BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fast food shouldn't be served in school.

Okay...That was really....long. Sorry, I keep things short and sweet so that people don't zone out. But kudos on your great debate! I have to say, you are a great competitor, but you assume many things. You also compared two different meals which was pretty unfair. So take a look at this; Sample lunch; 6 chicken nuggets: 276 calories and 16 grams of fat 1 roll: 100 calories and 0 grams of fat 3 ounces of french fries: 120 calories and 0 grams of fat 1 (1 cup) bottle of chocolate milk: 209 calories and 8 grams of fat McDonald's; 6 chicken nuggets: 280 calories and 18 grams of fat 1 roll: 200 calories and 2 grams of fat 3 ounces of french fries: 275 calories and 11 grams of fat 1 (1 cup) bottle of chocolate milk: 130 calories and 0 grams of fat So, not counting breakfast because it is an indeterminate variable, your sample lunch was 605 calories and the McDonald's one was 885 calories. AND that's only your school. My school's lunches are no more than 500 calories, and it's very rare it's that high in fat. The school where I go to has never made anyone sick. And the food CERTAINLY isn't flavorless. My friends all over the country agree too (I felt bad for you and asked them if there food was that bad) . According to sheknows.com, "According to the Matador Network, some fast food's chicken nuggets contain a chemical preservative called tertiary butylhydroquinone, which is derived from a petroleum. Yep, the stuff you put into your car. That's not all, either. Some chicken products are mechanically separated, which means those scraps that would normally go to waste are ending up in your nuggets. Plus, if you were even to study the ingredients in your favorite meals, you'd be shocked to see how many of them are chemical preservatives, artificial coloring, monosodium glutamate and more." And lets not forget the slime in fast food either. As I said before, there is something more important than the calories, or the animals, or the slime; the kids. Fast food affects how they feel, and not in a good way. It can make you sad and depressed. Why on earth anyone would even consider giving this junk to their child, I do not know but I will say this; Wake up America. Our generation is getting obese and lazy. Is this what you want?
Fast food shouldn't be served in school.

Did you know a single Big Mac is 563 calories? Why give those to kids when you can choose a healthier, gourmet option? Greasy, oily, fatty fast food like Wendy's or McDonald's should not be served in schools. First of all, fast food is a big part of obesity, type two diabetes,and many other illnesses affecting our generation. As I said before, fast food is very fattening. And believe it or not, a McDonald's salad is more calories than a burger! Our bodies need good, healthy food for our growing bodies and we need to learn how to keep a steady, balanced diet. Also, junk food causes depression. Why on earth wood you feed fast food to hundreds of kids if it will make them sad and gloomy? There is no excuse for this. And fast food chains abuse the animals they make food with. First off all, sticking with the McDonald's examples, the chickens are kept in filthy, overcrowded facilities. They endure cruel treatment before made into food. They stab them with sharp sticks and place them in buckets. Then, they pull out their spines while stepping on the chicken's head. Every time we buy a meal from a fast-food chain, we give them money to keep abusing these poor animals. Is this what you want? And another thing about the animals; they load them with antibiotics so that they remain plump and live longer. The food is loaded with them. I don't feel comfortable eating that food. Do you? Okay, usually I write for a very long time and no one likes long essays and there's still the third round.... So..... in conclusion, this is why fast food should not be served in schools.
Fast food shouldn't be served in school.

There have been many opinions stated about whether or not fast food should be served in schools. While I don't believe that all types of fast food would necessarily be a good idea; I believe that it could be a good thing if it is done within reason. Having restaurants such as McDonald's and Burger King might not be such a bad thing if there is a certain limit to it. I don't believe that it should be a free-for-all that students should be able to buy a bunch of. Look at those who are on Weight Watchers. They are told that they can eat nearly whatever they want as long as it is limited to a certain amount. I feel like the same could go for fast food in schools.
The "Black lives matter" group is a racist, violent black version of the KKK

I negate that the Black Lives Matter group is a racist, violent black version of the KKK. My opponent says that "all lives matter. " This is very true, and at the crux of this debate. But my opponent misunderstands #BlackLivesMatter. The entire point of Black Lives Matter is to ensure the inclusion of black lives in "all lives. " The goal is not black supremacy, but rather fighting discrimination to put the members on equal footing as people of other races. So the Black Lives Matter campaign is a tool in reaching my opponent's goal of "All lives matter. " My opponent says that the members of Black Lives Matter ranting against the police is proof that the group wants to be held in higher regard than the police. But actually, according to the Washington Post, 986 innocent people were killed by the police in 2015 alone. Shouldn't this group fear the police? Ranting against them only shows that the group thinks that the police force needs to change so that they don't kill over 900 innocent people in one year ever again, NOT that the group wants to be held in higher regard than the police. When the Dallas sniper started shooting people, running behind the police, regardless of color, was a perfectly justified response. The police exist to protect the citizens, so the citizens relying on them for protection is actually good, not bad. Even if people think that "some police officers wake up every day and go to work in hopes of killing a black person," as my opponent claims, then that only proves that those people are uninformed. Even if you believe my opponent that they are stupid, that has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. My opponent says that the only reasons blacks are being harmed by police is because they don't do what the police ask them to. This is entirely irrelevant--it does not prove that the Black Lives Matter movement is racist or violent. My opponent only says that cop lives matter just as much as other lives. I am not saying that this is false. ALL lives matter. Cop lives matter, and black lives also matter. My opponent is needlessly shooting down a movement that is just trying to make their voices heard. They have no proof that the movement is racist or violent or even entirely black. Thus, they can't prove any part of the resolution true. The world of the pro oppresses people who are trying to protect their rights. The world of the con accepts everyone.
The "Black lives matter" group is a racist, violent black version of the KKK

All lives matter. Be it white, black, brown or yellow we are all human beings but for some reason some members of the black community feel differently. They openly rant about there hatred of white people, especially the police. What happened In Dallas when the sniper started shooting people? All these black lives matter members RAN BEHIND WHITE POLICE OFFICERS FOR SAFETY. Some of these morons actually think some police officers wake up everyday and go to work in hopes of killing a black person. HOW STUPID CAN PEOPLE REALLY BE? Anyone curious why I have never been shot or tazed by a police officer? It has nothing to do with the color of my skin, when a cop is behind me and puts there lights on I pull over, when they ask me for my license or whatever I give it to them. I don't give them attitude or suck my teeth or do that chicken head move blacks do when they get angry. I also don't make sudden moves for my phone or my wallet or whatever else, I do what is asked of me. Police officers are people to, they have feelings and emotions, families and friends, dreams and values. They are just at work and want to do there job and return home safe to there families. COPS LIVES MATTER as does everyone else but if your gonna act like a N$%er REGARDLESS OF THE COLOR OF YOUR SKIN then you will be treated like one. Anyone reading this who hates America please let me know, I will buy you a one way ticket back to your motherland.
The LDS church is the only true church of god.

I am here to argue that the LDS church is the only true church. I have been born and raised mormon, and believe in all it's values to the fullest extent! I feel that the Bible, and the Book of mormon are a good enough testiment to it's existence being true.Atheists and other religions are all wrong because of Joesph Smith was real. Some people think he lied about seeing the Angels. Then why is it that other people saw these angels too in the Bible? Is it a mere coincidence that the prophets of the church say that they were visited by angels that guide them with their prophecies?Everything in the Book of Mormon is true. Satain will try and leas some people to believe that there are other true churches. But in the end, god will punish him.
Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

It's the last round, the 3rd round, so I'd like to summarize my rebuttals, my main points. 1. My main points. 1) Offline security to prepare defensing terror and having a war is more imporant than cyber security. 2) We should change the cause of cyber bullying which is it in off-line schools. 2. My rebuttals. 1) 'Other countries are taking care of cyber security, so we should take care of cyber security. ' This claim is not concrete. I understand your point, but the example what you provided is only a case of US, 'a' country. You failed to explain that why other countries besides of US, takes care of cyber security. 2) Sorry, but you had rebutted my arguments wrongly. My point was national cyber security is not all of cyber security. In the debate proposition, you wrote 'cyber security', instead of 'national cyber security', and I was talking about personal security's part cyberbullying. These worlds, there are too much problems in a country. Traffic, pollution, huge caps between rich and poor, and in small countries that are developed such as Japan, Korea, there are parking problems, too. Besides of cybersecurity, we have too much probems to solve. It's not wise to Relocate funds to Cyber Security than other major things. Thank you for the Pro speaker, it was a great debate. Now, debate. org users if you saw our debate, please tell us, who won?
Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

I was not getting off topic. Cyber Security is part of our national defenses, and is in fact a whole other war entirely. We could fight a war just on the computers. Now, it being said that cyber security is a another war, it could be part of our war. In fact, it is. Now, how this connects to reallocating funds is that I am explaining how important it is. I am explaining how cyber security relates to today, which connects it to why it is so important to reallocate the funds to cyber security. As I said, if we don't, the effects could be devastating.
Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

Thanks for the Pro speaker for posting the argument swiftly. Well, I apologize for the wait in Round 1. Anyways, I think you are starting to get off topic. The proposition or the topic of the debate is that 'Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.' This means that it's not focused on terrors or wars. It could be types of categories such as cyber privacy or preventing cyberbullying of teens. Now, this backgroud information may lead to the next point. Second, in cases of cyberbullying, these are cause of the 'off-line' bullying in schools. These teens bully those victims in off-line schools. In offline worlds they have problems and conflicts in their friendships and school lives. To prevent these 'cyberbullyings', we should change the cause, which is school bullying. One of the solutions could be the counselling systems. Throughout, counselling you could resolve school bullying, because counselling experts knows well about teens' psychology and solve problems wisely. We should take care for the off-line or the real world more faster than taking care of the online or the cyber world.
Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

Technological advancements play a very large role in our defenses. The next terrorist attack could very well be either more technologically advanced than the last, or completely cyber based. We have, of course, been attacked in this may before. Take for instance, The Morris Worm. It dates back to 1988. It was the first recognized worms to affect the world's nascent cyber infrastructure - spread around computers largely in the US.(http://www.nato.int...) If Dr. Morris could create a computer virus that replicated itself that early in time, there should be no doubt that someone else, not on our side, is fabricating a horrid computer virus as we speak. Is that not a reason to reallocate at least a little more money towards cyber security?
Relocating funds to Cyber Security is better than spending money on other things.

Before I start my main point. I'd like to apologize by joining this debate before your acceptance. I hope you accept me on the debate, also sorry for the 2days of time that you waited for the point, and I have a kind of rebuttal of the proposition side. The pro side said that other countries are building up cyber security so we should build up ours. However, this evidence could not be accepted because it's not so concrete. It is one case of a Bandwagon. So, for example, in this party every people has a smartphone so I have to have a smartphone. Well, sorry for a bit of getting off topic. Now moving on to main point. First, there are more problems to tackle such as the country's military problems. Instead of tackling online problems first, we should tackle these off-line problems. In online processes it might be hacked, however, if cybersecurity is guaranteed and it leads to a situation to war, defending terror or something. Then, we could not defend terror by online worlds. It will lead to defending it physically. But, what if those military systems and weapons are raw and have a low quailty? We can't defend terror or win at war because we wil be compared to the opponent's latest technological weapons. Second, similar to online security offline security is important. The previous speaker(The Pro side speaker) said that we never know when someone may attack us. Well, actually this is logically makes sense we never know when someone may terror us. 9 11 terrors are used by steganography. However, Al Qaeda terrored with collision of airplanes that are kidnapped. It was exploded in World Trade Center 2,996 people were killed and wounded people were about 6,000 people. What if the US government focused on defensing terrors more, then these bloody accidents were not happened.
Annihilationism vs Eternal Torment

The Second OEcumenical Council of Constantinople and the Emperor JustinianPope Vigilius ratified the Emperor Justinian's anathemas against Origen as part of Constantinople II. One of these anathemas is as follows [1]:'If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.' The Fourth OEcumenical Council of the LateranLateran IV declares:'all of whom will rise with their bodies which they now bear, that they may receive according to their works, whether these works have been good or evil, the latter everlasting punishment with the devil, and the former everlasting glory with Christ.'MatthewJohn warned that Jesus would come to burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. Much further on, when the Lord tells the Parable of the Talents, the worthless servant is cast out into the outer darkness where there is 'gnashing of teeth'. If in this clear parallel to hell there are people to gnash their teeth, obviously they have not been destroyed. Further along, the Lord tells the story of the Sheep and the Goats, at the end of which the sheep go to eternal life and the goats go to eternal punishment, in the 'eternal fire' prepared for the devil and his angels. It is clear from the progression of the story and lack of reason for thinking otherwise that the eternal punishment of the goats has the same timeless quality as the eternal life of the sheep.JudeJude makes brief reference to the punishment of eternal fire and a nether gloom of darkness which is forever.RevelationIn Revelation, it is written:'And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'The DayBoth those for everlasting life and everlasting punishment are raised (cf. Daniel) for the Day of judgment, and those who are raised are raised immortal (cf. 1 Corinthians), and if their immortal bodies are to be cast into an unquenchable fire, they can neither be destroyed nor can their torments end, because they are forever and the fire is forever. The conclusion is eternal torment.ConclusionI apologize for the brevity of my arguments, but I was slightly rushed this round and hopefully will be able to present a better argument next round.Sources:1. http://www.ccel.org...;
Annihilationism vs Eternal Torment

No arguments presented until second round. Burden of proof rests on me to prove the Annihilationist standpoint in second round. You must prove the Eternal Torment standpoint in the second round. NO refutations in second round. Refutations and other proofs may ensue in the last two rounds. Only join this debate if you hold, or are considering subscribing to, the common doctrine of an Eternal Hellfire. I hope we will both learn something. I am coming to this with an open mind, accepting the possibility Annihilationism may be the incorrect doctrine. I hope you will be humble and do the same. We are doing this to learn, not prove. God Bless :)
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

Here's the simple fact- the First Amendment protects acts of expression. Disagree all you want, but the Supreme Court has deemed this a protected act- we have to acknowledge that. To quote Ben Shapiro from one of his conversations, "facts don't care about your feelings." The same applies here. You can feel that this is a "monstrous act that must be punished"- great, we can respect that- but that doesn't change the FACT that this IS legal (Constitutional, to be precise), and WILL be legal, there is no way you can ban it. Once more, I emphasize how we cannot argue over our feelings but rather the objective information provided- such as the fact that flag burning is/will be legal. A quick note on your antisemitism comment: If I understand this debate, we are arguing the flag of the United States of America. Thus, we are not arguing other countries besides our own- the USA. So, to bring up something such as the legal punishment for antisemitism hate speech that is happening in a completely different country isn't relevant to this debate. Such a thing is not prohibited in this country through the First Amendment's protection. Yes, I understand your point here but once again, it is not relevant to the US necessarily, nor this debate. The whole reason we had the Texas v. Johnson Case is because Johnson WAS punished for flag burning. The argument then ensued that he had the right and should NOT have been punished. The ruling? Johnson should NOT be punished because he DOES have the right. The key here is that the most prestigious lawyers in the country have decided that there shouldn't be punishment for this act of expression. "Burning a flag incites violence" is not true- unless of course you can prove this. "...but you can't attack a national identity because of a couple of people." Would you care to elaborate on this? I am confused on what you mean. Who are the "couple of people" you are referring to? Patriotism seems to be the real argument here- the more you argue over flag burning the more you talk about patriotic themes such as respecting the fallen. This is a respectable argument, but not what we are debating here. It is also one of the strongest feelings you have presented to me- hence why I have emphasized that "facts don't care about your feelings." "...neither should those who for it." This is not what we are arguing, nor is it something you can prove as it is just an opinion/feeling of yours.
Burning of the national flag as a form of protest should be outlawed.

The flag is a symbol of what we live for, burning the flag would be going against those principles in which it represents (freedom of expression )which would be contradictory. To say burning a flag is just expressing an idea is an oversimplification of the entire notion. Those who fought and continue to fight to keep our flag high and proud, are the reason why we have the rights we do today. Being anti-Semitic is also freedom of expression but people are punished for it. So burning a flag is ok, but being anti-Semitic isn't? The national flag absolutely holds sentimental value and should be an exception and untouchable, not a specific ethnicity. https://www.jta.org... The only reason why the flag is protected under the first amendment is because its categorized as free speech, I disagree. Burning a flag incites violence, it isn't any less hateful than being anti-Semitic, or anti-Muslim, or anti-Christian. They're both hate speech, and they both should be punished. You can disagree with a government, and that's fine, but you can't attack a national identity because of a couple of people. Its that same symbol that gives you the right to protest, the least our society could do is respect it and be appreciative, especially to those who gave up their lives to keep our nation protected. To reiterate, I do not oppose free speech, or protest, but I do not approve of flag burning, neither should those who for it.