BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Removing certain advertisements from public schools (unhealthy drinks and snacks)

The profit of chips, candies, and drinks goes to academics, sports, art, after school, or music programs. The income of the junk food benefits the kids at the school. Instead of taking down all of the unhealthy food advertisements, they should just put up healthy ones. This way it shows kids that they do not have to cut unhealthy foods out of their diet completely, they just have to learn to balance them with healthy ones. For every junk food advertisement that you have, there should be two healthy advertisements.
Removing certain advertisements from public schools (unhealthy drinks and snacks)

This new government proposal has the goal of encouraging students to make healthier choices, by not exposing them to unhealthy ads in their school enviroments. In this article on NBC NEWS, they explain the goals of this proposal. http://www.nbcnews.com... According to the CDC, the precentage of overweight students in US public schools has grown since 2003. http://www.cdc.gov... The proposal of eliminating unheathy drink and food advertisements in schools will expose students to make healthier decisions inside and outside of schools. According to this website, making junk foods available is associated with weight gain. http://www.nber.org... With this proposal, it will help many students lead a better and healthier lifestyle by encouraging them to by healthy foods.
Race and Genetics

I was in a clubhouse for the mentally ill (which when you laugh it's partly considered not crazy. Google Angelman syndrome) there was an elderly Caucasian / European / white female who said that during WW2 her husband who had blue eyes and blond hair was considered black because he had a little black blood in him. I agree partly with the theory of Evolution. When a person dies they live a life between lives. Think about when you go home and they you're watching TV then you go to the park and run or walk around. This is proof of the afterlife. In America if you're biracial (especially a black / white couple) then you're considered black to everyone in this country. If you don't believe me then go to a forum about genetics and ask...
Lady Gaga Is a Good Role Model on Youth

This is a topic in which I am very eager to debate, as I stand in firm negation of the topic. since the first round is only for acceptance, I will not make any arguments; however I would like to question my opponent's rule number 2. I feel that this rule should be amended to state "Please refrain from making intentionally insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience" I say this because neither I nor my opponent can know what will be deemed a insulting, or what would hurt the feelings of either each other, or the audience. We can however use our own common sense and know not to make blatantly offensive remarks. Also, I accept my opponent's definitions.
Lady Gaga Is a Good Role Model on Youth

Let's give a brief description on who Lady Gaga is. Lady Gaga has been the face of Pop music for the past few years, and has the power to influence teenagers and kids that listen to her on a daily basis. She is an essential leader in the Gay rights movements and since she's been famous, has used her fame to persuade all those around her to accept each other as we come. To most if not all of the LGBT community she is a great role model to us all. But on the other hands there are many, that believe that Lady Gaga is a tremendous bad influence on our youth. Today I will like to debate on this topic. I've chosen youth in specific because I believe this stage is the most important in our life, because at this stage is that the choices we make will make us who we will become in the future. ~=~= Definitions ~=~=Role Model: a person looked to by others as an example to be imitatedYouth: the period between childhood and adult age. Side note: The opponent may decline my definitions, and put forward his/her own definitions. ~=~= Pro & Con ~=~=Pro: Will by chosen by me I will protect Lady Gaga stating that she is an important and good role model on our youth. Con: Will be chosen by the opponent, he/she will debate that Lady Gaga is a bad influence on our youth. ~=~= Rules ~=~= 1. Round one will be for acceptance, we will move forward from there. 2. Please refrain from making insulting comments that may hurt the feelings of the opponent or someone in the audience. 3. All forms of resources can be used such as; videos and links. 4. If you accept this debate please make sure that you will be able to finish it, otherwise do not accept. 5. Have fun and be creative. I love to learn and debating makes it fun, therefore I conclude good luck and let the debate begin. Side note: If the opponent wants to put forward a rule of his/her own he/she may do so. Good Luck.
The Border Wall Will Do Nothing.

You asked if the border wall will do anything? Whether or not you agree with the concept of a border wall, it will reduce illegal immigration, so it won't do NOTHING. Israel and even Mexico have walls and the illegal immigration from the middle east and Guatemala respectively have gone down. P.S. I support a wall too. But the US should pay for it. If you want to build a fence because you don't like your neighbors, should your neighbors pay for your fence?
The Border Wall Will Do Nothing.

There are 2 types of Latin American on US immigration; legal immigration and illegal immigration. Legal immigration would remain more or less constant since many Latinos would either come legally through the wall because it would be a wall with a door, allowing good immigrants in and keeping bad ones out of the country, or by plane as you mentioned. Most Muslims come legally and get heavily filtered when coming to the US., and they should get heavily filtered. They fly on planes here. However, when talking about illegal immigration from Latin America, a wall would definitely reduce illegal immigration.
Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

1. . .. . 2. My opponent must establish the relationship between belief in the afterlife, and negative consequences. He has not done so. To say, "faith has negative impacts, belief in the afterlife is a function of faith, therefore, said belief has negative consequences" is a logical fallacy, and cannot establish proof. I am not adopting two burdens, merely stating that my opponent has not established negative impacts. 3. I mentioned tense in a later round, because my opponent presented past examples. The problem had not arisen prior. A resolution in the present tense permits a great deal of evidence. Jihad and Zakat are examples which occur presently, and are therefore applicable. The Inquisition, a event which occurred long ago, is irrelevant to a debate which specifies "impacts". Applicable evidence consists of events that have some bearing on our world at present. My opponent has not linked his evidence to the resolution. Many of his examples are not motivated by belief in the afterlife. They simply wish to fulfill the will of God, or to uphold the authority of the Church. Inquisitors were simply performing their duties, or were intent on upholding God's will. Their intent was not to achieve Heaven. My opponent merely links his examples to faith, not to belief in the afterlife. With my own examples, I have specifically shown the connection. Zakat is a requirement, under Islam, to enter Heaven. Thus, it is clear that the motivation is religious. My opponent cannot demonstrate that charity would exist to the same extent without belief in an afterlife, though it is the case that war would exist independently. Charity in the Middle East is almost entirely religious, while hundreds of wars have arisen from non-religious conflicts. Further, belief in the afterlife is far more effective than a mere moral system at promoting moral actions. Which statement has a greater impact: "Murder is immoral" or "If you commit murder, you will be damned eternally. "? Many jihadist wish to promote "justice", by defending Allah's will. Their object is not Heaven. Commandments: Adherence to the Commandments can clearly be shown to be due to a belief in the afterlife. Christians believe that, if they stray from the Commandments, they will be damned. My impacts, Zakat and the Ten Commandments, clearly link to belief in the afterlife. My opponents' do not. He has made links only to a broader faith, and expects us to illogically assume that they result from belief in the afterlife. They do not, but are instead derived from other elements of faith, e. g. a skewed sense of justice.
Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

1. Good to go. 2. My opponent has made a huge error in his logic. Faith results in both belief in the afterlife, and in negative consequences. However, this fails to show that belief in the afterlife has these negative impacts. My opponent cannot just state this as fact, he must actually demonstrate the empirical link between belief in the afterlife, and negative societal impacts. 3. "What happened to not 'limiting the scope of the resolution'" I am not limiting the scope of the resolution. The resolution specifies "impacts" not "impacted" or "has impacted". As circumstance similar to the Inquisition, etc., do not currently exist, they are irrelevant to the debate. An adherence to the tense of the resolution does not constitute "limiting the scope". I must restate that the behavior of religious tyrants and suicide bombers does not result from belief in an afterlife, but instead, from promoting the will of their God. My opponent has not demonstrated a link, and therefore, his impacts fall. Double Standard: I have made a distinct link between belief in the afterlife and positive societal impacts. My opponent has linked faith to his impacts, however, he has not made the connection that the resolution requires. Impacts apply only if the link between said impact, and belief in the afterlife is established. I simply will not concede any negative influences until my opponent proves them to be derived from a belief in the afterlife. His examples, religious leaders and jihadists, are inapplicable. Both act in order to fulfill Allah's will, not in order to achieve Heaven. They feel that God's will is just, and hence, attempt to promote "justice". Examples: War: Belief in the afterlife provides comfort, but it is not the cause of war. A nation will start wars, and form an adequate military force, without this belief. Jihad: All Muslims go to Heaven. Martyrs act in order to fulfill Allah's will. Businessman: My opponent hasn't established a causal relationship. Greed causes his actions, not belief in an afterlife. CON: Zakat, as one of the Five Pillars of Islam, is a requirement, under Islam, to enter Heaven. Hence, Zakat is performed with the explicit goal of entering Heaven. Zakat constitutes the majority of welfare in the Islamic world. The Ten Commandments outline a series of rules, the violation of any of which can result in eternal damnation. Adherence to the Commandments is, therefore, a result of belief in the afterlife. My opponents points do not link to belief in the afterlife, but instead to faith itself. I have shown a direct connection.
Belief in an afterlife negatively impacts the world of practical affairs

1. "Many believers do not make a clear enough distinction between what is, i.e. the empirical world of known reality, and what possibly could be, i.e. the doctrines of their faith, specifically the concept of an afterlife." I concede this to be the case. This is the root cause of belief in an afterlife. However, as my opponent concedes, this point alone does not present a problem, and thus, its refutation is unnecessary. 2. "If a person's decisions and actions are influenced by their faith" Belief in an afterlife is a function of faith. My opponent has not linked belief in the afterlife to the impacts he makes in this point. Therefore, the entirety of his "proof" lies with his third argument. 3. "Instead of focusing on how to actually make the world a better place, the people I am speaking of put their energy and efforts into 1) trying to get to heaven themselves, and 2) trying to convert (or kill, depending on the subject) others so that they will go to heaven as well." How do these people "try to get to heaven" if not through making the world a better place? Further, those intent on converting others compose a very small section of the religious population. They are outweighed by those who have a positive benefit. This contention is the only one with actual linked impacts, and does not connect to the previous two. Therefore, until he warrants the claims in his third contention, none of his impacts stand. Example conversations: 1. War is certainly a practical affair. I fail to see how this supports the resolution. 2. Note that the Fundamentalist's primary reasoning is to uphold the will of Allah, not to get it on with a series of virgins. Further, these radical Muslims compose an infinitesimal portion of the religious community. 3. This scenario is ridiculous, the businessman's belief in the afterlife has not fueled his business practices. This justification is almost never used. The main incentive is greed. "I am talking about those that can't differentiate between the absolutely real and the possible existence of an unknown and unknowable afterlife, and proceed to live as if this life were secondary to the unknown future." This debate concerns any persons who believe in the afterlife, not just those who hold it to be of ultimate importance. Con: 1. Most religions contain a basic set of morals and values. These, along with true faith, are considered to be the manner in which one ascends to "heaven", and the rejection of them leads to "hell". These values are almost universally positive. Charity is one of the 5 main pillars of Islam [1], while the Ten Commandments ban theft, murder, and adultery [2]. These are clearly of positive impact to the world of practical affairs. Note that adherence to these beliefs is far more common than conversion efforts and jihad. Thus, belief in the afterlife has a positive impact. Thanks for posting.
Opponent picks topic.

What the hay man?"3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments."I'm not going to argue and rebut against myself.You can't."provide YOUR"....you lose dude....my arguments were "I have no arguments against con".3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.Obviously, I am talking that YOU cite research. Even if I wrote what your 'arguments and rebuttals' you sent me in PM, YOU still failed to cite it. Same goes with arguments & rebuttals. YOU post your arguments & rebuttals in this round. So, you forfeited all 7-points.lol alter the topic.Good luck man arguing the way you pointed out the rules... "Provide your arguments.." this makes you auto-lose many arguments. Please see my debate "Mastery is hard to win against". While I didn't plan it, this setup is an auto-lose for whoever accepts this challenge. This version has already being updated (see my debate against Jabuticaba).
Opponent picks topic.

What the hay man? "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." I'm not going to argue and rebut against myself. "provide YOUR".... you lose dude....my arguments were "I have no arguments against con". lol alter the topic. Good luck man arguing the way you pointed out the rules... "Provide your arguments.." this makes you auto-lose many arguments. Please see my debate "Mastery is hard to win against".
Opponent picks topic.

well, at least I get to state my argument in 2Cnd, 3rd, and 4th round. I'll probably PM you to "provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round" (As said by the instigator himself, Because "I" in your perspective is Mastery, while "You" in your perspective is me. You'll only have 5th round to conclusion with no new arguments. :P (unless you want a full 7-point forfeit) "3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal. Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments." "Provide YOUR arguments and rebuttal in this round..." "YOUR arguments and rebuttal" "Rule breakage will result into a full 7 point loss unless forgiven by the opponent..." (I will not forgive this error. Sorry. It's your mistake. :P) ",..FULL 7 point loss..." Now, to the argument--I argue smoking should not be banned. There are too many people who are addicted to smoking, In 2012, 967 million people were reported to smoke every day, as stated by http://www.bbc.com.... Banning smoking would only allow it even furthermore. Why is this? Well, you all can probably remember what happened when alcohol was banned--everyone attempted to hide it illegally, and children were on the same scale as adults--any age was prohibited to drink. But after the US allowed alcohol, children cannot get it now, showing a definite positive effect. Smoking is similar to alcohol, both being "consumed" by many many people around the world and both have negative effects. While you may argue it is "only is public places", smoking is hard to control, and it would be hard to track those people who smoke in secret. Smoking is nearly impossible to get rid of, especially the addiction. Banning it in public and placing a fine on it would not work, people can still smoke in private, obtaining all your risks and dangers. If you wanted a strong argument, you should have said "ban smoking altogether", while that may be hard to control, it at least supports your health statements and your implication that if smoking was banned in public, people will be healthier. But this is not the case-- you are merely banning smoking in public, not exactly making everyone healthier. I conclude round 2, and will PM you so that you can provide my arguments and rebuttals in the 3rd round. Thank you.
Opponent picks topic.

I choose "Smoking should Not be Banned" as the topic. I alter it to "Smoking in public places including shops, clubs etc. should be banned". I am pro. DEFINITIONPublic places: A public space is a space that is generally open and accessible to people including places where people can enter if they pay. Smoking: the inhalation of the smoke of burning tobacco encased in cigarettes (including e-cigarettes)Banned: prohibited. ARGUMENTSmoking causes many cancer and disease, a main one is cardiovascular disease, which is the disease of the heart or blood vessels. That can cause hypertension, kidney failure etc. Smoking accelerates the hardening of arteries and blood clots are 2-4 times more likely to develop in smokers than non-smokers. Smoking also causes cancer, so much that 90% of lung cancer is due to smoking. If you smoke, the risk of contracting mouth cancer is four times higher than for a non-smoker. There are also many other health risks caused by smoking. [1][1] . http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
Opponent picks topic.

1. School uniforms should be required 2. The Godfather is Not the best movie of all time 3. Wikipedia is Not a Credible source 4. The Lego Movie is a better movie than Aladdin 5. Smoking should Not be Banned 6. Mongols are Not the most powerful Type of People in History 7. Presidents should be allowed to run more than two terms 8. Dancing by itself is a Sport (Not competitive dancing, JUST dancing) 9. Facebook should keep its age-restriction rule 10. "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" is Not the best show ever
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

"would lead one to reasonably adjudicate" "who adjudicate this debate" I am glad you have a sweet word of the week. Anyway, I would like to remind voters that this is a debate, not a "I made a true claim" contest. The fact that the time frame of the topic expired, I have shifted the debate accordingly. PRO has done nothing to respond to any of my arguments. You merely reassert your opening argument again and again, failing to address the new issues I present against your case. Simply because Obama did in fact win does not mean you have won the debate. I have made new arguments that you fail to address. The fact is, Hillary has gone to court several times, most notably in Nevada a couple of weeks ago, in order to bar people from the polls. In the cast majority of electronic districts in NH, Hillary won, while Obama won the majority of hand-counted districts. If its not concrete proof that she cheated, it certainly adds to her resume' of vote manipulation. My response is that Obama shouldn't have won. He is lucky to have gotten out of SC alive with the underhanded Clinton cyborg striking at his throat. He was lucky to have won given the Clintons history of ensuring themselves political success.
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

I do not understand your contention that he should not have won in South Carolina. Your accusations against the Clintons are unfounded. Those who adjudicate this debate will realize that... 1) My conclusion was correct. 2) It was correct for the right reasons. Obama won 80% of African-Americans, which is essentially what gave him the victory and, equally important, the gigantic margin over Hillary.
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

I think this is a pretty mute point by now. But, I still hold that the Clintons will do anything and everything to win. Even now that Obama has won, he shouldn't have. Clinton should have taken the victory as she did in NH. Sure, the votes will hold when you have changed them and kept out votes you don't like. Clinton has gone to court several times since autumn in attempts to bar people from the polls. I realize that hacking into voting machines seems a little extreme, but had this been a Republican candidate, the media and people would be much more willing to believe what happened. The recount would only disprove the theory in the event that Kucinich could somehow count the votes that should have been taken, but didn't or the votes that were changed, but shouldn't have been. Again, eventhough Obama won SC, he shouldn't have. The Clintons are a underhanded political machine who will stop at nothing to win. Don't be suprised to see them take the entire party down in flames before bowing out in the event that she loses.
Barack Obama will win the South Carolina primary tomorrow on the Democratic side.

This is getting slightly off topic, but there is no evidence that Hillary's campaign did anything inappropriate in New Hampshire. In fact, the recount initiated by Kucinich went through 40% of the total votes and witnessed no significant changes. Hillary was still the winner. Again, quite simply, you have no evidence for accusing her of underhanded methods in the electoral process, nor did you refute any of my points relating to South Carolina. All the indications so far would lead one to reasonably adjudicate that Obama will prevail. We'll see what happens tomorrow.