BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast Food and Your Dental Health

There are a few ways in which a fast food diet is harmful to your oral health. Russell Roderick, who holds a doctorate of medicine in dentistry degree, states the primary concern for dental health with fast food is the high content of salt and sugar. When these foods are consumed the added salts and sugars tend to help food particles stick to tooth surfaces. Food stuck to the teeth allows acids to build up on the surface. It is the buildup of these acids that causes tooth decay and cavities. A secondary contributing factor to dental problems related to fast food is the soft drink. Typically soda is consumed with fast food meals. Workers in fast food restaurants are trained to ask if you want a soda with your meal. Many years of dental research have shown the sugars and carbonation in these beverages wear down the enamel of teeth. Enamel is your tooth’s protective coating, without it you are exceedingly prone to cavities and tooth decay. Finally, as mentioned earlier a diet of fast food significantly increases the risk of contracting type 2 diabetes. Diabetes comes with its own dangers to good oral health. People that are diabetic show a significant increase in the risk of periodontal disease. Diabetics must maintain proper blood glucose levels to help prevent oral health problems. Registered nurse David Spero explains in his article for diabetes self management that increased fat content in fast food creates complications in controlling the levels of sugar in the blood by delaying the release of glucose into the system.
Fast Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity

Since the 1970s fast food advertising and ads targeting children specifically have increased dramatically. At the same time, the instance of obesity has also skyrocketed. It is difficult to deny the link between increased fast food advertising and childhood obesity. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, approximately 50 percent of ads children are exposed to are food related. Of these none are for fruits, vegetables, or other healthy choices. Children are exposed to nearly 21 advertisements per day, and of these only one every two to three days is a public service announcement for healthier eating. Studies by the American Psychological Association show advertisers spend more than twelve billion dollars per year on ads targeting children. If these were not particularly effective, this would be a very poor investment from the food industry. To investigate this trend, the Task Force on Advertising and Children was formed. Their research shows children’s product preference begins with a single commercial viewing. Additional viewing serves to further strengthen the child’s preference for a particular product. The American Psychological Association further notes a great deal of research shows eating unhealthy fast foods and excluding healthy alternatives leads to obesity and overall poor health. The trend has been reported on repeatedly. Dr. Victor Strasburger recently told Reuters news agency, "Just by banning ads for fast food, one study says we could decrease obesity and overweight by 17 percent." That reduction in childhood obesity alone should be enough to ban fast food advertising.
Fast Food, Diabetes and Heart Disease

Setting aside the risks to children, there are a number of health concerns for anyone consuming fast food. In a research paper published by the University of Minnesota eating fast food just two or more times per week increases the risks of developing type 2 diabetes by an astounding 27 percent. The same study also determined eating fast food one time per week increased the risk of death by coronary heart disease by 20 percent. Having two to three fast food meals a week ups the risk to 50 percent. If you enjoy dining four or more times each week on fast food, your risk of death from coronary heart disease climbs to a terrifying 80 percent. Researchers from the university had noted nearly all studies into the health risks associated with the consumption of fast food had been conducted here in the United States and other developed western countries. The myriad of other risk factors available in western culture that increase the likelihood of these diseases has often been utilized to discredit the results of similar studies. To avoid the possibility of clouding the results, the University of Minnesota study was conducted in Singapore. At the time of the study western style fast food was a new introduction to a primarily eastern culture. With the increased consumption of fast food by the local population came dramatically increased rates of heart disease and diabetes. It is important to note the majority of the study participants with the highest intake of fast foods were from the younger generation and led more active lifestyles. The people showing the greatest effect from the introduction of fast food to their diets would typically be those with the lowest risk factors for these diseases. Numbers are incapable of lying. Findings from the University of Minnesota research study clearly show the correlation between fast food consumption and the increased risks of both coronary heart disease and diabetes. Tobacco and alcohol were banned from television advertising because of the health risks to the general public. With fast food consumption posing such a serious risk to public health, their advertising should also be banned.
yes there is a heaven and a hell

God meant for all men to have fellowship with Him. He made man and woman in His image and gave them a mind and spirit to communicate and even to know Him. He also gave them freedom of choice to get to know Him or not. (after all what kind of a friend would you havet if they were your friend because you forced them?) same thought with God He wants us to want to know Him. After Adam(and Eve) did not listen to God he was expelled from the presence of God.. Satan also was expelled from the presence of God.And God allows him to be in the world until he will be cast into the lake of fire in hell. (hell was made for him and his demons)God set about restoring the relationship between man and Himself. And since there was no one to bridge the gap between man and God (no one perfect) God sent His son, Jesus to stand instead of us before a just and Holy God. Jesus took on all our sins(missing the perfect mark-definition of sin) and gave His life for us. And then rose from the dead disarming all the satan's power. Satan is heading for hell with his demons, but God is reaching for man and woman to fellowship and know Him. Now the ball is in man's court - if he chooses God then he goes to heaven and has fellowship with God- if he chooses to go away from God he goes to hell with satan and the separation from God is many times worse than any death.
life after death

i do think that there is life after death. ive lived in 2 different houses that we thought were haunted. and they are. we brought in 2 different phycics to the houses and they said that they were haunted then my step mother got held down to her bed both times in 2 different houses. we invited the phycics back but they were to scared to come back and one of my step sisters does things that would make her a phycic.
Life after death is strongly stated in the bible.

John 11:25 English Standard Version (ESV) Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life.[a] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live." John 3:16 English Standard Version (ESV) "For God so loved the world,[a] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. Luke 23:43 English Standard Version (ESV) And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." My favorite verse ( that has nothing to do with this) is 1 Corinthians 13:13....." For these three remain; faith, hope, and love. The greatest of these is love."
Partial plans like Medicare and Medicaid cover only individuals in certain categories (the young, th...

Partial plans provide a safety net for vulnerable groups who are not in a position to make choices about their health care. Low-income individuals qualify for Medicaid and seniors qualify for Medicare. Many children benefit from the Children’s Health Insurance Program. But for most people, health insurance is a necessity for which they should budget, taking responsibility for their own lives and futures. The government is not expected to provide necessities such as food or housing on a universal basis, so why should it provide universal health care?
The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relat...

With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in a government-controlled market. The American Medical Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer universal health care system.
The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amo...

The United States government cannot afford to fund universal health care. Other universal social welfare polices such as Social Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding. Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to burden the nation with another huge government spending program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service.
In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for afford...

The current system of offering group insurance through employers covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool. Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.
US health care is hugely unequal. This can be seen in infant death rates, life expectancy and outco...

US health care is the best in the world. For example, cancer survival rates are very much better than those under the universal system of Britain’s National Health Service. Almost all new drugs and surgical advances come from the USA because its system encourages excellence. Changing to a government-run system would “level down” health care, making it worse for most Americans while failing to actually improve it for the most badly off. Very often poor health is linked to poverty because of diet, lifestyle and housing issues, and universal health care will do nothing to solve these problems.
With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests a...

With universal health care, people are able to seek preventive treatment. This means having tests and check-ups before they feel ill, so that condidtions can be picked up in their early stages when they are easy to treat. For example in a recent study 70% of women with health insurance knew their cholestrol level, while only 50% of uninsured women did. In the end, people who do not get preventive health care will get treatment only when their disease is more advanced. As a result their care will cost more and the outcomes are likely to be much worse.
American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised progr...

American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised programs are very expensive for many Americans, because they often require co-payments or high deductibles (payment for the first part of any treatment). In any case employee health benefits are being withdrawn by many companies. For those without insurance, a relatively minor illness or injury can be a financial disaster. It is unfair that many ordinary hard-working Americans can no longer afford decent medical treatment.
Partial plans like Medicare and Medicaid cover only individuals in certain categories (the young, th...

Partial plans like Medicare and Medicaid cover only individuals in certain categories (the young, the old, the very poor and veterans). Such systems will never provide truly universal coverage. Even the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was meant to give more children the benefits of health insurance, has not been very successful. Since CHIP was put in place, the number of uninsured children has gone up. Instead we need a proper government-funded universal health care system.
The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relat...

The current system of health maintenance organisations (HMOs) has destroyed the doctor-patient relationship and removed patients’ ability to choose between health care providers. Patients find that their doctors are not on their new plan and are forced to leave doctors with whom they have established a trusting relationship. Also, patients must get approval to see specialists and then are allowed to see only selected doctors. Doctors usually can’t spend enough time with patients in the HMO plans. By contrast a universal health system would give patients many more choices.
The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amo...

The United States as a whole spends 14% of GDP (total income) on health care. This includes the amount spent by the federal government, state governments, employers and private citizens. Many studies have found that a single-payer system would cut costs enough to allow everyone in the USA to have access to good health care without the nation as a whole spending more than it does at the moment. Medicare, a government-run health care program, has administrative costs of less than 2% of its total budget.
In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for afford...

In the current system the employee and the employee’s family often depend on the employer for affordable health insurance. If the worker loses their job, the cost of new health insurance can be high and is often unaffordable. Even with current federal laws making insurance more movable, the costs to the employee are too high. With a single-payer, universal health care system, health insurance would no longer be tied to the employer and employees would not have to consider health insurance as a reason to stay with a given employer. This would also be good for the economy as a whole as it would make the labour market more flexible than it has become in recent years.
US health care is hugely unequal. This can be seen in infant death rates, life expectancy and outco...

US health care is hugely unequal. This can be seen in infant death rates, life expectancy and outcomes for common conditions such as cancer and heart problems. The rich have the best healthcare in the world; the poor get worse treatment than in any other developed country. Social justice demands that a universal system is introduced to provide decent care for every American. And as black health outcomes are much worse than those for whites, this is also a racial issue.
American health insurance payments are very high and rising rapidly. Even employer-subsidised progr...

A range of health programs are already available. Many employers offer health insurance and some people deliberately choose to work for such companies for these benefits, even if the pay is a little lower. Other plans can be purchased by individuals with no need to rely on an employer. This means they are free to choose the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. For other people it can be perfectly reasonable to decide to go without health insurance. Healthy younger adults will on average save money by choosing not to pay high insurance premiums, covering any necessary treatment out of their own pockets from time to time. Why should the state take away all these people’s freedom of choice by imposing a one-size-fits-all socialist system of health care?
AFRICAN-AMERICANS HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO BEFORE WE ARE EQUAL IN THE EYES OF AMERICAN SOCIETY

The prison population of America is full to bursting with young and old African-Americans. There is a disproportionate number of black people receiving the death penalty. The emergence of the right wing, fascist Tea Party demonstrates once again that America has a long way to go before it accepts African-Americans as equal members of society. The election of Barack Obama was a great moment in not only African-American but American history. But, as we know, the president is largely the puppet of the CIA and the biggest lobby groups in Washington like the tobacco and arms industry, Israel, and the gun lobby. Obama has so many opponents who won't openly come out and say they don't like him or are suspicious of him because of the colour of his skin, that they deflect their distaste to areas of the economy Obama is trying to reform, like banking and healthcare. Expecting African-American university students to get ahead just as fast as their white counterparts is a joke since we are only just entering into a generation of middle to upper middle class black people with the capital to pay for education. The majority of black people just cannot afford it. Slavery is the stain on America's conscience, and it's also which helped make it one of the richest countries in the world. A stain is something that cannot be removed. Ir remains like a scar forever on the nation's collective memory. MLK wanted his children to be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skins. I'm sorry to say that the white establishment still views people primarily, initially, by the colour of their skin.
Depends on the dream, but i feel overall, no

In his speech he speaks of not 1 dream but 6 different dreams. Dream 1: America will hold true to 'all men are created equal' Met? No. Racism still exists. In fact depending on the topic and area, racism is held in all ways. It is not just white people that degrade african americans, because african americans will dish racism right back. Asians and Ltin Americans are in the same boat as well. We are all targets of racism. Not to mention that in the end, with the rising 'acceptance' of african americns you see all these scholarships ad additives, these "prizes" for african americans. Treating them as 'special' because they were once abused isn't quite treating them equal. Dream 2: The sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. Met? I think so. This may depend where you live but i feel that there are plents of people of all races tht intergrate and call one another brothers. Dream 3: Mississippi with be an oasis of freedom and justice Met? There may be more laws there (or not, im not sure) that may make it seem less free, but i believe we are all for the most part free states with laws oritecting us from other people trying to take from our freedoms. While this may not always be the case, it is the basics of our law system. Dream 4: His children woud live in a world where they are judged on their character and not their skin color. Met? i doubt it. A lot of people judge of skin color all the time. To believe that was met is just absurd Dream 5: Children both "black" and "white" and both "boys" and "girls" will be able to join hands as "sisters and brothers" in alabama Met? Ive never been to alabama but id imagine that there are populations of equality within that state where said event occurs Dream 6: everyone of all skin colors will see glor together as one Met? No, where some places are together as one, this nation is not. This is a no more because the end result is a tie and when you really think about it, some of his dreams have been met, but the idea behind all of those dreams is that they are not only met but become 'normal' 'avrage' and 'accepted' nito our society and not even be seen as a problem, something different or unordinary.
CFCs may be banned but there are other chemicals that destroy the ozone layer.

We have however always known the Nitrous oxide destroys ozone. Richard Stolarski NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center "Nitrous oxide sort of died out as a problem [for the ozone layer] in the 1970s, because we knew it was increasing at such a slow rate,... In our chemical climate models, where nitrous oxide increases by 15 or 20 per cent by 2100, we still end up with more ozone than we had in 1960 [before mass production of CFCs]." [[Lizzie Buchen, Ozone threat is no laughing matter; Nitrous oxide poses a growing atmospheric problem, Nature, 27/8.09, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.858.ht ] the ozone layer has started to repair itself due to peoples common sense at last , the planting of trees and the less use of aerosols is starting to work, there has been a great improvement in the ozone layer areas.]
CFCs may be banned but there are other chemicals that destroy the ozone layer.

CFCs may well be the best known threat to the ozone layer but they are not the only threat. We can’t be complacent thinking that we have solved the problem when that may not be the case. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is now a threat to the ozone layer. As Nitrous oxide has been pretty much ignored by policy makers the use of nitrous oxide has been rising. if nitrous oxide emissions are not reduced, they could be 30% more destructive to ozone in 2050 than the combined CFC emissions from 1987, when these were at their peak Unfortunately Nitrous oxide was not included with other ozone depleting chemicals like CFCs in the international treaties banning their use. Instead it has been classified with greenhouse gasses, the regulation of which is so far not going anywhere fast.[[Lizzie Buchen, Ozone threat is no laughing matter; Nitrous oxide poses a growing atmospheric problem, Nature, 27/8.09, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090827/full/news.2009.858.html%5D%5D
The largest ‘hole’ in the ozone layer is recent

This increase in the size of the ozone hole after the signing of the Protocol is only because there was a long period during which countries could phase out using CFCs. CFC were therefore only banned in 2000 and the less damaging HCFCs (Hydrochlorofluorocarbons) are targeted for phasing out by 2040 they are still being used, often as a replacement for CFCs. Not surprisingly the production and use of HCFCs has increased over the last couple of decades.[[http://www.undp.org/chemicals/montrealprotocol.htm]] none the less as they are being banned in the future this is no longer a problem as the ozone hole will begin to repair in response. We could not expect to see there being much of a change while we were/are still producing these damaging chemicals. At the same time the chemicals we have already produced remain a problem. James Laver, Director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center Although international protocols have greatly reduced the production and release of ozone depleting chemicals, they will remain active in the stratosphere for several decades. [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Antarctic Ozone Hole at Near Record Size This Year, Times Higher Education, 9/10/03, http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=184121&sectioncode=26%5D%5D