BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should School Lunches be Regulated

Exactly childhood obesity caused by school lunch, rates are dropping even more, due to the fact that school lunches are getting healthier. Plus like I said the government isn't forcing you to eat school lunches. You can easily pack your own lunch from home if truly want to eat unhealthy. Also what school would stop serving healthy items at lunch, that benefits the student, and make it even more unhealthy with no real nutritional value in it. The government doesn't make you eat school lunches, just like they don't make you go to school after the age of 16. You also can't drive a car until your 16. Do if your saying the government is forcing you to eat healthy your wrong. You do have a choice. Its just up to you whether or not to you choose to eat the lunches provided at schools. The purpose of school lunch programs was to allow students to have an option at school for lunch if they couldn't pack their lunch or forgot their lunch. Its an option. If there was an item on the menu, chicken nuggets, and i hated chicken nuggets do you think it would be right to protest against it and ban it from the school lunch menus same thing for healthy food. Say you don't like the school serving carrots are you just going to protest against the school until they stop serving carrots. Also the government is in charge of the public school systems. Therefore making them able to do what they please with the lunch plans. Do you really think parents would be very happy if the government allowed their kids to eat unhealthy greasy fatty foods that contain no good nutrients. Lunch is apart of your daily meal and if you don't like what they serve no ones forcing you to eat it or for that matter buy it. You have to buy your lunch at school. Its like a grocery store, if the store stops selling a certain product you want would you try to make it a law that they had to carry that specific brand. Obviously you wouldn't. But you could go to a different store to buy it. If you really want an unhealthy lifestyle no one is in the way but yourself. You may be to lazy to pack your lunch to eat the food YOU like everyday, but someone else may enjoy making their life a bit healthier. An what right does the government have to take that away from someone. Also the government only has lunch rules on public schools. In which they do their best to provide a fairly good education to all high schools that want it. They are giving you a learning experience and offering you a healthy lifestyle. Its up to you whether you want it or not. You aren't being forced to eat anything you don't want to. Schools are just trying to encourage you to better your diet and overall turnout of life. Its really your choice in which path you want to take.
Should School Lunches be Regulated

Yes you do have a valid point about how healthy food gives you energy for the day but why does Michelle Obama get to tell me that I have to have those healthy habits. If I don't want to eat healthy, who is the government to tell me that I have to. Again, I can drive a car 60 mph, practically a 4,000 lb. bullet, but I can't choose what I eat for lunch. It is MY decision and no one else's. Also the healthy food they serve is disgusting tasting...if you want to serve me a healthy lunch, serve me something that is nutritious and tastes good. Don't give me some re pungent crap that I will refuse to eat anyway. Another point is at a child's age a certain calorie intake is needed to sustain a healthy lifestyle. Sometimes that means more food fatty and healthy. Most of our obesity problems anyways live at our homes. You are not going to become fat by eating at school unhealthily. How you eat at home and during times like summer where there is no school, contributes the most to the obesity problem today.
Should School Lunches be Regulated

I see what you mean, but school is about learning and making life descions. Why can't the lunches be apart of that. If you want to eat unhealthy its fine by me, all you have to do is pack your lunch. And yes you can also pack your lunch full of nutritional items as well. But in school they teach about healthy eating habits and nutrition. If all they serve us in lunch is greasy pre-packaged junk they would complete hypocrites. Why shouldn't they try to influence our eating habits in a positive way before we leave school and grow up. If schools don't enforce healthy eating habits to their students how do you think they will turn out. A study done in 2011 showed that a the average person who eats school lunches has a 48% more chance of becoming obese than someone who packs their lunch. Yes, in high school your trying to learn your own way and feel you have the right to eat whatever you want. And you do. All you have to do is pack your lunch from home. The school isn't going to bring back their old unhealthy junk food just because not everyone feels the importance of healthy eating. Healthy eating habits are HABITS. They form at young ages and when when schools decide to enforce this they aren't just doing it because its mandatory by STATE LAWS, but because it will benefit their students' overall health. There is less empty calories in healthy foods they serve at lunch, making the food have more energy, which will give the student more energy for the day. Its also been proven that healthy foods put you in a better mood too.
Should School Lunches be Regulated

Yes I understand where you are coming from, kids, especially teenagers in high school, do not have sufficient time to make their lunches in the morning. Which, in turn, means more kids are eating lunch at school, hence the obesity rate is going up due to the less nutritious foods that schools are serving. But are you telling me that before you go to bed at night you can't pack yourself a sandwich, an apple, and anything else you would like for lunch. I guarantee you that most high schoolers do have enough time to do pack their lunch, they just tend to be the average lazy teenager (not to mention that in the long hull it can actually be cheaper). It is a decision that us, as young adults have to make. Do we want to eat healthy or do we want the delicious fatty food that our school serves us? At this time in my life I no longer need parenting on what I can eat. It has become a decision where I act independently on, without my parents or the governments intervention. Yes, my parents will tell me: "why don't you have an apple instead?". But they do not MAKE me change what I eat at school.
Should School Lunches be Regulated

I understand where your coming from, but by making healthy foods a regular component in younger kids meals, their more likely to stay healthy. Many lunch programs in schools are extremely unhealthy and processed. It may taste a bit better but would you rather be healthy and possibly live longer or eat unhealthy junk at school, that only satisfies your short time wants. If someone really cannot stand healthier lunches at school, no one is forcing anyone to eat it. There are usually other options in the lunch line, like yogurt and salads. If you truly hate school lunch you can always pack. And thus brings me to another point many students can't afford to pack their lunch or don't have time too. This makes healthy school lunches even more of a benefit. School lunches also contribute to childhood obesity. This is one of the main reasons schools are making them healthier in the first place. Just think would you rather eat healthy food that you may not necessarily like all the time and deal with it or fill yourself.with processed poison. Although you may not like the change many other parents and students ate pleased with the fact that they are now able to eat healthy at school.
Should School Lunches be Regulated

Recently the Obama administration has put legislation into place restricting some of the more "unhealthy" or "fatty" foods. Apparently kids eat way to unhealthy at school and so the government feels the need to take over your job as a parent and supply them with healthy food. As a high school student I have experienced, first hand, this new dramatic shift in our schools cuisine. I have found that over three-quarters of the students at my high school say that our lunches are repulsive at best and are almost not worth eating. Some of the students even started a petition stating they wanted their old lunches back! At the high school level a student should be able to make their own decisions. So what the government is telling me is that I can drive but can't choose what I want for lunch? If I think school lunch is nasty I will simply go buy my own healthy food which I can make at home and go to school with.
Puppy Mills good or bad

Puppy mills are not a bad idea. This will depend on what country or countries we are talking about. Please state a country in your next argument to narrow this topic even more and would you want sources to the information that I stated. If the puppy mill is in a poor country where food is limited it is ok to eat dog meat. Dogs can reproduce quickly which makes it smart to farm the animal. Some mills are cruel to the livestock but that would never go away as it also happens to cows in America. Animal cruelty is a big topic and it can't really be preventable. In America farmers breed chickens until it can't anymore and then slaughter it to eat as it does not serve a purpose anymore. The chickens are also kept in small areas surrounded my chicken wire. They are treated the same way as those dogs in the mills.
Puppy Mills good or bad

Puppy mills are cruel they lock up animals in wire cages all their lives and the mothers barely live until they're 5 years old. The owners breed and breed the dog until they can't breed anymore then they kill them. Most puppies have lots of diseases and sicknesses when the people buy them. Some don't even get purchased and when they don't get purchased the price is either slashed or they kill them. Some puppies don't get fed and they eat each other which I think is cruel.
life only happens by chance; there is no God

anyway back to the subject, had a kanye west moment for a second. people like you who don't believe in the existence of god tend to back-up their argument with the whole subject oh 'evil'. 'why does god allow evil?' 'why does god allow illnesses' 'why does god allow death' etc. you can consider life to be like a test, and of course the examiner is god itself. when you walk in to an exam you don't ask the examiner the questions- you answer the questions. life as you know it may not be significant in comparison to life after death( hell,heaven). instead of asking these questions, you could go out there and research about the topic and find out yourself. after all god gave you a brain I recommend you use it and find out. kanye west asks why the paparazzi disrespect his family, and then one paparazzi simply says 'good night' and kanye's reply is 'f**k o**'. your asking allot these why questions but then being a kanye west by not having faith in god when he has done nothing wrong to you.
[We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologicaly)

My opponent conceded the last round; therefore, he agrees me on all of my points, and all of my attacks upon his case. So, I would like to extend all my points made in round two, with the start of my first rebuttal. Everything that I have said in the second round is now what I will say in this rebuttal. There is no reason for us to leave now, or ASAP when possible. The claims i made are now truth, in terms with this debate, for my opponent conceded them. The same goes for the warrants and evidence. I now await a response.
World Online Debating Competition: All Forms of Abortion Should Be Legal

I had my argument written down, about 8,000 words then I accidentally changed tabs and lost my entire argument. So Ajabi, I concede this round. I am really irritated but don't have the will to write it all out again. Frankly though, I don't think I can commit to this tournament at all. I know I'd either fail to meet the deadline or not put in enough effort to go anywhere and would kindly ask larztheloser if I could please withdraw from this tournament completely. My enthusiasm died with my vitality and having lost my argument made me realise that I'm not devoted enough to this and it is futile continuing this tournament. Sorry for all the inconvenience I've caused. Yeah. That's all. Thanks.
World Online Debating Competition: All Forms of Abortion Should Be Legal

The resolution is that all forms of abortion should be legal. I will be proposing this motion and BOP is on myself. Ajabi will simply be opposing this motion via negation and arguing why all forms of abortion should not be legal. First round is acceptance, second for the contentions, third for extension and rebuttal, fourth for rebuttal and summation. Good luck to Ajabi and I hope for an enticing debate!
Financial Education Should Be Taught In Schools

Absolutely not. The point of such a course would be to provide information that may help each student make good decisions. However, for many students of today's world, their parents would teach them what they need to know about good decision-making. Almost every child who did not receive such mentoring can learn this them-self, just like all other occupants of the world do. It takes very few years of experience to learn how to manage money. In addition, a large portion of this course would teach skills that would apply when the student is a senior citizen. For some reason, I do doubt that even a single student could remember what their finance teacher taught them about retirement saving sixty-five years ago. After graduation, if a fellow still desires a financial education, there are numerous ways one could arrive upon one. One of which could be having these classes taught at a low-cost institution for adults. If the graduate is truly interested in the subject, they could, even now, pursue a financial degree at a college.
Financial Education Should Be Taught In Schools

These classes that you mentioned are, contrary to your opinion, indeed being taught properly. But, they are not intended to educate the students about being financially on track; they generally view finances on a large-scale. The individual works--paying mortgages, taxes, etc.--do not necessarily need to be taught in the form of a course. As you said, you figured out how these function at a young age. The majority of our society's young adults learn this in the same way. And, most would say that there is nothing wrong with that system. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

You"ve put up one heck of a debate I"ll tell you that. Now to refute some of the statements to finalize the debate: ========================================================================== Explanations vs. Statistics I feel as if you are arguing why bullying is more common in adolescents, but I am completely refuting the fact that it is higher in adolescents. Response: By giving details why bullying is common amongst adolescents would argue to your statement that bullying is not worse amongst teens. You are CON therefore you believe that it isn"t. I provided reasons in which it is to refute against your claim. ========================================================================== In Terms of Definitions In terms of statistics I find it interesting that you argued domestic violence is not bullying becuase if it is done by rational adults. How are we supposed to compare the two demographics otherwise? The side you picked was "Bullying is worse among teens than adults", but then you essentially said any violence by adults is not bullying, so I have no way to combat that. Response: My reason in putting the definition first between domestic violence and bullying; it cannot be statistically compared because they are seen a two completely different things though the motives and the acts behind it are somewhat similar to one another. It"s just the how people use the term. ========================================================================== Kohlberg You were in a though situation with midterms (I undestand that too, its not fun), but of course you cant just argue Lawrence Kohlberg said it. I am directly questioning the same ideas which Lawrence Kohlberg proposed in fact, the reason I had this debate was becuase I was doing a project on him and I disagreed with him. I do not believe his arguments are empirica or that he empirically backed up findings, but that he rather looked at people and standardized them. I believe that in many ways his arguments are not only generalized, but simply incorrect. I was Kohlberg and his supporters to back up their cliam. Response: Premises like Lawrence Kohlberg can be done in multiple ways, one of which is through psychological studies such as the imaging brain activity of an adolescent. I"m not sure I"ve mentioned Lawrence Kohlberg but instead I"m using a study conducted by Laurence Steinberg who focuses on the transition from childhood to adolescents and what contributes to their development. A premise is usually developed by hard facts but if not, it can be strengthened according to a number of observations done, analyzing each of them and later coming into an agreement that the statement is true. ========================================================================== Your premise and your need for statistics on the how drastic bullying is amongst adolescents is a topic that can be debated in multiple ways rather than where I"m coming from. Thank you for this debate, I was interested in what you had to say. To all my voters out there, VOTE PRO. (I forgot there was another round")
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

Sorry, I was going to comment tomorrow to help give you more time, but I wont be able to be on before I would forfeit the round.You were right, the statistic would be a compilation of bullying in adults and bullying in teens. It depends on whether or not you break it down.Explanations vs. StatisticsI feel as if you are arguing why bullying is more common in adohlecents, but I am completley refuting the fact that it is higher in adohlecents. In Terms of DefinitionsIn terms of statistics I find it interesting that you argued domestic violence is not bullying becuase if it is done by rational adults. How are we supposed to compare the two demographics otherwise? The side you picked was "Bullying is worse among teens than adults", but then you essentially said any violence by adults is not bullying, so I have no way to combat that.KohlbergYou were in a though situation with midterms (I undestand that too, its not fun), but of course you cant just argue Lawrence Kohlberg said it. I am directly questioning the same ideas which Lawrence Kohlberg proposed in fact, the reason I had this debate was becuase I was doing a project on him and I disagreed with him. I do not believe his arguments are empirica or that he empirically backed up findings, but that he rather looked at people and standardized them. I believe that in many ways his arguments are not only generalized, but simply incorrect. I was Kohlberg and his supporters to back up their cliam.Thanks for having this debate with me, its been fun :)
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

Thanks for responding:) Sorry, but I don't get it, it seems like you are not disagreeing with me. My point is that statistics show that "bullying is more common among teens", but that those statistics are biased because they do not include things such as domestic violence by adults. It really doesn't really matter what the technical definition is, what matters is that the definition which is used to collect these statistics is that bullying is being "Unnecessarily mean to someone.", which includes domestic abuse. The issue is that I do not believe you have proven me wrong yet. Idk if I misinterpreted what you're saying, I'm sometimes bad with that, so that could be it, but m really confused :( Thanks :)
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

Interesting point you"ve made in the previous statement. I"m assuming that you"re trying to distinguish the differences rather than the severity of domestic abuse compared to bullying. I believe that the reason why it"s the same because they qualify under the same purpose which is to harm another being. Yet, as I mentioned again; domestic abuse and bullying are two different terms. Bullying is done through intimidation whether its verbal and or abusive; commonly, it"s done so that the instigator of the act get what they want unlike domestic abuse where in a broader sense, is more physical that involve again, two individuals who have an intimidate relationship. Bullying: http://bit.ly... Domestic Abuse: http://bit.ly... Hopefully this'll clarify where you're going with this. Thank you.
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

The way bullying is defined to me in surveys they make me fill out at school is "Any act which is demeaning or hurtful in any way toward another"and then I have to put down that kids have bullied me at school. This was from a major nation survey which is then used on national commercials. The issue is that bullying by the definitions schools give me would include domestic abuse. I dont get it though because if neither of us give any statistics by the end of the debate shouldn't I "win" since we always assume innocence if not proven guilty? Thanks
Bullying is Worse Among Teens

Thank you for your response and clarification on what you meant. With that, I will continue the argument: In response to the difference between "adult bullying" vs. "children bullying" has a number of distinctions because both of them apply differently but the intentions are the same which is to inflict harm. Wikipedia (despite how much it"s seen as an unreliable source) elaborates more on domestic violence through the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org... Domestic violence is more within the confines of a relationship, family, so forth while bullying is often interpreted as an act committed by someone who doesn"t have a direct relation to the person they"re harming. Domestic abuse is mostly viewed through physical violence than anything or indirect harm that would deprive the victim of their belongings; mostly through violence as domestic violence is popularly done by two partners also known as Intimate partner violence (IPV). (Wikipedia, Domestic Violence, 1) Bullying can happen through many forms such as physical and verbal abuse; both direct and indirect but what"s important to understand is that it"s not within the confines between two partners but it involves a number of different parties that is willing to harm the same individual. I was going to include the development of a child for some apparent reason but disregard that and now, my argument will primarily based on the distinctive differences between the two acts. Thank you and I hope to hear from my opponent very soon.