BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act

Child hunger is a problem in America, but is more of a problem in the 'developing countries' of the world, such as Ghana. Child obesity is a much greater problem than child hunger in America. Currently, common core practices such as corporal punishment https://www.washingtonpost.com..., and brainwashing indoctrination, such as with social media, hormones in food, vaccines and fluoride in the water have undoubtedly helped children make better dietary choices for themselves by listening to parents and teachers who tell them what to think. http://tvtropes.org... However, who watches the parents and teachers? They may make foolish decisions such as tolerating obese children who refuse to eat 'gross' lunches and then complain about feeling hungry. Stunted intelligence is an unfortunate side effect of the brain washing process, in both children and adults. "You can"t force kids to eat something that they don"t want to, they will just wait to get home and eat something a thousand times unhealthier" It is sad that you can brainwash obedience, but not intelligence. Fortunately, both the Hillary and Trump administration are on board to promote voluntary euthanasia and right to die for those who realize they are unfit for society and would rather retire to elsewhere. https://www.deathwithdignity.org... That is why the entertainment and fashion industry have been so diligently fat-shaming, http://www.huffingtonpost.com... so that the unhealthy segments of society will be encouraged to become depressed and choose to exercise their right to die, and have their adipose tissue donated to stem cell research. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... It is ultimately a win win for everyone. But remember, it starts with the children... always think of the CHILDREN! https://en.wikipedia.org... In all seriousness, however, I believe the powerful will always prey upon the most vulnerable members of society, in order to enhance their own economic gain. http://tvtropes.org...
Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act

The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act was first signed into a law in 2010. The law was used to give free lunches to kids who couldn"t afford them and it also made all of the public school lunches healthier in all the US. The first part of the law was great, it gives thousands of free lunches to students a day. The second part of the law has made schools serve healthier meals to students in hopes to combat the growing obesity problem that is harming children. In theory this sounds great, if you are in control of one to two of the children"s meals you will make them heathier. This has backfired on the government because many students don"t even want to eat the school lunches now. When you are about to eat something, you want it to look somewhat appetizing, but the new healthier foods are grotesque looking which is turning away students from eating it. You also want it to taste good too, but most of the time it tastes like something that you would give pigs to eat. Children are now just picking at their food and is causing them to miss out on crucial nutrients. You can"t force kids to eat something that they don"t want to, they will just wait to get home and eat something a thousand times unhealthier. According to the Washington Times, over 1 million kids have stopped buying school lunches due to the new food regulations in school. Also, kids are saying that they are still hungry after their lunch because they live very active lives inside and outside of school. All you would have to do to see these problems is go to a lunchroom for a day and look at the student"s reactions to what they are eating and ask them if they like the food.
Marijuana should be at disposal for all.

Since this is only one round, I will rebut my opponent's arguments, and provide my own. My opponent says that if it was disposable for all, people would become crazy and commit harm.This is false because it assumes that usage would increase if it was legalized. It has been shown that usage will not increase if legalized [1], thus the argument is null. If anything, making it legal would reduce this by teaching citizens to be more responsible. If it can be used for all, health guides can be made to help people use it responsibly, parents can teach their children, etc. Con says that marijuana has short and long-term effects, this argument goes unwarranted and therefore has no impact. Con then says that marijuana is addictive, but does not explain why this is bad. This is a good thing in many aspects such as boosting the cannibis industry, creating jobs and buisnesses out of the manufactuaring of cannibis, and when its addictive, this industry booms.[1] http://tinyurl.com...
Marijuana should be at disposal for all.

Marijuana should not be legalized for disposal of all. I say this because we would have a world of crazy people running around delirious trying to do harmful things. We have enough issues already with DUI. We can't enable people to do worse. Marijuana has long-term and short-term effects. It's addictive, it's not a one time thing. However, Marijuana should be medically legalized in every state and only be at disposal to medical professionals. If it helps people, let's do it. If it hurts people, let's trash it. Marijuana does both. Therefore, should be legal, but managed by qualified professionals. Thank You!
chicken or egg- i argue the egg came first

con misses that i said hte main distinguishment of whether something is a chicken is whether it can mate with a chicken in existence now. if we do the genetic analysis, it is regressive and a line must be drawn. same with whether a chicken can breed or not, it is in fact a firm line, and so no matter the parent chickens can breed with some chickens, they can't breed with chickens now in existence. we have to draw a line otherwise the question of when chicken starts and stops will have no answer. and using whether they can breed or not s the least bit arbitrary method
chicken or egg- i argue the egg came first

Firstly you claim and discredit science as inexact, but then proceed to use the same science which you claimed "inexact" to proof your argument. Furthermore you speak as though simply because you discredit sciences definitions of what a species is that I should now take for granted your new definition of the term species. I think this is innately flawed as you are neither qualified (presumably) nor am I to challenge the Internationally accepted scientific definitions what basis do you provide the difference between two species? Regardless, according to what is a globally accepted standard a single (or even a couple) of random mutations does not constitute for an entire change in species. Rather it is the same species so these hybrid chickens of which you talk will lay the eggs of its own species and not an entirely new one.
chicken or egg- i argue the egg came first

answer: the egg. science is inexact in listing what constitutes a species. if the animal meets criteria like two wings a beak two chicken legs etc, then it is a chicken. the problem is that this is an inexact science. it is sufficient for everyday use, sure. but a line has to be drawn. how do we draw it? the lithmus test for whether the chicken or egg came first, should be that all chickens in existence now can breed with one last anscester in existence. this would be next to impossible as a practical matter to determine, but in principle, there came one ancester of chickens that is able to breed with at least one chicken in existence now. the only other way is to make a criteria in DNA and stick to it. and this is not optimal given it's too precise for something we do not know how to be precise about. the above is best.... either they mate or they don't. we run into a problem similar to someone trying to sell something. a man wants to sell his 57 chevy for ten thousand. would be take a penny less? sure. two pennies? you see where i'm going with this. the man must set a limit. 9500 and not a penny less? so someone were to offer him a penny less and he does take it, is it really a firm limit? in practice, the man might take it, but we all know a point must be drawn. in practice, scientists might take a nucleotide or piece of DNA less, but a point must be drawn. what constitutes a chicken then will have a firm limit. in the line of chicken like animals before a chicken, there will be close calls no doubt. but it will be one animal that will evetually fill the criteria, meet the DNA match's minimum or is able to breed. and that animal will be first an egg, which hatches into the chicken that meets the match. the parents of that first chicken, would be chicken hybrids. because they are are able to breed with some chickens and the rest they breed with are not chickens.
Resolved: The United States ought ban all forms of pornography.

I will define key terms since my opponent did not bother to. Pornography is defined as the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter. Ought indicates a moral obligation. Since we are discussing whether or not the U. S. has a moral obligation to ban pornograpy, Constitutional arguments hold no water in this round since the Consitution is not necessarily moral. Slavery was once permitted in the Consitution, for example, and slavery was not moral.
The Electoral College Should be Abolished

Many people see the electoral college system as anti-democratic and want a nationwide popular vote to determine the outcome of US presidential elections. People supporting the the removal of the electoral college argue for it on many fronts. Most of these arguments revolve around ideals of democratic rule. The problem is that the founders did not set up a democracy. Article IV section 4 of the US constitution makes this clear and declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." The United States is a Republic. The reason for this is the problem of democratic systems not protecting minority rights. The electoral college is once such check on minority rights. Here, I will give the basic reasons for and will not refute pro's arguments as there will be time for rebuttal later. Reasons to keep the Electoral College: 1) The Electoral College creates certainty of outcomes A dispute or problem in certifying Electoral College votes can happen(it did in the 2000 election) but is vary rare and much less likely than a dispute over a nationwide popular vote This is because the winning candidate's Electoral votes will almost always exceed the popular vote. This makes the outcome easier to determine. For example Obama received 61% of the electoral vote but only 51.5% of the popular vote. Also, having the Electoral College creates 50 smaller presidential elections making outcomes and vote counting easier to manage. 2) You get a president that represents everyone Having the Electoral College means that a presidential candidate must have trans-regional appeal. No specific region of the country(Midwest, south, west, east coast, plains, etc...) has enough electoral votes to carry the election alone. This forces candidates to not just appeal or spend money in high population centers but rather to have a wide appeal in all areas of the nation. Generally a candidate with only regional appeal to population centers will have a hard time as president especially in terms of working with the legislature. 3) The Electoral College preserves federalism The Electoral College system preserves the role for state governments and duly elected state legislatures in the presidential election process thus preserving federalism, a key component of the republic instituted by the founders. With a popular vote only system you destroy the separation of power in conducting elections at the state level by nationalizing the electoral process. One could argue this has already been done by the Supreme Court hearing Bush v. Gore however maintaining the College will preserve the role for states and prevent further erosion. There are many other arguments that could be made for keeping the Electoral College but these main points carry the most weight. I look forward to pro addressing these claims as well as being able to address pro's main claims.
White People Should Eat Black People

"due to high rates of black crime" Just because some black people commit crime does not mean the whole race should get eaten by white people. What about the blacks who are innocent? What about blacks who are guilty, But not deserving of the death sentence? Neither of these groups should be eaten. "Thus if a white man eats a black man, He gains energy. " There are other ways for white people (and all people) to get energy to survive. They can eat conventional foods, Such as the ones listed in the following link: https://nutritionfacts. Org/video/dietary-guidelines-progressing-from-pyramid-to-plate/ Energy to survive can and should be derived using ways other then cannibalizing black people. "Thus, With more energy, We can achieve more work, Such as building a time machine and going back in time to nuke India so the Indians won't stink up the world. " I would like to point out 2 things that I should say about this quote: 1: It is off topic. We're talking about Black people, Not Indians. 2: We should do things with our energy level other then building a time machine for the purpose of nuking India, But I digress. Indians don't stink up the whole world. The room I'm in is free from Indian body odor.
White People Should Eat Black People

due to high rates of black crime, We have to deal with blacks. One black family per neighborhood helps substantially, I have to say, But if we send the remaining black families to prison, Prisons will be flooding with innocent blacks, And there will be no room for the actual criminals, Such as people who play fortnite and people who are gay thus, White people should eat black people, Below is some math and physics, Which i hope you understand: Gravitation potential energy = mass * accel. Of grav. * height accel. Of grav. Is a constant approximately equal to 9. 8 on Earth. Black people are taller than whites, And they also weigh more. Thus if a white man eats a black man, He gains energy. Thus, With more energy, We can achieve more work, Such as building a time machine and going back in time to nuke India so the Indians won't stink up the world. https://www. Reddit. Com/r/offmychest/comments/1r73nk/my_indian_roommate_is_fucking_disgusting/
Rap battle : Truth_seeker vs AlexanderOc

That man falling down? He's diving to a deeper understanding Something you lack, but sorry if that's offending Didn't intend on that, I'm not here to be throwin out cracks That's called bein' regressive, when you go around talkin' smack We're here to be progressive, get ahead of the game how can we do that when you're still berating my name? You seek truth, that's admirable and odd seeing as you're lost in the labryinth of a God He can't show you sense, his ideal is a pretense all he wants is your worship in exchange for acceptance Take it from me, there is no divinity It's the dark delusion of death hiding what we see Sheilding us from the emptiness that teases insanity Hoping for immortal life is a useless movement it's all a false wish that keeps you from improvement Moving on, let's keep this assonant debate going onward such malicious swings aren't taking us further foreward how about some words for advice? Some esoteric logic should suffice Rapping ain't all about shovin' the other guy down, that seems like you're only device learn to take another stance using the rhyme for an intelligent reaction no reason to act like they're some infraction on you're life satisfaction my atheism makes no attempt to circumvent your religious intent it's just an abstract ideal that you have no need to repent "And another thing!" a mulish man once spoke, You provide a lack of reason for the win you claim to invoke ignorant to my side of the rap, yet piping Con victory as fact take a seat and allow me to elucidate on why that's utter crap I may be tiro to this whole unvierse of insipid ryhme however I take my intellect and insert it in every line you know the saying, brains beats brawns so keep the swings coming, I'll show you Pro beats Con
Rap battle : Truth_seeker vs AlexanderOc

See that man fallin' off that cliff? That's you you Lucifer that flew into what's not true according to your profile, you think too much for your own good in my hood, its people like you who rarely are understood you lack self confidence, can't pronounce vocal consonants so go around continents cuz I never heard of you anonymous if you think you're gonna win this, you were over analyzing start realizing that I'm lyrically advising, you fantasizing here in this match,your defeat is what I'ma be advertising want to know how I know everything you say'll be garbled? cuz after everything I've said the last battle, you marveled you know let's talk about your religion ,yes religion like a superstition, you follow what a logician has written you're in no stable condition to judge a divine vision with you, before you even act you need divine permission homie how can you trust God when you can trust yourself? is it the fact you need self help or cuz the books on your shelf? homie you in the self delusion, straight confusion in an illusion refusing do bout down for the master and start diffusing difference between me as a Christian and you an atheist I'm the craziest cuz I believe, you scared to admit he exist What we got in common?if I have a doctrine, you also have a doctrine talking bad about something unknown claiming it's not sovereign you scared of reading horror stories from the Bible scared of faith right now in the face of your rival
Rap battle : Truth_seeker vs AlexanderOc

Yeach, okay, so where's your point? said a few rhymes and wasted my time with a garbled idea being so disjoint Also what's this about you being the man I venerate? I can't laud a degenerate whose sadistic rhymes are all he can generate But i'll give you some credit even though your lines still decrepit they were better, an improvement, at least you get it Boasting is fine, call yourself a mystic, don't care just don't compare me to someone you need to ensnare keep DDO intelligent without those words of despair So, I've made my ideal clear, not gonna rant on for another year let's pass it to the voters, let them take over from here.
Rap battle : Truth_seeker vs AlexanderOc

Each time you try to desensitize, internalize as you idealize to stabalize You can't help but envy when I sermomize cuz its what you can't rationalize Wait, you said rappin ain't about shoving another person down? This is battle rap,forfeit the round before you get buried underground You clearly a foe that I underestimated No matter cuz you still getting wasted You envyin' a man that has alot of faith Cuz you know you ain't wanna be a wraith My lines are so simplistic, but realistic I'm sadistic, like a mystic, you missed it haha get it? I can respect n' you can't That's why you talk trash n' rant
Bane

The point of my argument is NOT that nobody dislikes Bane. I was simply saying that to kick the debate into motion. My real argument is that Bane is cool and is a great villain. Bane is cool because he has an awesome mask and accent, and he's uber tough and muscular. Beat that, bro. He is a great villain because he always has great plans and knows how to stun Batman and halt him (*cough* back-breaking *cough*). Well der Batman beat Bane. The hero always wins except for maybe in horror movies. That's because movies and superhero stories have a theme (a message) like, for example, a possible theme for Spider-Man is that anyone can acheive greatness as long as they do great things. You see, the theme for superhero stories is always going to be a good thing that goes along with the hero, not a bad thing that goes along with the villain. For example, if the theme was: "Almost destroying a huge city will benefit you greatly" It wouldn't even be a superhero story any more, now would it? Sorry for the long Literacy lesson but it was just to go against your argument. To quote you, "nuff said".
Government is necessary in a society

I guess stating that we are an advanced government is an opinion. Anyway, we are humans. We are not perfect. We have flaws. We make mistakes. These are reasons why any government in any society is not perfect. A utopia is not reachable. And, no, I do not want the government spying on my computers, or knowing where I am at any given time. That's scary. However, the foundations of government are necessary. Government also serves as a motivation to do what is right. YES! There are corrupt politicians, and people who want too much power. They are people, people with selfish desires. This doesn't compare to what even daily life would consist of in a community with no system of anything. No system of laws? No system of protection? Hell on earth. Americans take our daily lives for granted, we do not know what goes into the forming and application of laws. The military is a part of the government. Shall we take away our system of protection? Shall we stop helping other countries in need, with no government? What about a world with no United Nation. Talking and compromising on the United State's behalf would cease, and this is so important for the well-being of our nation. I am not sure what I believe when it comes to separation of church and state, because I do not believe it is possible to just draw a line between the two. No where has it worked or been successful when the church rules the state, or when the state rules the church. But, I, being a Christian, do believe that morals come from God and that these morals have been instituted in our nation's laws and documents. So, I do not believe a complete separation can exist, considering that the basis of our laws come from the Christian Worldview.
Government is necessary in a society

In Detroit currently the City is shutting down water to people who can't afford to pay their water bill. Human beings are being denied water which is a human right. We are not an advanced government, if we are so advanced why are the police departments in cites like Ferguson kill unarmed people. These enforcers of law are actively brutalizing the people they are "protecting". If we are so advanced why are lower class people struggling to survive. All the government does is control even during the regimes of presidents who say the believe in small government. The NSA surveillance controversy is not something that would happen in a "advanced" society. Every body's definition of advanced is different. I meant that the government spies on us and controls the news media since to me, A Human right is a right to correct information. Government was invented just so the rich land-controlling people could suppress the little people. Countless people are put on trial but, countless people are innocent of said heinous crimes but are still found guilty. I'm a far left-winger so we obviously differ on a lot of these issues. Structure is not needed. laws are just their to control. A question for you, do you believe in separation of Church and State or do you believe in a Theocracy.