BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools

I appreciate your enthusiasm Con. Thanks for responding. "To put it in basic terms, if a student like how a food tastes, he or she won't eat it." Con I think you meant to state if a student doesn't like how a food tastes, he or she won't eat it. You then go onto state the negative effects of insufficient calorie intake. I agree about the insufficient calorie intake causing problems. I disagree on the part that if a student doesn't like a food's taste. As you probably know tastes change. This is called your palate. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa?" theguardian.com Healthy food doesn't necessarily mean the food tastes bad. In a way your making the argument for me. What your telling me is the school's and parent's of children are doing such a lax job that healthy food is so foreign to them they are rejecting it. If you watch the documentary foodstamped you will see that children who prepare their own food are much more likely to eat it. I know from personal experience that foods that taste bitter often taste good after an adjustment period. I state that school's today nutritional programs are too lax and need to incorporate cooking classes where children learn to cook and prepare their own healthy food. This is even more urgent with children who do not receive bagged lunches. http://www.theguardian.com... http://www.foodstamped.com...
Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools

Subject: Strict foods and nutrition guidelines be enforced in all public schools I pro will argue for the subject. Con will argue against the subject. Strict food and nutrition guidelines are needed to prevent obesity. Obesity is no joking matter as seen below. "Morbidity secondary to overweight and obesity include type 2 diabetes, dislipemia, hypertension, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, cholelithiasis, osteoarthritis, heart insufficiency, sleep apnoea, menstrual changes, sterility and psychological alterations." Nutr Hosp. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):319-24. "Obesity is increasingly being recognized as a risk factor for a number of benign and malignant gastrointestinal conditions. However, literature on the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms is sparse and ambiguous. There is compelling evidence that both overnutrition and undernutrition negatively interfere with the immune system. Overnutrition has been found to increase susceptibility to the development of inflammatory diseases, autoimmune diseases and cancer" World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Oct 14; 16(38): 4762"4772. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

1. My parents don't vote, even after I showed them why they should vote. So technicality I am not represented plus parents have to munch control over another person's life. I study social studies daily (I want to be a social studies teacher), so if you are saying that I can't vote, that is mistake. I learn from the past. So I and the rest of world can make better decisions in the future. I wish that local and national news everyday, I read newspapers too. If you are saying that I am not inform, thus making me unable to vote , that is just wrong. Teens do it all time with technology,we can access information in seconds how many adults know their senators or reps. Or even the cabinet or all of the issues on a party platform? How many adults know their rights under the bill of rights ? Denying me and countless teens is violates the 14 amendment, we are all to be treat equal over the law. Nations around the world have lower their ages, and their growing support for youth suffrage. Last week, Nancy Pelosi said that she supported the Lowering voting age. I bet you don't even know who she is? She is the head minority leader in the house and former speaker of the house. Due to the number of characters allow, please open these links and consider them part of my argument, http://www.youthrights.org... https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

OKAY 1. first off, ageism only really applies to older people and seniors, and no where in my first speech act was I ageist, if anything you are being ageist by generalizing teens 2. Even if you think differently from your parents "all the time", your political views are majorly effected by theirs. Also your being ageist by saying that "all" teens think differently then their parents. 3. Yes, it's fair that you don't have a say in what happens to your taxes or your education, your parents decide what happens to you, they are your parents, you live under their roof. 4. Never once did I use the "language of the oppressors" in my speech act, also you're being an oppressor by using the oppression of the black body and women as a point in your argument and that's bad. 5. Yes we do have social studies for a reason, to learn about oppression. Women and the black body couldn't vote yes, but they we're oppressed in more ways then one. Also social studies classes are used to learn about oppression today. 6. My argument is true, 16 year old teens are not smarter then adults, who have better educations. Also my argument is not unrealistic, your being ageist by saying that adults don't understand our political system. Also I'm 16 so no I'm not being ageist, I know how dumb teenagers are. Lastly, you're being ageist by saying "WE", because when you do that you generalize all teens. Now extend my Round 1 ARG, I shouldn't have to tell ya'll this, but 23 is the age that the brain is fully developed, so 16 year old teens are less clever then 23 year olds. Essentially, the actions of the government are felt more strongly among older Americans. Most 16 year olds live with their parents and attend school. They"re rarely conscious of the political climate that surrounds them. So why do they need the right to vote at so young an age? If an issue actually matters to them, they can wait just a couple of years to vote once they catch a glimpse of what adulthood is like and then be able to vote just fine.
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

That is a biased and ageism view point. We want to be engaged and change the world for the better. Teens can think differently than their parents. All teens think differently than their parents, (I do it all the time). We all are created equal! Is it fair that we don't have a say in what Happens with our taxes or our education. Also a republic is a type of democracy. You are using the same points as the oppressors of allowing African Americans and women the right to vote. We have social studies classes for a reason, so we can be better citizens and humans, and learn from the past. Your argument is unrealistic,that we can say that adults who have no idea about government and the political system but not The youth of America who are have classes about and care. Plus if we lower it we increase voter turnout!
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

Okay, so first off, you have 0 solid evidence on why teens should be allowed to vote. Your only reasoning is that teens drive, pay sales tax, pay income tax, and are more informed* then half of voters. These are not warrants on why teens should be allowed to vote. Everyone has to pay sales tax, big deal. Also you claim that adults don't understand our "democracy" but "we" do, this argument proves that teens have no idea how the USFG works. First off, America is a republic, not a democracy, you also spelled "does" wrong, yet you wonder why teens are seen as dumb. The only reason that the voting age is 18 instead of 21, is because people felt that it was unfair to be sent to fight and die for America, but they were unable to vote. Even then, it was because 18 year old people could go to war, however a 16-17 year old cannot. Also teenagers do not understand our political state. Most teens live with their parents, and their political beliefs are based on their parents. So teens shouldn't be able to vote. Lastly, the true "adult" age is around 23, because that's when the brain is fully developed. So no, teens should not have the right to vote.
Youth Suffrage? should we lower the voting age.

The right to vote is a injustice to just not only me, but to future generations of citizens. We are all citizens, we all live and work here, why as teens are denied the most important civil right to our democracy. Youth Suffrage or lowering the voting age to 16-17 is a issue that is sidelined by the media and the government. But I have a voice, and want to use it. Why in the home of the free, we are still being looked down as dumb uneducated teens? We are more inform than half of voters. We pay income tax when we have jobs and pay sales tax when we buy stuff at the stores. We can drive cars, that can kill us but not vote! We can be charged as adults but not vote! We, just, want our voices to be heard as equal. Why give a vote to a person who has no idea how our democracy works, but not a teen that dose? I am asking for your support and help to bring this issue to the tables across the country and the world! We are all citizens of the world!
Capitalism vs. Socialism

You state that Capitalism is not good for developing nations. That is in fact, the opposite. A developing or undeveloped nation would benefit greatly from Capitalism, as it would create incentive and competition. Additionally, it will increase investments from other nations, especially if heavy regulations are not set in. Socialism creates an incredible amount of spending, which equates to a large sum of debt. A developing nation would not be able to pay for all this debt, as you can see from Greece. Greece has a Democratic Socialist government, which completely destroyed the private sector in the nation and created heavy unemployment by creating large regulations and making it better to work for the government rather then a private business. This resulted in massive spending and massive debt, since much of the country could not pay taxes. They defaulted on their debt payment which has sent the Euro spiraling, and even effected the stock market (Dow-J) tremendously. Socialism, of any sort, does not work under any circumstances. World-wide Socialism would ruin every nation within months. As there would be no competition, all money would be recycled, and then that will create even larger disparities in the economic system. The reason why Europe can be Socialist is because the U.S. is Capitalist. The United States has defensive alliances with almost all European nations, and commits their powerful army to the defense and aid of lesser European nations if they were to be attacked. Seeing as you have stated a very small argument, I will not elaborate further as to save more for next rounds.
Capitalism vs. Socialism

Firstly, good luck to whomever may accept this challenge. There is a clear distinction in these systems, as neither can exist without a certain type of government. Socialism requires a centralized, looming federal government that restricts liberty for the good of the nation. Capitalism, on the other hand, requires a decentralized, hands off federal government that leaves most matters to local governments, as local governments can address issues with more precision. Socialism, on one hand, is both political and economic. National Socialism, which was widely introduced during the reign of the infamous Nazi party, is a system which restricts an extreme amount of personal liberty for the good of the nation and society. Freedom of speech is legislated heavily, as to make sure that the government is not denounced, in order to maintain "peace" and "order". National Socialism, like stated previously, is directly correlated with the Nazi Party. It is also referred to as Nazism, or Hitler-ism. Another variant of Socialism is Democratic Socialism, which is in turn refers to a Democratic political system paired with a Socialist economic system. This basically refers to socialized healthcare, heavy government regulation, and restriction of freedoms. Nevertheless, in all Socialist economies, there is lack of business and a very high level of artificial equality. Artificial equality is a developed term based upon careful observation of different nations that seek to make everybody equal, instead of creating equal opportunity. For example, the rights championed by many Socialists and Liberals (Pretty much the same thing) are what I consider artificial equality, as it seeks to make everybody equal, regardless of differences such as gender, age, level of intelligence, wealth, and so on. On a natural level, Capitalism hereby reflects nature, and man is not above nature. Capitalism is the idea of free trade and free enterprise, a system that champions rights and can only exist in a highly Democratic nation. Capitalism requires opportunity, and it cannot function fully with extreme government intervention. Restrictions such as minimum wage, inability to discriminate, and tariffs are a few examples of intervention that is detrimental to a Capitalist system. All in all, I will be arguing and providing examples as to why Capitalism is a better system then Socialism. Also, Mirza, please do not accept this. I have a heavy disdain for your garbage opinions and I will remove you if you accept this debate. I will not quarrel with you as I have no respect for you our your opinions, which lack substance and are just built upon disdain for other people and their cultures.
DECRIMINALISATION OF PERSONAL POSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALL DRUGS

There is no way to say that jails cause more harm than drugs, millions die because of drugs in all forms. To say it any other way is just ignorance. And please do explain how jails cause harm, they keep harmful drug dealers off the street. 2. Clinics are something after you are caught, jail time is to prove a point and if anything the resolve should stand stronger against drugs. 3. Saving money is nothing compared to the dehumanization that is happening when people are under the influence. They are not themselves and are a danger to those around them. To not try and stop this are devaluing a human life saying no your not worth being at full health. 4. There was a time where they legalized some drugs like LSD and Marijuana. That turned out to be disastrous for both our economy and our society. The soldiers were never themselves again and were harmful to our society. 5. Also when people are under the influence they tend to do nothing especially under marijuana if its legalized they we are condoning doing nothing and eventually if everyones doing nothing our great country would be destroyed. Vote Negative for the reasons above
DECRIMINALISATION OF PERSONAL POSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALL DRUGS

1. On this first point you say that only 30000 have died because of drugs. First off thats in one year and for a certain drug overdose or something in that line. What my point is including is all deaths relating to drugs including from overdosing to things like driving when under the influence of drugs. At to date millions have died because of the drugs. 2. The point of prisons is to prove that if you do something illegal then you will be punished. To group every other argument you made we shouldn't just make drugs legal because we cant stop them right now. If anything we should tighten our standards against anti drug not just make them legal. Its like making murder legal just because we cant stop it from happening. 3. This point you really never touched except saying it contradicts my next point s which ill get to. But whats the point of banning drugs is to keep people at full health at all times. 4. The point to this point not contradicting point 3 is that if we allow drugs to be legal our whole government will collapse economy and society are examples of that. Once that happens we will be sitting ducks for imperialistic countries that are angered by the US to strike us down. The other example I used was during NAM when soliders were given drugs it hurt them and their families when they returned. Also its not dehumanizing to place drug dealers and druggies with murderers and rapists. It was the choice they made and they should deal with the consequences. Especially if they deal drugs, for the reasons in point 1. 5. This basically ties in with point 4 so just argue it there. Keeping drugs criminalize is the only way to keep our society the great society it is. Do not decriminalize drugs if anything vote for neg to strengthen anti drug programs and strengthening against them. DONT CAVE IN, STAY STRONG Vote Neg
DECRIMINALISATION OF PERSONAL POSESSION AND CONSUMPTION OF ALL DRUGS

Firstly you say millions die from drug use ; 30,711 deaths directly related to drugs in 2004( national vital stats report) and that includes prescription drugs. In the second part of your argument you said that jail is there to "prove a point",but what exactly is that point? It is a well known fact that drugs are readily available in correctional facilities and in the majority of cases prisoners move on to harder drugs during time. They also invariably make criminal connections in these facilities and this results in the drug user becoming the drug dealer. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 68% of all people that serve time in jails will re offend, the majority of these will commit a crime within a three year period of their release. If jail really did work as a deterrent or punishment surely this would not happen. Overcrowding in these facilities is also a major issue of concern and paedophiles and rapists are released before serving their full term in order to make room for recreational drug users. .surely this is in no way advantageous to society. In point 3 of your argument you say how saving money is nothing compared to the dehumanization that comes with drug use so i find it funny then that in point 4 & 5 money seems to be your major concern. You seem to be more worried that drug use will affect the person as a consumer rather than what it will do to their health. Also you criticize drugs for their dehumanizing quality and in the same breath condone locking drug users away in a cage with murderers, rapists and every other sort of violent criminal as if this is not dehumanizing. Ultimately to arrest and sentence someone for consuming drugs is to say that their body dose not belong to them but the government. To finish i would like to say that i am not implying that drugs are good for you or that the government should do nothing about it only that criminalizing those who use them is not the way and this is obvious for all to see.
Should Minimum Wage be reduced to the 1964 rate of $1 an hour in the US

Again, this is all just assertion, without any evidence to back it up. I will not, either, dig through your sources to find out where (or if, as the one I clicked did not support anything you said) they support your argument. Your job, not mine.I. Prices will decrease (Or; How Pro does not understand economics) But, to go through your points, McDonald's labor costs are labor costs THROUGHOUT the system, from production of the patties to their sale to a hungry customer. External costs, like overhead from gasoline, etc., may well drop, but you literally ignored all of my analysis that this drop would not correspond to the massive drop in income. Lower prices do not mean anything if wages have dropped many times more than the prices. My opponent next talks about how prices have increased over the past fifty years, and so has the minimum wage, so AHA, he got me!Sarcasm, obviously here, as my opponent clearly is baffled by INFLATION. This is a magical concept whereby prices rise over the long term as a natural effect of market forces [1]. Interestingly, the minimum wage was HIGHER from its inception to the 1980s, when adjusted for inflation, than it is now [2]. My opponent just does not understand economics. II. New Point: Make the market more competitive for a higher wage!My opponent never, ever impacts how lowering the minimum wage will make the job market more competitive for higher wages. It already is incredibly competitive to get wages above the minimum wage; all you are doing is changing the floor, not the level of competitiveness. III. New Point: Bring Manufacturing Back to the US!Firstly, my opponent does not warrant why this is necessarily a good thing. The US has become a service and technology company, which happen to have higher wages, on average, than manufacturing does [3]. What my opponent is advocating here is a regression of the United States economy, whereby the masses produce cheap products for the profit of multimillionaires, as we saw throughout the early 1900s. Of course, we know where that got us. Conclusion: My opponent concludes by saying unemployment is the problem, but does not ever impact how this is the case or why lowering the minimum wage will solve for this in any meaningful way. This is more vague argument without reason or warrant. I apologize for the sarcasm in this round, but what my opponent is advocating is comical. The idea that anybody could POSSIBLY survive on $160 a month, when people cannot survive in the status quo with a much higher minimum wage, is absolutely nonsensical. My opponent has provided NO actual argument as to why lowering the minimum wage this drastically will be beneficial, and has NOT actually shown that prices will decrease proportionally to wage decreases. Instead, he has simply shown that he does not understand inflation. It's actually kind of funny that he references 1964, when, in 1964, the minimum wage relative to inflation was higher than present [see earlier source]. Pretty sure that sums up this round. Sources:1. http://www.forbes.com...2. http://www.pewresearch.org...3. http://www.forbes.com...
Should Minimum Wage be reduced to the 1964 rate of $1 an hour in the US

Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs. When you just look at the retail cost, then you are not seeing the entire picture. You forget that cost to produce and transport of the products used in the fast food restaurants will be reduced as well. There is many levels of labor spending for a product that is sitting on the shelves in retail. So we could expect the cost of the product wholesale price to go down due to the cost of labor for 1. Transportation, 2. Warehouse, 3. Production, 4. Cost for labor from the energy companies. Price for labor for oil companies. You are only looking at this from one view. Product cost would reduce in the same way it would in the retail environment. The price of a hamburger in 1953 was 15 cents, and the minimum wage was 75 cents The price of kelloggs corn flakes when the minimum was $1 cost 2% of the hourly wage, and now its 3%. I retract about the strength of the dollar. New point. With a lower wage, companies will have the opportunity to make the job market competitive for a higher wage. You will be paid for what the company believes you are worth. New Point. With lower competitive wages, the US will be able to bring manufacturing back to the US. The high minimum wage does not make the products made in the US competitive with imports. Most countries have a lower minimum wage. In Conclusion The problem is unemployment, not minimum wage. Lowering the minimum wage will stimulate the job market. http://www.forbes.com... John T Harvey is an economics professor at Texas Christian University, Phd in economics. http://americandigest.org... Contains a picture of McDonald's menu with prices http://www.tvhistory.tv... Retired Engineer that collects information on American History as a hobby http://www.foodtimeline.org... Lynn Oliver Food Historian and Librarian http://www.dol.gov... Robert I. Lerman Professor of Economics at American University http://aspe.hhs.gov... Government Website