BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
East Asian Cuisine is the most superior of all Foods

I will start off my argument by pointing out the finer aspects of Eastern Asian Cuisine. Eastern Asian cuisine is without question better than Italian food. Starting off with the subject of meats, when it comes to meats Japanese are known for their exceptional Kobe Beef, with a succulent marble texture found solely in Kobe Beef, it is renowned as a delicacy not only in eastern Asia but also through out the world. Eastern Asian Cuisine is also rich with thousands of years of culture and diversity and is not as limited as it's Italian counterpart. While Italian Cuisine borrows heavily from other cultures (ex. g Etruscan, ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Byzantine, Jewish and Arab cuisines.) East Asian cuisine is completely original and has developed through years of trial and error.
East Asian Cuisine is the most superior of all Foods

*I would like to challenge my opponent again on this argument, because I had finals and studying became my number one issue, so thusly I was unable to properly address the debate and would like to challenge my opponent to another formal challenge. Well anyways on topic, I would like to argue that Eastern Asian Cuisine (ex. Chinese, Mongolian, Korean, Japanese and etc.) is superior over all other types of food. I will wait for my opponent to begin our debate and answer accordingly.
Optimism

Either present different arguments for your position(which could be pessimism or realism) or just offer rebuttals to my argument. Please don't do both, since I am unable to do both since there is just one round of debate. If you do both, voters have reason to vote for me for conduct. My argument:I believe optimism is ideal over realism or pessimism because it enables us to do things we would not normally attempt. It is scientifically sound and factual that we tend to not try things we think we can't do[1] and optimism helps us out in this way. If we were pessimists, we would more often see things as impossible to do, and thus never try them. As a pessimist, you may never try many things you could actually excel at, but as an optimist, you will more likely try these things and you may discover something new you're good at. Even being a realist isn't always beneficial, for the odds might be that you won't accomplish something, so you're being realistic in saying that the chances are that you won't be able to do that feat, but an optimist would attempt to do it anyways, and they may succeed. Optimists are more likely to engage in active coping when negative things arise, whereas pessimists are more likely to use avoidant coping. [1] Active coping is superior because it means you're doing something to get out of the negative problem, whereas avoiding the problem won't make it go away. At least with active coping, there is a possibility you can put an end to the problem, but avoiding it means it definitely won't go away. Now, while there are some negative things about being overly optimistic, such as believing that you achieved success because of yourself, without giving credit to other things such as a friend, luck, or whatever else may have helped you. Additionally, optimists are more likely to use constructive action against problems, but if a problem is unchangeable, then this would all be wasted. This is why I would say it is good to be healthily optimistic but understand there are some situations where optimism won't work and being realistic is necessary. That said, I am not supporting realism, as I believe it should only be used in some instances, but optimism should be the default position for most situations. Source:[1] . https://www.researchgate.net...
POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

First off, 30 million Americans are not unemployed. There is a reason the United States evaluates the unemployment rate at 4.8%, not 10%. However, this is still very trivial next to the fact that the Stimulus Act still does not cover any of them. (I back my claim with actual evidence. I am yet to see my opponent attempt at doing so.) Now, the unemployment argument is once again kept at bay. Argument #1 is gone. Arg. #2: Yes we are in 2009, the act in going into affect on May 2008. According to many economists by 2009 we will see a upward trend, not a downward trend. Wow. Where did 2009 come in again? The opponent was talking about 2001... and something about how that act related to the 2008 act... and now we are jumping around to 2009. Whatever the reason, JUST BECAUSE SEVERAL ECONOMISTS SAY WE WILL SEE AN UPWARD TREND, IT DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL. I'M SURE THERE ARE JUST AS MANY, IF NOT MORE, ECONOMISTS CLAIMING THAT THE STIMULUS ACT WILL NOT WORK. Arg. #3: The Federal Reserve and the International Market will work with the Stimulus Act to mitigate the economic slowdown. I'm sure you haven't read the resolution. "The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate the economic slowdowns by the next year." I'm pretty sure it didn't mention the Federal Reserve for a reason. Even if the opponent were to prove that the Stimulus Act, working with the Federal Reserve, will mitigate economic slowdowns, it still does not prove that the Stimulus Act alone will. Once again, I stress, those arg. #3 is irrelevant. [As so far, the only thing my opponent can hope to prove is that, with the help of the Federal Reserve, the Stimulus Act can mitigate slowdowns. (I'm sorry, but we're not talking about the Federal Reserve.)] Finally, : People are going to do about three things with it according to CNN. 27% spend it. 32% save it 41% pay off bills. EIther one of these things is going to help the economy. WHether they bank it, or spend it. Paying off bills helps too. This first of all mean that 73% will not spend it. Paying off bills will only fill an already existent deficit. There is no expansion there. No Expansion Means No Economic Growth. For the above reasons, negate.
POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

Excuse the 30 million are retired individuals and veterans, read the bill and learn something, these individuals are technicaly unemployed. Do the math as well and figure out how much money they get. Plus not everyone is getting a rebate check. IT gives money to people who are retired and the reason they give it to unemployed people is because they are more likely to spend. Have you read the act at all. Yes we are in 2009, the act in going into affect on May 2008. According to many economists by 2009 we will see a upward trend, not a downward trend. No the Federal Reserve and the Act have to work together to achieve this act, by the way, where did they get the money to get this the federal reserve. People are not going to pay taxes with it. Because they don't have to till 2009, and that means it will be in the bank and you are seriously telling me that almost everyone is going to pay the IRS with this, when the only reason they are getting it is because they already payed their taxes. People are going to do about three things with it according to CNN. 27% spend it. 32% save it 41% pay off bills. EIther one of these things is going to help the economy. WHether they bank it, or spend it. Paying off bills helps too. Vote for the Aff because my opponent clearly does not know what he is talking about.
POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

OPPONENT'S CASE First, I will point out key flaws in the opponent's last argument. 1) "It does give about 30 million unemployed citizens rebates". I'm sure you are aware that America's current unemployment rate is around 4.8%. There are 320 million Americans. Unless you are proposing that almost 10% of our population is unemployed, the statistic is logically flawed. (http://www.bls.gov...) The evidence is located at the center of the page, under "unemployment rate" 2) Furthermore, the statement as a whole is also flawed. It does not cover the unemployed. The Stimulus Act does not supply unemployed Americans with extra benefits. (http://www.usnews.com... /01/28/economic-stimulus-how-it-works-or-fails.html) (On unemployment) "These aren't part of the proposed plan" Now, we've got two things cleared up. 1) The obvious flaw in our opponent's arguments clearly show how their evidence is false. 2) Unemployments are uncovered. Now, the only argument the opponent makes is that unemployment rates will drop AFTER the Stimulus Plan works. We are not granting the validity of the Stimulus Plan at this point. Thus, unemployment rates are also not definitely going to drop. Therefore, any arguments in this debate regarding unemployments can be dropped, as the proposition has failed to support their evidence. The opponent ONLY brings up unemployment in their last argument, so thus, the opponent has no offense. Now, the only offense the proposition has now is their federal reserve argument. It states: that the Economic Stimulus Plan will work because the Federal Reserve will work. We are talking about whether the Economic Stimulus Plan will help the economy, not whether the Federal Reserve will be able to help the economy. For instance, if I am not good at writing essays, and a friend writes my essay for me, the A that I receive as a grade is not my successfulness, rather my friend's achievement. Similarly, if the economy is fixed, it is the job of the Federal Reserve, not the Economic Stimulus Plan. The opponent now has no offense. MY CASE Moving on to the negative's (me) arguments. 1) "People will either pocket the cash or pay off in taxes, not directly helping the economy." Opponent's argument: This plan is bigger than that of the plan in 2001. Rebuttal: Clearly, we are not mentioning ANYTHING about the 2001 plan. This poll was asking citizens about the CURRENT economic stimulus plan. The opponent's arguments are quite irrelevant, as we are talking nothing about 2001. 2) "Insufficient plan, since many will not actually spend the money." Opponent's argument: Like I said whether they spend it or save it will mitigate the economy in some way. Rebuttal: First off, they provide no reason as to why their argument is true. It is untrue, however, simply because the economy will not benefit in any way IF people only use the money to pay off taxes. NO BUSINESSES ARE RECEIVING A SINGLE PENNY WHEN CITIZENS ARE PAYING THEIR TAXES. With over half of America paying off the taxes, half of America is not benefiting the economy.
POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

As far as your attack on the unemployed it does give about 30 million unemployed citizens rebates. The core reason the economy is suffering is because unemployment, as you say, well why is their unemoployment because of less consumer spending. Less profits equals less jobs, so what do you inject money into the economy, so business can profit and hire and cause a boost to carry on as it did in 2001. To your first point, higher income, if you make more than 75,000 dollars you don't get a rebate, they are giving it to the middle class and lower income how are more likely to spend statisticly, get your facts right. Also you mention debt, but whether they spend or save or even pay off debts, that money is going to businesses and banks. So it will stimulate because it will put wealth into the economy to circulate in the middle class and lower class. It does boost consumer spending because you are giving them money to spend. "1) As stated above, over half of the nation claims they will not be directly spending their cash. Thus, spending will not drastically increase. The opponent's arguments only work in theory, and as when applied realistically, it does not work.", Yes they will spend, they spent 2/3 of it in 6 months in 2001 and this act is 3 times the size used in 2001. "2) $300 - $600 is not enough to boost the economy. With only 40% of the nation claiming to spend the money, this creates enough reason to doubt the actual validity of the half-a-K tax rebates. Even if all of the nation directly spends the money, there is still the chance that the stimulus act will not work.", actually 300-1200. About 110 billion in tax rebates. Like I said whether they spend it or save it will mitigate the economy in some way. It is relevant because the act and the federal reserve togeher with stop the recession. very relevant believe me.
POFO april Topic, POFOers only please.

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Definitions: Successfully- Achieving the desired effect Mitigate- decrease Year- 2009 Contention 1: Money into economy Whereas the Economic Stimulus Act is giving roughly $106 billion dollars to citizens that qualify, spending will increase within the nation. When this occurs companies are able to profit in turn mitigating the current recession. The recession is caused by citizens who're incapable due to debt (for the most part) from purchasing goods. As companies suffer due to loss in profit due to lack of buying, the economy suffers. Contention 2: Federal Reserve A)Money and Rates: The Federal Reserve had injected $24 billion into the U.S. banking system and lowered the federal funds rate below the usual target rate of 5.25% to help stabilize the economy, August 9, 2007. Since then, the rates of the Federal funds rate have been reduced to its current level of 4.25%. Basically this means in addition to the economic stimulus alone, the Fed. Reserve is working with the banks of the U.S. to help lower the amount that banks are charged when they make an overnight loan to one another. This helps the economy by taking less money away from the banks, allowing it to fuel the economy, and at the same time giving direct funding to the economy in banks. This helps mitigate the economic recession. B)Foreign and Central Banks Through actions between the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Swiss National Bank, the Federal Reserve was able to alleviate some funding pressures by making greater liquidity (ability or ease to convert assets into cash) available. Lines were established between the ECB and the Federal Reserve to swap currency, which funds non-U.S. institutions that would usually go to the interbank market as opposed to the U.S. Through liquidity provided from the ECB's short-term funding of about $500 billion, markets have been able to recover on an international level. Essentially U.S is working with foreign banks to circulate money, helping to raise the value. Pressures on the economy are being alleviated through the liquidity of the Federal Reserve. Also, through the ECB's funding in the interbank, some markets are able to recover. Contention 3: Hirer wages Higher wages are an easy way to increase economic activity in the sense that it increases the amount people are able to spend on U.S markets. Now it's easy to say that there are no guarantees that the money will be spent on personal ventures, but the fact of the matter is that many Americans are in over their heads in debt, and this hurts companies when these citizens aren't able to pay. This increased wage can easily help to pay back loans, and debts acquired through the years and this directly influences the economy. This may look like a costly method, but it is effective and will essentially benefit companies in general, and perhaps save this nation from facing a great economic recession.
naruto or dbz which is better

Goku has literally hundreds of attacks and techniques [1] and that's just Goku, so that argument doesn't work. Second, Naruto has a lot more filler episodes compared to DBZ. 36-40% of Naruto is filler [2] (200 filler episodes total out of 526). DBZ only has about 25 filler episodes out of 276 [3]. That's only 9%. That mean Naruto almost has as many filler episodes as DBZ has episodes period! Coming back to life doesn't make DBZ worse. A huge part of the story involves people trying to gather the dragon balls in order to control death. That would be like me criticizing Naruto for being about ninjas. It's part of the story. Finally, Naruto wears neon-orange. You call the a ninja? Vote Con! 1. http://dragonball.wikia.com... 2. http://www.narutohq.com... 3. http://boefie.hubpages.com...
naruto or dbz which is better

Naruto is better than DragonBall Z because in Naruto they have a lot more action and a more diverse range of attacks. for example, whenever a fight starts you never know who will use what Jutsu, but in DragonBall Z its always Goku's Kamehameha wave or spirit bomb. no differential in attacks. i know Naruto uses Shadow Clones and Rasengan, but he had developed it and changed it greatly. same for Sasukes Chidori. Next reason the villain's are a lot more powerful and more strategist more. for example, Pein. he didn't just charge into Konoha, he looked for Naruto and destroyed the village at the same time. for this reason he is different from Brolly and Frezia. Next the good guys die and stay dead. Goku dies and come back to life over and over. In Naruto the only good guys to do this was Kakashi, (through Pein's change of heart,) The 1st and 2nd Hokage, (due to Orchimaru's dead soul Jutsu,) and Itachi, (due to Kabuto's dead soul Jutsu.)
School uniforms are good

Since my opponent has forfeited this round as well, I will take this opportunity to bring up more good points about school uniforms. First, school uniforms are a blessing for parents when it comes to getting the kids ready in the morning. Instead of spending a good 20 minutes trying on half the closet in the morning, a child can go directly to the uniform without feeling that his or her clothing is inadequate. There's no "these pants make me look fat" or "so-and-so is wearing the newest designer labels, why can't I?" Uniforms also contribute to a more professional look that helps children feel that school is important. Just as play-clothes make children think it's play time, work clothes make children think it's work time. Additionally, uniforms save school officials time and effort. Instead of policing the halls for indecent amounts of cleavage, back, and butt, school officials would be able to put their time towards more practical and academic purposes. And since it's fairly easy to spot an orange T-shirt amidst a sea of blue ones, it will be much easier to identify the people who do not belong on school grounds or to identify who belongs where on school fieldtrips. Overall, uniforms contribute to a safer and more efficient school system. My sources are as follows: http://www2.ed.gov... http://www.buzzle.com...
School uniforms are good

The first point that my opponent brings up is that school uniforms are too expensive, particularly as children grow out of them. This is simply not true, especially when the uniforms are basic. In fact, according to experts, uniform prices cannot drop any further while still maintaining a profit. In the UK, one can purchase an entire school uniform for less than ï¿½5, approximately $8 US currency. When compared to designer clothing, one can see that an entire outfit for $8 is much less likely to break the bank than a $50 pair of jeans. In addition to the already low price, most schools that require uniforms will provide them for free to students who are unable to afford them. My opponent also argues that individuality and freedom of expression are compromised by uniforms. My counter-point is: The clothes do not make the person. If a student cannot be an individual without altering his or her physical appearance, then that student has no real individuality to speak of. When everybody wears the same thing, personality tends to become the distinguishing factor. A student who is required to wear a uniform may indeed come out of the experience with more developed individuality in non-physical facets. Schools with uniforms are also required to make exceptions for clothing worn for religious beliefs and some even let students opt out of the uniform altogether. My opponent is under the impression that school uniforms will not cut down bullying among students, but with a little logical thought and statistics from previous studies I believe I can prove otherwise. First, my thought process. With school uniforms, students are unable to tell by sight which students are wealthy and which are poor. Since two of the main reasons students are bullied are appearance and social status, it follows that minimizing these factors in the school environment will also minimize bullying. Now for the statistics. The Long Beach unified school district in California mandated school uniforms in 1994 and in just 5 years saw significant results. Regarding the school system, crime rates dropped 91%, school suspensions dropped 90%, sex offences dropped 96%, and vandalism dropped 69%. These results may be in part because students feel more business-like in a uniform and are able to stay more school-oriented. I thank my opponent for his engaging argument and look forward to our next round of debate. My sources are as follows. http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.education.com... http://www.terrebonneparish.com... http://kidshealth.org... http://www.educationbug.org...
School uniforms are good

1) High Cost of School Uniforms- Uniforms are not cheap and this is a good reason to be against school uniforms. Because children are constantly growing, there is a captive market for new school clothes and manufacturers take advantage. However, large volume manufacturers are producing very cheap clothing for younger pupils at the moment so this argument against school uniforms may not stand up to too much scrutiny. 4) Freedom of Expression is stifled by School Uniforms- A uniform breeds uniformity. We need free thinking children to become the thinkers of tomorrow, not drones who will continue making the mistakes of pervious generations. When we argue against school uniforms we argue against an education system that seeks to produce workers and for an education system that seeks to produce enlightened fully rounded human beings. 3) School Uniforms do not cut down on bullying - No matter what you dress students in, they will always find a way to pass judgment upon their peers. The clothes are not the root cause of bullying and therefore the bullying will continue, regardless of dress policy. No matter what clothing rules apply, students will always find ways to pass judgment upon each other. Also allowing students to choose between a blue and red polo shirt doesn't reduce gangs. Also gangs don't have to show their colors to engage in activities. My source is http://www.angelfire.com...
Objective morality requires the existence of a god.

1) No, it does not. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god and nothing else 2) No, it does not. Moral agents are beings who can reason to morality and thus are held accountable for their actions and deserve ethical treatment. Moral patients are beings who can experience suffering but do not understand rationality and thus deserve ethical treatment but are not held to ethical standards. Dogs, chickens, and the severely mentally retarded are moral patients. Fully functional humans and any other beings that are rational (eg Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi) are moral agents. 3) Demonstrate this. Why must a prescriptive fact be communicated by an intelligent being rather than being discovered? Your rebuttal to my case is simply defining morality as a supernatural being's will. That is a lexical rebuttal, not a logical one. If you would take the position that a human who has done nothing but harm other sentient beings his entire life has behaved morally, then you have demonstrated a definition for the word that is repugnant to a rational being.