BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can fast food be healthy for you.

First of all, I must propose to define 'fast food' as I state here. The term has a variety of uses- it is most commonly, Culinary services known and used for their speed of service. However, The range of such service is wide- from the most distinguished, KFC and McDonald's, To Indian and Chinese Takeaways and even vegetarian and vegan restaurants. And whilst obviously, For example, A vegetarian restaurant will be more healthy than not, Fast food as regular is not. KFC and McDonald's, In particular, Cannot really be healthy for you in any way. It is convenient, And can be eaten irregularly, But on the scale of nutritional value it stands abysmally. The frying oil is reused several times- when it is of very poor quality to begin with. It is true that we must have some fat in our diet to be balanced- but one serving of such fast foods can almost have enough for three whole meals. Large intakes of fat and sugar are most definitely not healthy for anyone, Children and adults alike. There is no question about the fact that however "healthy" it would be, It cannot be of comparison with a home-cooked meal. Moreover, Fast food restaurants are often unhygienic, Adding to risk of sickness and disease.
Can fast food be healthy for you.

Ok, My opponent says that fast food is unhealthy case shut, But then said that people can have the option to buy foods like salad and other healthy food this proves the fact that if we are to take strides for healthiness then we can order and have healthy food at a fast food place. Fast food can be healthy it just takes someone who wants to eat healthy for it to be healthy. And yet again my opponent refuses to take about my other standard of what healthy may mean, The act of not being sick, The New York Times has supported my case for the fact that fast food can help you be healthy by reducing antibiotics used, The cleanses of workstations and many other things, That Macdonalds and many others have tried to do. My opponent simply says "who would eat a salad" and simply what my case is saying that these healthy options, Like salads, Have been put in place for healthier eating and it proves that with an effort that people can eat fast food if they were to take a valiant effort and attempt to do so as Macdonalds is not forcing someone to eat fried and unhealthy food, And in fact offers replacements.
Can fast food be healthy for you.

look yes I understand that fast food is unhealthy in a lot of cases but that is not the question is can it be healthy, And the simple answer is yes when the consumer is able to buy a salad, For example, Macdonald and many other fast food places do not force you to buy fried food and most do offer healthy foods that consumers can buy proving that it can be healthy as long as your trying. My opponent also has given me no answer to the fact that fact that the healthiness meaning sick arguments which show that fast food can make strides to be healthy.
Can fast food be healthy for you.

As I have addressed before, This point of view is unethical. "Fast food" has too great a range of meaning- and to take the greater percentage is to mean to determine that the greater range of fast foods is unhealthy. Oh yes, A McDonald's salad. How many people go to McDonald's, Specifically, To buy a salad? I would not deny that a salad is unhealthy. But I would assume that beside the salad, The consumer would be eating products that do not benefit the body. Assuming, Of course, That few would go to a fast food, Fried food takeaway just to buy vegetables.
Can fast food be healthy for you.

My main argument is that when the consumer tries to eat healthy at fast food restaurant they can. Fast food can be healthy when the consumer tries to eat salads, With the best dressing, Or chicken wrap. Even then healthiness can be described as not being sick and as I had already said companies like Macdonald had made a valiant effort to help make sure that standard is applied, According to the new york times. It's not the fact that fast food offers unhealthy food its the fact that it can be healthy if you actually try.
Concealed carry laws decrease crime

I also shall abide by my opponents rules. I also find my opponents definitions to be enough for now. My opponent did not say anything regarding to quotes, so i shall exercise this right by providing a few. "Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort. " - John W. Hinckley, Jr. Since round one is for acceptance and no arguing, i shall close. Good luck to my opponent in his next round.
Free Trade Is Superior to Protectionism

Full ResolutionFree trade is superior to protectionism in terms of international trade. BoP is shared. It is pro's burden to prove the resolution, while it is con's burden to prove the opposite (that protectionism is superior to free trade). Definitions Free Trade: "The unrestricted purchase and sale of goods and services between countries without the imposition of constraints such as tariffs, duties and quotas. "[1]Protectionism: "Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs, quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention. "[2]Superior: "One that surpasses another in quality or merit. "[3]International Trade: "The exchange of goods and services between countries. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: . http://www.investopedia.com...[3]: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4]: . http://www.investopedia.com...
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

1. You have created no sustancial arguments. 2. You have no evidence of any of you facts, yet all my facts have evidence. 3. Media- According to IHT(international herald tribune) - over 73.25% of the media was from - the Mccanns sites - the mccans advertisement - the posters amde by the mccanns - the interviews that the mccanns arranged with most every substantial newspaper in the world - articles posted to most newspapers 4. You stated "the mccanns put fuel in their vehicle, turned the key, but they handed the wheel to the media, and as a result, the story spun out of control, and the storm wouldn't even end after the mccanns pleaded, tears in their eyes, for the media to leave the gates of their house." - just proved that it is the Mccanns fault by saying they handed the wheel to the media - As i have just proved, they not only started the car and pulled it out of the driveway, but they sat in the front seat, navigated, and were backseat drivers. - You say that the mccanns were in tears yet you have no evidence at all. This is a complete exageration and a terrible lie. 5. You haven't substantially rebutted any of my arguments, and you have made bad points with no evidence. I have rebutted all your arguments and made clear points with complete evidence.
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

During the course of this debate, you have made one argument. You believe that it was the mccann family that instigated the media. I am not referring to fliers, i am not referring to seeing a picture of her on the back of a milk carton. Though the mccanns had a media advisor, 2.5 million dollars, part of which was spent on commercials and fliers, is not enough to get the new york post, usa today, the herald tribune, the sydney morning herald, and the l.a. times to post a story on her disappearance on the front page of the newspaper for 6 whole months! Yes, the mccanns did have a media advisor, but that does not mean they have control of which stories are posted online each day. In conclusion, the mccanns put fuel in their vehicle, turned the key, but they handed the wheel to the media, and as a result, the story spun out of control, and the storm wouldn't even end after the mccanns pleaded, tears in their eyes, for the media to leave the gates of their house. How can you say that was caused by the family itself. The media campaign began to have the ability to indirectly hurt people, including 3-year-old madeline mccann, after the media took the wheel and turned the plight of a family into an international media frenzy. THis is why i believe i have won this debate.
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

1. Your comeback made no sense. The Mccanns, as I have proved abused the usage of media to show the public their story. 2. The Mccanns raised 6 million pounds, 5.75 million of which they used for their media, and .25 of which they used for fundraising. According to reuters.com. 3. These are the things that they did involving the media (USA Today) - Set up 8 different websites advertising the kidnap of their daughter - Hired a media advisor and a crime media advisor to create advertisements -Traveled to 17 different countries and in those countries they - posted thousands of fliers - talked with the governments about their daughter's kidnapping - had many fundraisers to fund their daughter's public awareness - Hired a group of policemen to broadcast the search for their daughter - Arranged interviews with almost every newspaper, tv newscaster, and radio newscaster in England - Arranged publishers and movie theaters to put advertisements inside books, on dvds, and in movie theaters - On a side note, if a young child reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, is more scared of the advertisement than the book, they are seriously deranged 4. All these things that the Mccanns have done are - Provocative towards the kidnapper (putting their daughter in harm's way) - completely abusing the media 5. Also, if you think that this is not abusing the media then what is. These "media exaggerations" are the fault of the Mccann family, not the media itself.
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

Though your argument was interesting, it did not entirely make sense. You said and i quote, "it is the Mccanns who are abusing the media and harming themselves and their daughter." though i agree that it was the Mccann parents themselves who instigated the media to begin the long line of stories, they were not abusing the media. The Mccanns gave the media the story, which they later used to fill pages and pages of newspaper, but after the Mccanns had had enough with the media frenzy, the media kept the storm raging, and could of possibly hurt madeline mccann. Though the Mccann family did instigate the media frenzy, it was the media itself was not forced by the Mccann family to publish the story on the front page of every newspaper and have the story air nightly on the 10 o'clock news, which was what did the harm, it was not madeline's family that could of cost the girl her life.
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

1. You stated that the Mccanns are being harmed by the media, however the Mccanns are actually the instigators of the media. -The Mccanns have hired a normal media advisor and a crime media advisor. These two have worked together for the Mccanns to put together a host of fliers, posters, videos, advertisements, and websites to inform the media. - According to reuters.com -"Over the subsequent months Madeleine's parents implemented a publicity campaign that kept the disappearance in the public eye in many countries though there was criticism that the media attention was excessive and lacked objectivity. The disappearance led the news in the UK for over a week with subsequent daily coverage of events. There was regular coverage in Portugal and periodic coverage in other countries. An official site for the search was set up and a fund-raising company, known as Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, was launched. The directors of the company subsequently decided that no money from the Fund would be used to pay the McCanns' legal costs. The parents had an audience with the Pope and embarked on a tour of key European and North African countries, together with a visit to the United States, to raise and maintain awareness. There were appeals from many political leaders and sporting personalities and over ï¿½2.6 million of rewards were offered." - This proves that it is the Mccanns who are abusing the media and harming themselves and their daughter 2. It is not the fault of the media but of the Mccanns. In turn, if their daughter was killed, it was their fault not the media's.
The Madeline Mccann kidnapping was abused and exaggerated by the media, which led to harm.

On. May 4th, 2007 Madeline Mccann was reported snatched from the ground story of her condo at a resort in southern portugal, while her two-year-old twin brothers and her were sleeping, and her parents were out of the condo eating dinner. Immediately, with at first positive help from the parents, aired multiple stories about the kidnapping on british and portuguese television. Soon after, the media attached itself to the story and reported every move by the police, speech by the Mccanns, and remained 24/7 outside the mccann residence, even after the mccanns pleaded for the press to leave, saying that they wanted a better life than this for her two remaining children. There are multiple reasons that prove the media hurt the mccann family, other children in Britain, and possibly madeline herself. 1)according to amnesty international, 1.35 million children get kidnapped a year, but, only .78 million of those are reported. Also, it has been found more likely for a kidnapped child to be killed if the media is aware of the kidnapping. And, this makes sense. if you knew that almost a billion people in the world could recognize the face of the little girl you had in captivity, and you knew that juries in convicting you would have a more corrupted opinion against you, you would want to get rid of the threat to your freedom. 2) The media targeted young children with information on Madeline Mccann. The media and the mccann family placed the story of madeline mccann and her picture in commercials before the child and animated movie "Shrek 3" and on bookmarks inside additions of the final installment of the harry potter series "Harry potter and the deathly hallows" Such targeting according to many parents scared their children and gave them nightmares. The media was targeting an innocent group of children who should of had no connection to the tragedy. These are just some of the reasons why i think i will win this debate
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

Once again let me say that Pro's confidence in humanity is admirable. And to a degree I share Pro's confidence, Especially with regard to problem solving. But I'm not so confident that there will not be a problem that one day exceeds our capabilities. Not necessarily a problem that brings about the total extinction of the human species but a problem that eventually inhibits our universal progress. Of course; the collapse of our solar system is inevitable, But I suppose it's fair to say that we have plenty of time yet to get our act together. My main contention is that material evolution (not species evolution) may be purposeful and maybe even preordained. Not just a sequence of chance events but a purposeful sequence that sustains and reinitiates the universe. In this respect I would suggest that organic intelligence is maybe at the limits of it's purposefulness and is almost at a point where it must hand over the task of sequential fulfilment to a more universally capable successor. A great evolutionary filter if you like. Are we not already quite rapidly becoming dependant upon artificial intelligence? Given the exponential rate of technological development, I think that it is fair to suggest that artificial intelligence will soon fully surpass human intelligence. And once this has happened how long will it be before artificial intelligence takes complete control over universal events? I think that the greatest irony to come out of Pro's argument. Is that they see the chief inhibiting factor to our universal success as not being the inability to overcome problems but rather, Whether or not we can afford to pay for the solutions. Maybe something so simple as our worship of money will eventually end up being our greatest filter. Ultimately this is a debate between optimism and realism. The optimist assumes that humanity will always have the answers. Admirable confidence with a sprinkling of hope thrown in and maybe also a tinge of fearfulness. The realist simply accepts that what will be will be. And admits that they are not certain of anything. Thanks to Pro for the interesting discussion.
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

Absolutely no hard feelings at all. I debate for pleasure and will take any side of any argument if needs be. The pleasure is in the grammatical composition and the mental stimulation that this provides. Winning or loosing is insignificant. As for the subject in question: 1) We are tending to dwell to much on the birth of nations and supposed U. S. Superiority. 2) Pro has not as yet addressed the majority of the information and challenges, That I have proffered in the previous 2 rounds. 3) Pro's confidence in human ability and ingenuity is admirable. But the drawback is, That this is the only real argument in Pro's arsenal. 4) Who knows how clever or not dinosaurs or other species of the Mesozoic era were. It has taken 65million years for intelligent life to evolve since then. I would therefore suggest that it's fair to assume that at least one species probably evolved to a greater level of intelligence during the 165million years of the Mesozoic era. 5) It is generally agreed that the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event was caused by an asteroid impact. If we became aware of a similar, Imminent asteroid impact, Would Pro be confident that humanity possesses the ability to counter such a threat? 6) Pro proposes that the "Great Filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it". Isn't this proposition doubly contradictive? A) The Great Filter is the Great Filter and therefore cannot be overcome. B) To be destined to surpass the Great Filter implies that humanity is already superior to it. Therefore there is no Great Filter. Therefore In this instance Pro is inadvertently creating a false premise. 7) One final challenge for Pro: Notwithstanding their unerring faith in human ability. Perhaps Pro would give some consideration as to how we, So organically fragile, Will break free of the shackles of our planet and solar system. In this respect perhaps we are our own Great Filter?
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

I read every argument three times over to be exactly sure what my opposition is trying to communicate. 1) Ok, I just wanted to be sure on that. 2) I was saying "but what if WE didn't exist? " 3) Yes, But my point was, No matter what problems we face, Smart people will always find a solution. 4) As for inaccurate, No, As for bias, Here let me provide you with another example if you do not trust that one. First, Lets see if I was inaccurate: Can you hardly compare the new UK to the old UK? The old UK dominated so much of the world to the point where the sun still hasn't set on the British empire (currently only due to a small island with a population of less than a hundred people). So what if their ancestry was from other countries? Thats what makes America so diverse! Second, Here's another example. China got overpopulated and large portions of people left, Eventually finding the island of japan and settling there in 660 B. C. Another, More modern example, Would be South Korea. They were suffering under oppression, So they formed their own nation. Just because a nation is similar (like America to UK, Japan to China, South Korea to North Korea) does not mean that they aren't entirely new nations. Overpopulation, Prosecution, And oppression were problems solved by forming new nations. Don't you think that we could solve much more? 5) Dinosaurs were not intelligent life forms, So they were doomed to end once they faced a big problem (whatever you think that might have been). Life may be full of challenges, But there will always be people who are willing to combat those challenges. No hard feelings my friend?
The great filter is ahead of us but we are destined to surpass it.

Not wishing to be over critical. But I'm not sure if Pro paid much attention to my opening comments. Nonetheless: 1) I am neither a theist or an atheist in the conventional sense. I do not know anything for certain so therefore I cannot believe in anything for certain. I simply used the word "God" because it is an apt metaphor for my theory of all information and ultimate knowledge. Organic intelligence assists in the recreation of God so that God can reinitiate the sequence after it's finality. 2) The four forces are what the four forces do. There is going to be one system or another, Perhaps even a chaotic system. But the reality is that things are as they are and we are as subject to the existent system as everything else is. 3) I not sure if Pro's examples could really be regarded as great filters. And I'm not sure that it's fair to suggest that the black death was eradicated because we invented sanitary devices. And plenty of time to worry about space junk. It will be a long time before we master the art of inter-stellar travel, If in fact we ever do. As I suggested I think it more likely that intelligent mechanisms will take on this role. And Pro suggests that humans will surpass the end of the universe. Sounds like an obvious contradiction to me. We are of the universe so we will end with the universe. And we will only end with the universe if we can master the art of inter-stellar travel before our own mother star eventually runs out of steam. 4) Pro's eulogy on the birth of nations is to say the least somewhat inaccurate and probably a tad biased. And I would like to think that the U. K. Still has plenty to offer and let's not forget that Washington and Lincoln were both descendants of English families and Harriet Tubman's roots were obviously African. All of which emphasises the fact that the Modern U. S. A is an agglomeration of the already existing nations rather than the birth of a new one. And how is this an assurance of anything anyway? Finally something for Pro to ponder: Dinosaurs existed on Earth for 165 million years before eventually hitting their Great Filter. Humans have only existed on Earth for 200000 years. So plenty of time yet for our Great Filter to present itself. It's not always about sanitation. Sometimes it's about rather large lumps of rock.