BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Food Irradiation

The irradiation food may kill bacteria like " E-coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis A" however it does not kill every single type of bacteria and viruses, there are some that resist pesticide. These bacteria are called radiation-resistant, they can be food like meat and can not be killed by the cobalt-60 or electron rays used on food to kill bacteria or viruses. Since they do not die it can reproduce at a rapid rate and causing other diseases. Website: www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact
Food Irradiation

Food Irradiation is vital in the twentieth century's produce distribution, growth, and purification. Irradiating food enhances the safety and can prevent illness/epidemics from occurring. Due to the FDA's maximum dosage of 4kGy, it reduces and in some cases eliminates major food borne pathogens; E-coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis A, etc. Not only does it terminate bacteria outside of the produce, irradiation can kill bacteria inside as well.
Food Irradiation

Healthy yet expensive for the average consumers can afford for a daily basis. Irradiation food can cost up to 3 to 5 cents more than regular food in stock. Again Colbolt -60 is a material that is used to for irradiation food and for that to be used it must be used by a nuclear reactor making hazardous waste which is NICHT GUT(not good in German)!! grist.org/article/2009-10-05-you-glow-girl-thought-irradiation-food
Food Irradiation

Previous: www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact If we are talking about waste irradiation food produce nuclear waste that are unable to be disposed of. Most food can not be irradiated from electron beams such as large fruits, food in boxes, and irregular shaped food must be irradiated by x-rays or gamma rays. As before to irradiate food machines use Cobalt-60 which has to be converted into a nuclear reactor creating nuclear waste. www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact
No such thing as JC

My opponent has attempted to use their religious beliefs to show that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. However, this debate is not over whether Jesus was the Son of God, it is about whether he existed. The vast majority of scholars, even those who are not Christians, agree that Jesus Christ existed. A simple web search could show you without a doubt that Jesus existed. For example, you can check out this- http://www.npr.org... or this- http://www.gotquestions.org... and read this from Wikipedia- "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically," and there is this- In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". And, if you follow the link of where that quote is from, it is a book devoted to criticizing the bible and its authors. Even he agrees that, without a doubt, Jesus Christ did exist. http://books.google.com... Voters, in this debate I have shown that "JC", both as an acronym and as Jesus Christ. It also seems to me that my opponent has failed to meet their BoP. For all of these reasons, I urge you to vote for me. Thank you.
Life is fair

I have always heard "that is not fair" or "I am so lucky" and i find these statements to lack both meaning and validity. We Americans believe that we are the happiest, most carefree, and the most "right" nation; however, this thought is tragically wrong in every sense. We have what is called a happiness level. We are all born with the same happiness level. This happiness level shifts everyday, but eventually, it will return to the normal state it was in, and thus we will crave more. Fairness is our subjective claim and is not defined by us as an individual, but as a whole by our God. Even if one doesn't believe in God, he or she can see that this world is balanced with good and evil. Sometimes the goodness is more visible, other times, the goodness is less visible. For example, one my classmates seemed to have it all. She had good looks, a good personality, good grades, and a good family, but she was depressed. She was depressed because she was used to her happiness level and desired more. She was not able to attain this level of perfection that she dreamed of. I don't see how this is different from the "unlucky ones." Have you ever been the son or daughter who wanted something so badly and the day after you received your wish, that wish did not matter to you anymore? This is because your happiness level regressed back to its normal state. Now this isn't to say that we should just ignore the world around us. We are made to help out others because we are not programmed to see life as fair. We are created this way to experience the idea of thankfulness. In conclusion this world is completely equal. Our happiness levels are not permanent. Sometimes we don't think we have it all, but why is materialism indicative of fairness? Its what is true that really counts.
Evolution and Creationism should both be taught in public schools

I'm intrigued by the idea of seeing the existence of God through observable phenomena - can you expand on that idea for the next round? I have a feeling that there's a leap to be made between something that can't be explained by current scientific theory to "it must be God." I can't imagine there being direct evidence for the existence of God. You said: "The Iraq war, Abortion, even blogging; all these are addresses in some way in schools, with various viewpoints. On the one subject that's most important, the origin of life, only one viewpoint is presented. I say again, this is a flaw in the system and it should be fixed." Perhaps those first three aren't the best examples to use, because they're in the realm of social science, whose goal is very different from that of science. I think the best example I have is the belief that God exists. When dealing with science, the goal is still to seek the truth by observing and analyzing evidence. You said: "However, does that mean we SHOULD teach something because it is a MINORITY viewpoint?" Of course not - we should teach evolution because it's science, and we should not teach creationism because it is not science. I don't think the majority OR the minority viewpoints have anything to do with it. You said: "the public school system should reflect the views of the public that pays for it." And I still think that leads to absolutely absurd consequences. Education is supposed to be about objective truth. Subjecting it to the whims of the public (and those whims do change over time) would render it meaningless. I'd love to explore the idea that creationism isn't solely-belief based in our next round!
Evolution and Creationism should both be taught in public schools

There is no doubt that creationism is a belief. However, that's not to say that there are no Creationist scientists, who see the evidence of God in what you call the "observable phenomena. " I have taken a Christian Biology course, and although the cover was an unattractive purple, it was a good science book, firmly based in fact, and it compared favorably with the various secular science classes I've taken. Because creationism is a belief--or encompasses beliefs, like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc--does NOT mean that is is NOT a science. America is a Republic, no? And a Republic, unlike a Democracy, sets the majority and the minority on equal footing. Our public school system should reflect that, but it doesn't. Whether Creationism is a majority or a minority, it should be represented. IT ISN'T. The Iraq war, Abortion, even blogging; all these are addresses in some way in schools, with various viewpoints. On the one subject that's most important, the origin of life, only one viewpoint is presented. I say again, this is a flaw in the system and it should be fixed. You say, correctly, that we should not teach something because it is a majority viewpoint. However, does that mean we SHOULD teach something because it is a MINORITY viewpoint? I'm confused. All credible views should be represented. Creationism and Evolution are both credible beliefs--many people believe them. But Creationism is not represented. THEREFORE, Creationism should be represented in public schools. It's not about the majority. It never has been. The poll I used earlier was to illustrate my point, not to define it. My original point still stands: the public school system should reflect the views of the public that pays for it. Congratulations, you've managed to be intellectually honest! Mostly. .. ;) Hope I've done the same.
Evolution and Creationism should both be taught in public schools

Oo oo pick me - I can deny that this is a flaw in our public education system! Here we go... You are correct that the American citizenry is divided on the issue of how man came to exist on Earth, and that the vast majority of public schools teach only evolution. I do not believe, however, that this is a reason to change the cirricula in our public schools. "Because many Americans believe this to be true" is just not a good enough reason to teach something in a public school. A majority of Americans believe a LOT of things! A majority of Americans believe that a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion, a majority of Americans believe that God exists, a majority of Americans believe that the next step in U.S. foreign policy should be to withdraw troops from Iraq, a majority of Americans bleieve that bloggers are journalists (all of this I got from a simple Google search of the phrase "A majority of Americans.") Should we then teach in public schools that women have the innate right to choose to have an abortion, that God exists, that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq, and that bloggers are types of journalists? I don't think you would agree with teaching those in public schools. So just because many Americans believe that man was created by God does not mean that it should be incorporated into the public school cirriculum. Teachings in schools have never been about a show of hands from the public, especially not in science. The very definition of science is the study of the world through observable phenomena. Creationism is not science, it's belief, and we've never been in the habit of teaching beliefs in public schools - not even if a majority of Americans hold those beliefs. We don't teach theism in schools, but an overwhelming majority of Americans believe God exists.
Evolution and Creationism should both be taught in public schools

According to a recent Gallup poll, 66 percent of Americans believe in Creationism, while 53 percent believe in Evolution. Obviously there is some overlap here. A full quarter of Americans believe that both Evolution and Creationism are definitely or probably true, suggesting to me that they believe God created the universe THROUGH evolution; a reasonable belief. It's obvious that America is divided on this issue. We have public institutions for educating our young people. They are run by the Federal government and paid for by our taxes. Not just the Evolutionists' taxes, or the Creationists' taxes, but Everyone's'. But is this division of belief reflected in our public schools? No, it is not. The vast, overwhelming majority of public schools--99 and some fraction percent--teach ONLY Evolution. Does this reflect the beliefs of Americans? No, it does not. The public school system, which should represent the views of Americans, represents only the views of the 53 percent that believe in evolution, while ignoring the 66 percent that believe in Creationism entirely. Now I ask you: how can an intellectually honest person deny that this is a flaw in our public school system and must be remedied?
Was there space before the universe came into existence.

Con's argument is completely destroyed in their opening statement. With a complete disregard and fundamental misunderstanding of definition. From the Oxford Dictionaries. Concept: An abstract idea. Abstract: Existing in thought or as an idea but not having physical or concrete existence. Vacuum: A space entirely devoid of matter. What is concept? If not imagination. What is abstract? If not imagination. What is a vacuum? If not an empty space. With regard to the definitions of space I cited previously. Con pays no regard to literal presentation here. A region "with". A region "where". A region "in which". Quite clearly, there is no necessity for the existence of objects or events, for us to be able to define space. With regard to the universe: What con states, is a truism. If you have independent, separate objects "within" a space, then obviously there will be space in between. This is a reality that we are all aware of. A reality that does not need a scientific explanation. Con. Then goes on to state that "science requires substantiation". There is a fundamental misunderstanding of science and it's definition here. (in short) Science is simply, the study of the natural world. Theory requires substantiation. In order to verify scientific study and provide us with factual truths. At this present moment in time, there are no factual truths available, to enable us to understand the existence of the universe. Therefore, the existence of the universe remains a supernatural phenomenon. (Please regard the previously cited, literal definition of supernatural). Conclusion: As all definitions of space (and vacuum). Provided by both Pro and Con. Emphatically state that objects occur "within" space. It is reasonable to postulate that. If all matter was removed from the universe, then "the space" would still remain. The existence of the universe, still remains a supernatural phenomenon. I therefore reiterate my previous standpoint. Imagination is a valid tool for understanding events, which still lie beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. I would therefore ask those who might vote upon this debate. To take a moment or two, to try and imagine a state of complete "nothingness". I would propose, that it is impossible to imagine a point of "nothingness". As you will always, eventually imagine an empty "space".
Was there space before the universe came into existence.

Theory is not proof of anything. Space is an intangible reality that we are all aware of. Time is an intangible reality that we are all aware of. SPACE Your definition: Space is a boundless three dimensional extent in which objects and events occur. Essentially, not just the region between objects and events, but also the region in which objects and events occur. From The Free Dictionary: Definition 2: The infinite extension of the three dimensional region in which all matter exists. Definition 3: The expanse in which the solar system, stars and galaxies exist. Definition 4: An extent or expanse of a surface or three dimensional area. Definition 5: A blank or empty area. None of these definitions rely on the existence of objects or events to define space. Space is clearly defined as something in which objects and events are able to occur. THE UNIVERSE Your definition: The universe is all of time, space and its contents. This definition is clear. Space and it's contents. Not contents and the regions between. Therefore, based on your definition of the universe. My question would be: If all the "contents" of the universe were removed would space still remain. As all five definitions of space, do not necessarily rely upon the existence of events or objects. I would propose that the answer to my question would be yes, space would still remain. Theories abound regarding the contents of the universe (matter). As theory is not proof of anything. Ultimately we are left with only two choices. Something from nothing or, always something. But! Regard these two statements for long enough and you realise they both rely upon the same upon principle. That is, something from nothing. The supernatural ability to come into or be in existence, without explanation. As you rely heavily on scientific theory to enforce your argument. My use of words such as imagination and supernatural, may at first appear superficial. But let's, once again pay regard to definition here. From The Oxford Dictionaries: IMAGINATION The faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images, or concepts of external objects not present to the senses. The ability of the mind to be creative and resourceful. THEORY An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. SUPERNATURAL (Of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. As science is only able to theorise upon the reasons for the existence of matter and the universe. And as imagination and theory are essential the same. I therefore, consider it reasonable to use imagination as a means of verifying a supernatural event. That is to say, the question of existence of the universe. The answer to which, still lies beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature. In conclusion: I am satisfied that my arguments validate my question. As imagination is the only means we have available to us, to allow us to try and gain understanding of supernatural events. I consider my initial proposition to also be valid. That is, it is impossible to imagine " no space".
Twitter is dumb.

Thank you to anyone that accepts this debate with me. I will make a case to argue that TWITTER IS DUMB! <--That will be the main point of this debate. To start off, I have never really despised Twitter until two days ago until I actually made an account on there. I had always thought Twitter was a social networking site like Facebook or MySpace, which is inherently pointless but interesting and fun, but after making a Twitter, I realized that it is just plain stupid. Why? I will make my one point below. ==Twitter provides meaningless updates about people's lives that no one really cares about.== You can only post a status with 140 characters or less. This means that meaningfull posts are eliminated, you can only update people with the meaningless aspects of your life. Even if its Oprah or Lance Armstrong who are posting the statuses, it STILL REMAINS POINTLESS. Who really cares if you have to go to the bathroom or have a dentist appointment at 3:00 on Saturday? Here is Oprah's Twitter: http://twitter.com... Take a look at it and see for yourself the pointless posts about her going to Broadway and whatnot. I'm not ridiculing Oprah in anyway, rather I am just using her Twitter to make a point about the uselessness of Twitter. Here is John Mayer's Twitter: http://twitter.com... Look at both of these famous people's Twitters. Do we really care whether or not the food they eat tastes good or not? Basically, Twitter provides us with meaningless little details about people's lives. It makes you feel like you're being stalked or something...especially if you're being followed by people you don't really know. Twitter is a HUGE waste of time, because again, who cares if you're grilling sausages out on the lawn? Seriously. Thats it for now, and looking forward to the next round. :)
DADT should be repealed in favor of allowing gay service members to serve openly.

Alright, here goes. Note: I will be using the word "gay" as a catch all for LGBT for the soul purpose that I don't actually distinguish in my own mind or even care. DADT, short for "don't ask don't tell", is a public law put into effect in '93 by the Clinton administration. It was supposed to be one step up from the old law -which simply banned gays from serving in the military- by allowing them to serve but to keep their gay identity secret. The law mandates that witch hunts will not be done to seek out gay service members (don't ask) and that service members will not tell anyone that they are gay (don't tell). Should a service member become openly gay he/she will be ejected from the military. I have a few major points on why this is wrong. 1. On a moral level we as a country are asking our citizens to hide parts of themselves. Specifically citizens that at the very least feel they are risking their lives for us. Whether they are or not is another debate. We are in effect silencing a minority. 2. Government is supposed to be a representation of its people. Telling service members to serve gay in secret is to put across the message that being gay is wrong and shameful. Which to some also carries the message to destroy such service members is okay. 3. One of the founding principles of the United States was such that there would be a division of religion and state. Unless one would like to argue that to be gay is also to be un-human then to have this policy is to draw a direct line between the popular religious view that this is wrong and government. 4. The law was put into effect for the purpose of helping unit-cohesion and moral but in fact does the exact opposite. Before this law was in place gay service members truly had to serve in secret and no one knew that they even existed except when they were found. Now that this law has been passed service members know that there are gays serving among them but not who. While I do not personally believe this should effect anything at all when it comes to unit cohesion, if your best buddy is forced to lie to you under law it certainly will. 5. Having openly gay service members would accomplish many things. For one the people who disagree with this policy and do not serve in the military because of it would now be open to do so. For two, the unit cohesion and moral issue would no longer become a factor. Thirdly, gay units are no lesser at their job Finally this would actually save the military money as hiring and training a service member only to find they are gay and kick them from the military is to waste money. Please keep in mind that this is a debate about whether or not DADT as a policy is a good idea not military power, the U.S, or Gay rights in general. Thanks.
DADT should be repealed in favor of allowing gay service members to serve openly.

A military debate that I haven't done for quite some time. DADT is a flawed policy, not only does it fail in practical use but it also fails the purpose that is was created for. Whats more, it hurts our country and our national security far more than it could ever help. Thus I stand in firm affirmation of the topic: DADT should be repealed in favor of allowing gay service members to serve openly.