BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Posted Calorie Counts

Jefferson wrote, "That government is best which nags us the most that we might all be better Puritans." No he didn't. 1. Most of the calories at Starbucks are from high-sugar drinks, so a study excluding drinks is at best doubtful. The study did not show a reduction in obesity. Dieters reducing calories in one meal or snack inevitably make them up later. Sumo wrestlers skip two meals per day entirely; it causes weight gain. 2. Existing diet pills work well by reducing cravings for food. The problem is the effect wears off in a few months; that will be fixed. Lipo is not for weight lost; it's appearance. 3. The only people who need government supplied books are those who (a) eat often at chain restaurants, (b) cannot afford $8, and (c) want them. That's about no one. 4. Pro proposes no penalty for not obeying the rules, therefore they will be ignored. 5. Pro did not respond with an enumerated Constitutional function of government that comprises forced calorie counting. Big Brother should take hike; it's good for his health. 6. Only 20% of restaurant costs are in food. Posting adds to the non-food costs, The enormous collective regulatory burden on industry discourages enterprise. 7. Pro says the rules won't be enforced. 280,000 restaurants are to recompute and post when they change menu items, typically four times a year. Changing ingredients or portion size also requires reposting. It'll be ignored if there is no enforcement. Pro says it is the first of many more steps to control your life. Indeed. 8. Exercise is more important than calories; Pro's principle is that anything good for you is a job for Big Brother. So next, drop and give me twenty. 9. People already know overeating makes them fat. 10. Virtually anyone could figure out calorie counts if they wanted to, they just don't want to. Promoting good health is a good thing to do. It's just not a job for government. Listen to Arnold instead. The resolution is negated.
Posted Calorie Counts

1. A length of a study of 10 months based on a Starbucks in New York city has shown a 6% decrease in calories consumed, which comes strictly from food consumption, not drinks. http://greedgreengrains.blogspot.com... 2. If we're spending our money looking for the next miracle pill, we're wasting our time. The body is designed to consume and react to food. Some consumers take calories into account and try to lose weight a natural way. If someone is desperate enough for an artificial weight loss they can look to liposuction too but that doesn't attack the root of the problem. 3. Restaurants only need to post this information once within their establishment. Much cheaper that supplying those $8 books to 311,154,990 citizens. 4. To lower calorie counts restaurants can cut back on portion sizes, that could save their business money alone. 5. Whose to say it's unconstitutional? It seems like quite the fallacy to make such a claim. 6. Obeying the government is never free, nothing in this day and age is. How does the cost of food raise though? If the state is healthier it will see less of it's obesity epidemic, later causing less of a chance paying for health care and medicine. 7. Restaurants most likely won't send their actual dish to a lab either if they know it has 1400 calories when they are claiming it only has 400. These rules are usually made to be broken, but if it changes a few companies along the way, the change is worth it. It's a step, not the whole staircase. 8. It may be a problem but it doesn't even scratch the top 10 health epidemics within the US. Number one on that list is heart disease, a major cause of that: obesity. Children eat food all the time without ever looking at nutrition, they eventually grow up to become conscious of it. The same happens with the window of knowledge for adults. 9. Answered before. 10. Not everyone understands 4 calories vs. 9 calories per gram. Not common knowledge.
Posted Calorie Counts

The model that Pro advocates is that first the government should decide how you should live your life, and then they should undertake to nag, incentivise, and mandate what you do to conform to their vision of what is best. Health is good, but advocacy is best done by volunteers. 1. Some states and localities have required posting calories for some time. If they work, there should be ample evidence of it. Pro admits there is none. 2. There are diet pills, like phentermine, that work quite well, but only for a few months. They work by producing a feeling of satiety with less food. Calorie counting is not involved. There is a huge financial incentive to developing such drugs, so it seems inevitable that a safe drug will emerge to solve the obesity problem. the resolution doesn't work. 3. People cannot afford $8 for an amazon book? That's ridiculous. It would be much cheaper for government to give out free books than shift the burden to restaurants. 4. Rules without penalties are completely pointless, because it is cheaper to ignore them. 5. Pro did not respond. It's unconstitutional. 6. Pro says that voluntary advocacy is too expensive because it costs too much for restaurants to conform. It doesn't get any cheaper when the government mandates conformance, it just raises the food costs for everyone, even people who pay not attention. Pro seems to think obeying the government is free. 7. Pro says the rules won't be enforced, hence they are pointless. 8. There is no question that dental health is a major problem. Exercise is more important than calorie counting. All problems are not jobs for Big Brother. There is nothing better known than that eating too much causes people to get fat. If they don't know, they won't figure it out from a calorie chart. The man who discovered smoking caused cancer was himself a smoker. He quit after his discovery. There is no such mystery with calories. 9, 10. Pro did not respond.
Posted Calorie Counts

While there is no direct evidence for the sake of having calorie counts posted, we can use other knowledge that having information does provide a direct effect on choices that people make. For example, once the correlation between smoking and cancer was discovered, cigarette sales dropped dramatically and smoking has still been on the decline since science has proven how terrible it is. Knowledge is a powerful weapon to provide. Satisfaction clearly has nothing to do with eating habits a majority of the time or we would not have an obesity epidemic along with the highest rates of restrictive eating disorders. Satisfaction only plays a minor role in eating habits. As for cell phone apps, while smart phones are popular, not everyone has the ability to get the app. Books are also in print but they may be expensive. What happens when a consumer cannot shell out the extra $15 for the book with nutrition facts, which may not even provide the numbers for everything on the menu. Those "healthy dining" restaurants also tend to be more expensive. What about eating on the run, or for the cheap? Many college students, particularly females, are concerned with how they look but are not okay with spending a lot of money on food. Prosecution was never part of the argument. The argument was about posting nutritional information so that consumers could make the best choices for themselves when it comes to dining options. Brushing teeth shows no direct correlation with any of the top diseases we face in our country. The government tries to provide the best information they can with the food pyramid but that does not always do its job. As for the obese eating hamburgers, they may not know exactly how detrimental what they are eating is to their health. Maybe they will cut it down from 3 hamburgers to 2 after being provided with such information. The more knowledge one is provided with, the more they have to work with. Calorie counts are just step one in helping overcome obesity.
Wilt Chamberlain is the greatest basketball player of all time.

Wilt Chamberlain was by far the greatest basketball player of all time. Wilt was the best scorer of all-time (4,029 points in an 80 game season, 50.4 pts per game). Wilt was the best re bounder of all-time (23 rebs a game career). Wilt was also the best shot blocker of all time. The only reason that Wilt is not regarded as the greatest player ever is he played in an era before ESPN and 24 hour sports news. Wilts accomplishments are far greater than any other player in the history of the game.
Agnostics are atheists

P2 is totally and utterly untrue.Agnostic Theism is a very real thing.[1]P4 is therefore also untrue.The existence of gnostic atheism[2] in addition to agnostic Theism (as was already mentioned) mean that not only are people who think God's existence cannot be known capable of being both Theistic and atheistic but furthermore people who either believe, or don't believe, in god are capable of admitting that their belief does not equate to knowledge and is an opinion they hold as opposed to an objective fact.Before I continue on that line of thinking, I want to point out that Pro completely ignored the existence of Deism.[3] Deism is the view that God exists as a creator of all things but not as a moral guide. Therefore, Deism is neither Theism nor atheism[4] and, just like Theism and atheism, has both gnostic and agnostic variants of it.I'm now going to display an image and then expand on what it conveys: This image explains the four ways that one can lean regarding belief in God (ignoring the Deistic god being a viable option as well).So, let's take atheism to be North, Gnosticism to be East, so on and so forth. What we find is that if you have a compass and it points North, it is not necessarily pointing East or West of North. While it isn't directly comparable to a compass (as we as dealing with digital variants as opposed to analogue ones), it certainly is a good analogy to take on the matter. Think of it as more of a Y-axis and X-axis, one does not have any impact on the other but both are necessary to pinpoint where one lies on the spectrum.I will now go into Dawkins' scale of belief[5][6]. On Dawkins' scales there are even variants in between the gnostic and agnostic variants of Theism and atheism. According to Dawkins there even exist a middle variant which one may call "pure agnosticism"that leans neither to Theism nor atheism (hence there being 7 possible results on his scale, as opposed to an even number which would be half Theism and half atheism).If we combine all this knowledge and reread Pro's debate what we find it this:P1: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known is an agnostic.P2: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known does not believe in any god. can either believe in a god, not believe in a god or be totally impartial.C1: Agnostics do not believe in any god. P3: Only 3 out of 7 results on Dawkins' scale involve an agnostic not believing in any god.P3: Any person who does not believe in any god is an atheist. P4: A person who does not believe in any god is either an agnostic atheist, a gnostic atheist or a totally impartial agnostic.P4 / C1: Some gnostics and some agnostics do not believe in any god while others do.C2: Some agnostics happen to be atheists and some atheists happen to be agnostics but there are certainly exceptions to agnostic atheists (and they are in the majority).[1] http://atheism.about.com...;[2] http://www.patheos.com...;[3] http://www.gotquestions.org...;[4] http://www.infoplease.com...;[5] http://www.eoht.info...;[6] https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com...;
Agnostics are atheists

Basic Argument: P1: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known is an agnostic. P2: Any person who believes that the existence of any god cannot be known does not believe in any god. C1: Agnostics do not believe in any god. P3: Any person who does not believe in any god is an atheist. P4 / C1: Agnostics do not believe in any god. C2: Agnostics are atheists. These arguments are valid. If P1, P2, and P3 are true, then C1 and C2 are also true. I assert the truth of P1, P2, and P3. However, in order to avoid debating factual assertions which both my opponent and myself agree are true, I will support only those premises which my opponent disputes in this round.
Faith is active and visible, not something that occures "in your heart".

Many people quote Eph 2:8 to say that we are saved when we believe, and no action is required on our part. I find this contradictory to other Scripture. I would challenge my opponent to prove that Scripture indicates no action is required on our part to fulfill the faith portion of the passage referenced above. I, on the other hand, will prove that Scripture is very clear that there are certain actions commanded of us before we are united with the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ. Con may begin debate arguments in round 1 along with acceptance of the debate.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming

Not all gamers are nerds; only PC gamers are nerds. It's common knowledge. Go to any store that sells Magic: The Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh! cards or Warhammer figurines. You'll find a high percentage of PC gamers. I guarantee it.Keyboards are designed for typing. The mouse is designed for navigating the OS. Playing video games with keyboard/mouse is like hammering in nails with a toothbrush. The PlayStation and Xbox controllers, on the other hand, were designed for gaming. That's why they're more comfortable to use for any gamer.Playing games on a monitor, at a computer desk, is objectively lamer than sitting on a comfortable couch in front of a big-screen (or even small screen) television. That's not a matter of opinion.Any difference in graphics between PC and Xbox One or PS4 is hardly (if at all) noticeable. Especially when you're playing on a 13" - 16" monitor. As for frame rate...only a huge nerd would sacrifice couch / controller for better frame rate on a display that's 1/6 the size. No one cares about Crysis.Here's a list of reasons why I bought a PS4 instead of a gaming PC: I don't want to spend $1,000+ I don't want to play games sitting on an office chair, with a 16" monitor (at best) Controllers are designed for gaming. Keyboard and mouse are not. There are no good PC-exclusive games There are more performance issues on PC
PC gaming is superior to console gaming

I made a legitimate argument: PC gaming is for nerds. Although PC gaming may be more cost effective, with more variety, free from console exclusives, and customizable...it's for nerds. I don't know any PC gamers who aren't huge dorks. PC gamers are the type of people who play Dungeons & Dragons and Magic: The Gathering. Furthermore, playing games with a keyboard and mouse is lame. Playing games on a monitor rather than a TV is lame. Sure, you COULD hook up a PC to your TV and connect a controller...but then you have to map the buttons and blah, blah, blah. You might as well just get a PS4 or an Xbox One and be done with it.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming

Ultimately, the reason PC gaming is worse than console gaming is because you miss out on so many great games. No Super Smash Bros., for one thing. I have played games on a PC, and it's unintuitive. You have to re-map all the keys to end up with a control scheme that's marginally comfortable, and even then, sometimes you hit "F" instead of "R" to reload. F*** that! That's 1 reason why 40,000,000 people choose PS4 instead."I actually had a lot of trouble when I was gaming on my old PS2. It takes a lot more to learn to play with a controller and most of the time I was just fidgeting with the buttons and hoping for the best."You must be retarded. There's only 4 buttons, start/select, 2 joysticks, and 4 triggers. They purposely designed it to be easy to use."I prefer sitting on my comfy chair for hours playing a game. I personally find it more comfortable."You're lying, because you're a nerd. Your chair is not comfier than a couch. That's flat-out impossible."Two words: Dual monitors."Two words: Matrix nerd. Some of us don't live in our parents' basements. We don't have time for that nerdy s***."I can still get The Last of Us on my PC for free and Halo."Those are both on consoles, anyway.I'm sure my opponent will win all the nerdy dork votes.
PC gaming is superior to console gaming

Rebuttals: "You'll find a high percentage of PC gamers." Well in this case Nerds=PC gamers is a contraposition which basically means most nerds are PC gamers, but not all PC gamers are nerds. "The mouse is designed for navigating the OS. Playing video games with keyboard/mouse is like hammering in nails with a toothbrush. " Well you've obviously never played on a PC. It is very simple to game with a keyboard, incredibly simple actually my 8 year old niece can do it. I actually had a lot of trouble when I was gaming on my old PS2. It takes a lot more to learn to play with a controller and most of the time I was just fidgeting with the buttons and hoping for the best. Though keyboards were not made for gaming they are certainly up to snuff for it. "Playing games on a monitor, at a computer desk, is objectively lamer than sitting on a comfortable couch in front of a big-screen (or even small screen) television. That's not a matter of opinion." Yes it is. In my OPINION, I prefer sitting on my comfy chair for hours playing a game. I personally find it more comfortable. "Any difference in graphics between PC and Xbox One or PS4 is hardly (if at all) noticeable." I have an eye for these things so maybe it's just me, but I see a difference. https://i.kinja-img.com... "As for frame rate...only a huge nerd would sacrifice couch / controller for better frame rate on a display that's 1/6 the size." Two words: Dual monitors. "I don't want to spend $1,000+" 350 dollars, that is less than your PS4 and runs it better. "I don't want to play games sitting on an office chair, with a 16" monitor (at best)" That's your preference, but I personally prefer my comfy office chair with back support to my bed where I'd have to crane my neck to see the game. It all depends on your setup I guess. "Controllers are designed for gaming. Keyboard and mouse are not." Well that's not accurate. Just because it's designed for one thing doesn't mean it can't be used for another. Keyboards have superior accuracy over controllers that's most likely why you don't see eSport players on a PS4. "There are no good PC-exclusive games" In your opinion, but I can still get The Last of Us on my PC for free and Halo. "There are more performance issues on PC" I don't have any problems. I'm not running a beast either. Ladies and gentleman, my opponent never fails to impress. With an immaculate vocabulary consisting of words such as "lame" and "nerd" and the exquisite wordsmithery such as "no one cares". I would not be surprised in the slightest if you, the voters, saw his exceptional nature and voted him the winner of this debate. For now all I can do is sit and wait for defeat. It's been the most splendid of debates, Mr. Squonk. Congratulations, you have earned your victory.
Suburbs are better than the country

Suburbs are absolutely better than the country due to the fact that socially your skills are tested and strengthened because of the population the suburbs have. In the country there are not many people or places. How do you learn about the different ways there are to life and managing it without other experiences? The suburbs give ample opportunity to experience different jobs and careers, unlike the country where there are minimal things to do. Also, raising children. In the country again there are not that many places or people to interact with, yes a lot of small towns have that "southern hospitality" and good nature, but children need to experience the good, the bad and the ugly, to truly understand how to handle it. Being social is a good thing to encounter in a child's life. the suburbs have more schools, social events, and after school activities such as sports and Dance. So whith this being said, I do believe the suburbs are much better than the country.
Suburbs are better than the country

Unfortunately there is wrong located all over the world, even in the country. But it is alot lesser definitely than the suburbs. And i am sure my opponent can testify that because she has lived in both. But now my opponent has said that we need to learn from right from wrong and know how to deal with it. What wouldn't someone in the country know that was wrong that people in the suburbs would? There doesn't need to be a gang shooting every week to prove to the individual that there is bad in the world. So does having someone in this enviroment help them or change them? Unfortunatley it's the latter. This has been proven my increased violence and theft etc. so by depriving them of these things are we helping them or not granting them fair oppurtunity as my opponent has said? And what type of ojb it is shouldn't matter seeing as their is an equal oppurtunity to provide for your family is what should matter. Where life in the suburbs is a great place to learn and grow, the country is even better. Suburbs: Has there entire back yard Country: Entire horizon Suburbs: 65 ft wide swimming pool Country: A creek that has no end Suburbs: Cars thats destinations are limited Country: Horses that can freely roam in any part of land Suburbs: Expensive porch lights Country: The fullness of the moon and stars I again would like to urge you to live in the counntry rather than suburban life seeing as it would be the perfect enviroment for any family.
Suburbs are better than the country

I have both lived in the country and the suburbs as well as the city. In order to teach your children right from wrong they need to be able to see and possibly experience the wrong and again know how to challenge it and resolve it. I believe a child's personality shouldn't be based off of one thing, it should be developed by many people, places and things. If a child is only involved in the country life, not many people, jobs, or places, how will he/she build up a personality based on the interests they like. Give them opportunity to decide who they are instead of basically making that decision for them. Also I do understand that farming has many different jobs that are involved, but regardless they all revolve around farming, where is the retail and sales, hospitality? Different jobs also means different kinds of people, and many of which may not be bad, just different.
Suburbs are better than the country

I would have to disagree. Country i believe would be a better place than any to raise a family. 1st: In the country there is a lot less violence 2nd: alot less murder 3rd: little to no gangs 4th: A LOT less polution The enviroment is alot healthier for growing up in. I disagree on the life management stuff too. In the country you have a better look on responsibility, seeing as your wroking 24/7. whether it be around the house or yard/ barn or at your work. the country offers the same oppurtunities if not more than the suburbs do. As pertaining to social skills: What makes are social skills less appliant in the country rather than the suburbs? believe it or not they do have public schools in the country, andd socially active jobs just like in the suburbs. Most homes in the country also have farms. So when she says their are minimal things to do, i think she is sorely mistaken. Anybody who has ever owned or worked on a farm knows what i mean. Your constintly working, milking cows, fixing tractors, feeding animals, loading hay, etc. And to what she said about experience the good bad and the ugly, If there was an oppurtunity to raise my child with just the good, why not take it? most city born kids know alot of thigns they shouldn't know ubtil high school, where as the majority of country kids learn through experiential learning rather than diatiey. So with this being said, I beleive a country is a much better place to grow a healthy family in and urge you to vote like-wise.