeable in this video that doesn't really have a place in the video (besides Australian culture)? http://www.youtube.com...[1] http://thinkprogress.org...[2] http://www.politifact.com...[3] http://www.nytimes.com...
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1) Assuming that the government is going to increase regulation; would you want it to be moderate increases or major increases in the amount of regulations? Trick question. One, this is not a yes or no question. And two, you leave out the possibility that I might say decreases in regulation. So I will answer this one by saying a major DECREASE in the amount of regulations. 2) Do you support tax cuts? Yes. 3) Do you support abortion? No. 4) Do you agree with the science community that there is an ozone hole? Yes. 5) Do you support a sales tax at the state or local levels? Only during times of high inflation. In all other times, no. 6) Do you support Single-Payer healthcare? No. I do not support things like Obamacare. 7) Do you agree with Bush's decesions on healthcare policy? Specify please if needed. They were better than Obama's, but I wouldn't say that I "agreed" with them. 8) Do you support a ban on chlorofluorocarbons? No. 9) Do you support a larger role of government in helping the poor have healthcare? No. 10) Do you think I have been coherent in this debate thus far? Yes. Now are there any contradictions by me? You are supposed to point them out.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1) Assuming that the government is going to increase regulation; would you want it to be moderate increases or major increases in the amount of regulations?2) Do you support tax cuts?3) Do you support abortion?4) Do you agree with the science community that there is an ozone hole?5) Do you support a sales tax at the state or local levels?6) Do you support Single-Payer healthcare?7) Do you agree with Bush's decesions on healthcare policy? Specify please if needed.8) Do you support a ban on chlorofluorocarbons?9) Do you support a larger role of government in helping the poor have healthcare?10) Do you think I have been coherent in this debate thus far?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1) Do you support George W. Bush's actions as President? Specify "no" if needed. Mostly. 2) Are you Pro-Life? Yes. 3) Do you support a limited amount of regulation in an economy? More or less? Yes. 4) Do you support President Obama's economic actions as president? No. 5) Do you think that the rich should pay their fair share, and therefore use the progressive tax for the USA? No. 6) Do you think people have a right to own a weapon to defend themselves? Yes. 7) Do you think that weapons should not be taxed because that would infringe the second amendment? Yes. 8) Do you support stem-cell research? Yes, just as long as it is not funded by the Government. 9) Do you support smaller government? Yes. 10) Do you believe in the scientific establishment? I am going to answer yes, but can you expand on this a bit?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1) Do you support George W. Bush's actions as President? Specify "no" if needed.2) Are you Pro-Life?3) Do you support a limited amount of regulation in an economy? More or less?4) Do you support President Obama's economic actions as president?5) Do you think that the rich should pay their fair share, and therefore use the progressive tax for the USA?6) Do you think people have a right to own a weapon to defend themselves?7) Do you think that weapons should not be taxed because that would infringe the second amendment? 8) Do you support stem-cell research?9) Do you support smaller government?10) Do you believe in the scientific establishment?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Rules: 1. From rounds 1-4 Con shall ask 10 Pro Yes/No answers. 2. If this occurs, Pro may explain why the answer is neither Yes or No. 3. Con may point out any contradictions from rounds 2-4, but no new contradictions may be pointed out in round 5. 4. Definitions of words shall not be abused - the first definition from a dictionary shall be taken. 5. If I am found to be contradictory, Con wins. 6. If I am not found to have made a contradiction, I win. 7. If any rules are violated, all 7 points must be given to the other person.
Resolved: Jupiter is not a Planet.

This debate is impossible to accept.THIS IS A SERIOUS DEBATE In honnor of New Horrizon coming close to Pluto I've decided to do another space debate.RulesFirst Round is Terms and defintions by Pro, Acceptance by Con.Second Round is Constructive Arguments, NO REBUTTALS!Third Round is Rebuttals.Forth Round is Rebuttals and conclusion.No Semantics, the definitions provided are what is to be used in this debate.No Trolling.No K's.If any of the above rules are violated, all 7 points go to the opposition.The following User(s) are banned from voting on this debate.Zarrotte (http://www.debate.org...) Planet- Thedefinition ofplanetset inPraguein 2006 by theInternational Astronomical Union(IAU) states that, in theSolar System, aplanetis acelestial bodywhich:is in orbit around the Sun,has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium(a nearly round shape), andhas "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit. (https://en.wikipedia.org...)Jupiter- Pictured bellow. s://upload.wikimedia.org...; alt="An image of Jupiter taken by New Horizons." />
12 things most people get wrong in the Bible

It seems like you've responded to someone else's comment instead of to my argument. Please respond to the Bible passages which command that believers forgive each other, and also those that describe people forgiving each other (2 Cor. 2, etc.). We should have defined forgiveness. I will define forgiveness as the removal of a moral debt (Matt. 18:32). That is, someone has done something wrong against another individual and that individual does not demand that they be punished. You are welcome to accept or reject my definition, and give justification for your own definition.
12 things most people get wrong in the Bible

I assume that this is Tim Ko. If so, this is Kyle Johnson. What a coincidence! I will dispute number eleven, in which you say that humans cannot forgive sins. You are right in that humans cannot forgive sins against God (1 Samuel 2:25), but they can forgive sins against each other (Matt. 18:21-22). For example, if I sin against you, then you may forgive me for my sin. However, any offense that my sin caused to God cannot be taken away by yourself. Only Jesus can take it away, because he is both God and a mediator between myself and God.
Valve is the best gaming company in the world

Thank you, Enclave, for responding, and for summarizing your position. However, I would like to point out a few things. Starting with the Pro's burden in this debate, as enumerated by the resolution, 'Valve is the best gaming company in the world', I stated in my Round 1 speech that a gaming company is a company that makes games. I also touched upon the Pro's burden of defending the Valve Corporation over all other companies, video game based or not. Hasbro makes all sorts of board games, as does Parker Brothers. Wizards of the Coast makes D&D, and a host of other games. Sony owns Sony Pictures, who owns Jeopardy Productions, INC, who produces JEOPARDY! , a game show. Has the Pro proven superiority? No. And for this reason, you, the voters, should vote Con in this debate. Second, It is not the Con's postition in this debate that Valve is not valued as a company. In fact, I am a frequent player of Team Fortress, and one of my favorite games is Portal. However, as the Con, I am required to prove that Valve is not the best gaming company in the world. Rather, the Con's position is to prove that Valve is ONE OF the best game companies in the world. Finally, the Pro has failed to prove his position, including the Burden of Proof, by proving his position that Valve is the best gaming company. Rather, he has attacked my example of Bethesda. Who cares if Bethesda doesn't release games on time? What matters is if Enclave has proven his position and refuted mine. He(or she) has not. In summary, the Pro has not proven his position in the debate, yet I have.
Valve is the best gaming company in the world

I'm sorry for not stating what the framework of the rounds, I'm still new to this. But any ways lets continue. In response to your comment about how valve routinley lowers their prices on steam; is because Valve does not try to rob people of their money just for a game. Whereas a seller of videogames like gamestop for example still charges $29.99 for portal 2 even though it was released in 2011. Another thing you previously stated is that Valve fails to release video games on time and that Bethesda make deadlines. Not to nitpick at your facts but Bethesda had continuely failed to release all three of the Skyrim DLC's to the Ps3. It took roughly 8 months for the dawnguard dlc to be released on the Ps3. To sum up no gaming company is perfect about releasing games not Valve not Bethesda ect.... In other words the quality of Valve's games should be respected by everyone. It may have taken 7 years to make Team Fortress 2 but you can't argue how great the graphics were considering it was released in 2007. Valves game quality is so fantastic that not too long ago Half-Life 2 was selected as game of the decade. Vote Pro :D !!!!!!!!!!!
Valve is the best gaming company in the world

As my opponent has not given us a framework to build this round off of, I have taken it upon myself to do so.Round 1 is acceptance and opening arguments,and round 2 is rebuttal and closing statements.Next, we must define the terms of the resolution, being: "Valve is the best gaming company in the world." Valve is defined as the Valve Corporation,Best is defined as: "(superlative of `good') having the most positive qualities"(Princeton WordNet, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...=) Gaming company is defined as a company that makes games.and the World is defined as Earth, and all that lies upon it.I will be opposing the resolution, stating that Valve is not the best gaming company in the world, for two reasons:1) Valve not the 'best' A-Based on the definition of best, the Pro must prove(as the Pro has the Burden of Proof) that Valve has 'the most positive qualities'. Furthermore, because of the wording of the resolution, the most positive qualities refer to the corporation's standing as a company, and as a producer of games. B-Valve does not have the most positive qualities as a company, nor as a producer of games. In terms of a company, they routinely lower prices on their 'Steam' game service to inconceivable levels, making them economically unfounded. In terms of a producer, they have failed to release games on time, ever. Look at Half-Life 2: Episode 3. They JUST released it. Team fortress 2 took 7 years to finish. They are not the 'best gaming company', in the world, or even America.2) Valve not only 'gaming company'My opponent would have you believe that Valve is the only gaming company in the world. However, there are multiple other, better companies out there. For example, Bethesda. They release games sporadically, but they meet deadlines.My definition includes non-video game companies, as well. Can the Pro prove superiority?I conclude.
Valve is the best gaming company in the world

Valve is the best gaming company out there because the majority of valves games win game of the year and are more bang for your buck with a great story line. Such games valve has developed are is The Half-Life series, Portal Series, Team Fortress series, and The left 4 dead series. Also Valve has a great CEO in Gabe Newell who truley care about gaming rather than making a quick buck. Another thing about Valve is that they don't run their game franchises into the groung by making new games in the series year after year like the Call of Duty series. And because valve does not do that it make us gamers wanting more instead of being bored.
Prisons should be funded less money

Hello, Im excited to debate this topic with you. While I agree sometimes prison funding can be wasteful, because the prisoners in that prison usually have done horrible things.. But I hope to show that prisons should have the same amount of monetary funding. What if instead of taking funding away we pay prison guards more? On average their salary is between $37,000 to $45,000. Why are executives that aren't working as hard, and don't have half the danger that prison guards experience, getting paid more? Also where do you get that figure? Researching I found that the average cost for a prisoner is $28,000. So now I will explain what will happen if you were to take funding away from prisons. The top three areas taking funding away from prisons would affect are: -Security (Security cameras, Electronic locking doors and locks) -Less food -Less staff 1. Security Taking away funding means taking away costs for extra security. 2. Less food Taking away funding also meaning taking away food from prisoners to cut down on costs. What happens when a prison riot, or hunger strike happens? It's bound to happen when you take food away. Prison riots usually have lots of causalities leading to use of medical supplies, which costs money. If hunger strikes happen, the news will get wind of it and will cause a big uproar, causing governmental issues".. 3. Less staff The last big thing taking funding away will affect is the staff. Staff will either get part of their salary taken away or some staff will be let go. When staff get part of their salary taken away, they will be very upset, leading to them not wanting to do their job right. Not many people want to go into a job that barely pays enough for you to survive while having the possibility of getting killed or injured. If staff were to get let go, there would be an overwhelming amount of prisoners for the small amount of staff to watch over. Usually prison guards are outnumbered to at least a 4:1 ratio of prisoners to a guard. I would love to hear on how you would propose to cut funding without hurting the prison. Good luck on this debate. I am excited to hear your thoughts..