BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What triggers a stronger response to a situation: Fear or Reward

I would first like to point out that the comment Ofek makes is a great scenario. If and when you are presented with a problem, you will work much harder to resolve said problem if your face bad consequences. Humans work harder for self-preservation than they do for reward. There are two parts to this question. Is the situation long term or short term? I thank you for bringing this up. I still believe that Fear is the lager stimulate in both situations. In a short term situation, as in a split second or pop up scenario, we will work harder to resolve the problem or accomplish a task if there is a risk of self harm or another form of punishment. Take a child as an example. If a child is told to clean his room and that if he does, he will receive a piece of candy, the child will clean his room. But I'm not asking if the room will be clean, I want to see how hard the child works to have the room cleaned. If the child is told that he will be spanked if he does not have his room clean in a thirty minute period, the child will work much harder to achieve a clean room. He would take his time if presented with reward, but will clean faster and more efficiency if presented with the alternative punishment. I use my own experiences as a child as a reference. As for the long term, look at governments across the globe with military and dictator rulers. They rule with fear and accomplish a larger amount in a given time than we do. Our government is based of trust, hope, and yes, reward. Although we have make many advancements and accomplished a lot, these tyrannical leaders work fast and efficiently. The child can also be a good example, a parent who uses the fear of punishment to teach their child life lessons will probably succeed in doing so more than a parent uses candy to teach a child.
Food Irradiation

Does food still have nutritious? Yes, Physics.ius.edu states that whole some and nutritious. You do lose a small amount of nutritious but less then when freeze and cook. Food irradiation is a process involving passing foods through as irradiation filed; however, the food itself never contacts a radioactive substances. Also, the World Health Organization (WHO) states, "On the basis of the extensive scientific evidence reviewed, the report concludes that food irradiated to any dose appropriate to achieve the intended technological objective is both safe to consume and nutritionally adequate" So what are good reason why this is? To have better and safer products to sell o the people on Earth.
Food Irradiation

Irradiating food like chicken meat, and others is misleading. Acoording to foodcomm.org many scientists have proved that mechanically recovered meat is safer, and that is misleading because it causes a lot of cross contamination. Another poinbt made by the same website stated that often times many people do not take the safety risks needed, becasue they are unaware of it, and recontamination of food after irradiation is very serious. Also many scientists say that not even all toxins produced by bacteria which irradiation is supposed to kill are not killed.
Food Irradiation

According to edinformatic.com some foods naturally restricted from sales on the global market, unless they are irradiated to prolong quality for transportation. This is not new in life, food irradiation started Jan. 1992 and meat irradiation 1993 - approval was given 1985 for pork. Irradiation been approved for many uses in about 36 countries, in the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration(FDA) s approved irradiation.
Food Irradiation

Many scientists also have the conception that food irradiation can ruin many vital things, like flavor, food, and texture. Food irradiation is said to change flavor, odor, and even texture and if foods go stale, are they bad for us, or as people want to think, it doesn't have too much radiation so it won't hurt e, but what if it does? The epa.gov website put information out there that came from the CDC, that states sometimes irradiation works, but not all the time and when it does not work it doesn't produce the smells that warn us that the product went bad. Finally mercola.com said that many times fruits and vegetables when exposed, there texture changes n a way that it becomes mushy.
Food Irradiation

You got ensure that you cook your food properly because there is a risk that food could be contaminated after the irradiation has taken place. Consuming certain foods, including meant and eggs, you could be at a greater risk of being exposed to dangerous microorganism. Well because of food irradiation there will be less spoilage and extends shelf life on food. Another positive aspects of this process is that it kills significant amount of bacteria which farmers avoid to change process.
Food Irradiation

According to jurist.org the Food Administration Association (FDA) did not determine the amount of radiation that a certain type of food, or any type of food should have. Many scientists say that if the food is exposed to too much raditation then the food can be contaminated right then putting people at a higher risk of recieving the disease. The fda.gov website itself also put out information against food radiation, they have not said it first hand, but have hinted many times that people should watch the foods they consume. Finally the foodandwaterwatch.org website has said that although th radiationlevels do not stick with the food, small radiation levels can still effect the human body.
Food Irradiation

According to livestrong, many scientists say that if you expose food to too much radiatio, then mutations may occur. thus leading to more dangerous bacteria and diseases that may be on the food. Also acoording to livestrong website, many believe that long term use of radiation will cause adaptation of the bacteria microbes. UW-food-irraddiation also puts pout that the cost of food iradtiation costs a lopt more money than just regular processed food. This article said that the cost of food depending on what you get is estimated to jump about 3 to 5 cents, and the amount that you are wanting to buy. Nutrients is also a big issue when it comes to food irradiation, many poeple don't know how much vitamin D or other needed nutritional values are lost. So the porganic consumers website came out with informarion that stated when foods are exposed to radiation they lose 5 to 80% of there nutritional vakue, and that is a huge gap.
Food Irradiation

Food irradiation causes many disease, many of which are diarrheal. Oxfordjournals.org goes to prove that food irradation causes over 200 million cases of disease almost every year, but only 76 million of which are food borne and only 1,800 may result in death. Also physics.isu.edu stated in the article, that not all of the food is sterilized, so what is it? It is to the human body. Also it states that if we do not take the right precautions harmful bacteria may harm us, and how many poeple actually take the time to do so? Not many. Finally also stated by physics.isu.edu that if not prevented, the diseases may come come back and may be more dangerous than they were after the food irraditaion process. Or in other words, the bacteria on the irradiated food may become adapted and unable to kill.
This house would vote Ron Paul

Like my opponent I've never been in the Ron Paul camp, but I like the idea of a more Socratic debate. Apparently this discussion is only supposed to be four rounds so I will post something random when round five comes up. In this round I'll keep things short. Basically I'll assert my entire case, which my opponent can then question wherever he pleases. My basic contention is that the American political process is dead, with a oft-ignored constitution, a two-party structure with little ideological difference between the two parties, and a dangerous alliance between the government and big business. Ron Paul is perhaps the only viable candidate with a proven record of fighting back. He's consistent. He's contrarian. He's courageous. He frequently refers to the constitution. That's the sort of leader America needs, if one were to grant the premise that America is not currently on the right course. In what ways is America not currently on the right course? They're trillions of dollars in debt - and continuing to borrow more and more. This is unsustainable. They have a federal reserve system that goes completely unaudited, known to issue illegal and secret loans. The federal reserve are not accountable to anyone and have a proven determination to abuse that position. They give foreign aid and maintain foreign military bases that have created historical instability and continue to threaten world peace, at a great economic cost to themselves, while undermining their own and global security. They have no jobs. Businesses have little incentive to take on staff because of moderately-high taxes and excessive regulation. Tertiary education is largely unaffordable. Student loans are driving up the cost of education to a level where they are bankrupting America - and her children's futures. America was once the land of the free. Now, American civil liberties are being intruded on more than at any time in history - and it's being done by America's very own elected representatives. This isn't just things like monitoring for signs of terrorism - it's things like the lack of right to work laws, and the overly-intrusive and carcinogenic airport security scanners long banned in the rest of the world. Indeed, the mere thought that the American government has moved to censor the Internet . .. *censored* The point is this: America is facing serious challenges. The Democrats and Obama have proven unable or unwilling to get things done. The other GOP candidates aren't offering something really different, they're not being radical. Every challenge America now faces is a reason to vote for Ron Paul.
This house would vote Ron Paul

I was never in the Ron Paul camp, but I was a fan. I used to find his ideas quaint. I am now at the point where I not only write off his political views, but the man with them. And it wasn't the racist rumors, or his denial of evolution that sent me over the edge; It was his analysis of the civil war and his idea to 'buy back slaves'. I can't do it anymore. I have not seen any convincing argument to vote for Ron Paul. Since he is so different from every other candidate, the burden of persuasion falls upon those in the Paul camp to show why anyone should vote for him. I will challenge anyone to put forth one. This debate will be a Socratic one. The pro must convince the voters that there are in fact good reasons to vote for Ron Paul. I myself can not see one reason to vote for him, because on balance other candidates or ideas would be more beneficial. I don't have enough characters to try and debate both President Obama and Ron Paul, but I do take the position that President Obama or Mitt Romney would be a better choice than Ron Paul for president. Round 1: Con gives opening remarks, Pro may put forth their Main points Round 2: Con rebuttals, Pro responds Round 3: More of the sameRound 4: Closing remarks Challenger, This should be an elevated discourse on Ron Paul's policies, an opportunity to change the minds of people. I've made this 4 rounds so we can have a more refined dialogue. This isn't so much a debate as a Socratic discussion.Thank you
Nintendo is a better gaming company then Sony.

Actually I disagreed to all your arguments as they are faulty. No body wants a PS3 because there is nothing good about it gaming wise. Yes Sony has made good appliances like TVs, CD players, etc. But when it comes to gaming they can't make anything good! You shouldn't declare yourself the victor just because you THINK you're right! You have made no good arguments this whole time that I have not disproved. Yes you're right they have made Madden, that's ONE franchise, face it kid if anyone "sucks" it is Sony. Nintendo has made The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, Pokï¿½mon, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin, Super Smash Bros., Kid Icarus, Metroid, the list just goes on. Also let's talk in terms of systems made. Nintendo: Nintendo Entertainment System (Great for it's time) Super Nintendo Entertainment System (Greater for it's time) Nintendo 64 (Revolutionary at the time) Game boy (had some good games) Game boy Color (Had really good games) Game boy Advance (ditto) Game boy Advance SP (very good) GameCube (Great system) Nintendo DS (Currently the best hand held out there) Wii (Best Next-Gen system) That's 10 great systems What's Sony made? Play Station(not bad) Play Station 2 (decent) Play Station Portable (pretty good) Play Station 3 (sucks) That's 4 so-so systems. I believe I have proved by the above statement that Nintendo is by far superior to Sony in terms of gaming. Unlike my opponent I have made very wise and backed up arguments. Please vote for me as the winner of this debate.
Nintendo is a better gaming company then Sony.

"NINTENDO SUCKS!!!" What kind of an opening sentence is that? What are you 10? Yeah Sony, as a gaming company has only been around sense what the late 90's? Yeah Nintendo has been around sense the mid-80's. Yes Sony is good when it comes to general aplliances but when it comes to video games the should just step down. Let's down about characters now Nintendo has created many of world's most popular gaming franchises like The Legend of Zelda, Super Mario Bros, Pokemon, Donkey Kong, and Metroid. What's Sony got? Let's see they've got Kratos, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, and they THINK they have Snake who by the way was actually made by Nintendo! Now let's talk in terms of the next-gen systems. The Wii is $250, has maintained that price, and whenever they get them in stock anywhere they sell out within the day! The PS3 was $600, they had to drop it down by $100 in the first year and STILL, in the game stores they're just sitting there on the shelves collecting dust because nobody wants one. Sony should just stick to making TV's and leave video games to Nintendo.(and Microsoft second)
Nintendo is a better gaming company then Sony.

NINTENDO SUCKS!!! Sony has been around and been a big competitor for years now and honestly they have a much more intimedating force than nintendo. Nintendo made the gamecube and the gameboy and then dissapeared. But sony has come out with the PS1, PS2, PS3 and all of which has been on of the best sellers in their generation. If you go to any local appliance store (ex: Fryes, Best Buy) you will find much more items made from Sony than you will find nintendo. According to a recent article from the drudgereport.com Sony is the best system out there. Also nintendo does not sell anything else besides gameing systems. Sony makes sound systsems, T.V's, Cameras, Camcorders, Laptops etc. The list goes on and on and as you can see from my case Sony Is better. Thank You!
point of fetal pain should be used instead of viability as abortion regulation standard

Well with the way you worded the debate you made it sound as when we should have abortion when the fetus would feel pain, by viability, but I went with it should be the mothers choice no one else"s, but since that doesn"t satisfy you I well play devil"s advocate and debate that abortion should it be put into law and be regulated should be based on viability. My first argument for this would be around week 7 the brain starts growing rapidly and thus one can assume that the developing fetus could feel pain at this point but so as of then the child couldn"t be aborted anymore so then what about if the mother was an drug abuser or an alcoholic and the fetus shows signs of not developing correctly or is having complications after that 7 weeks that child could no longer be aborted even if the mother whished it. While if the law were to be due to viability as soon as complications show in the fetus the fetus could be aborted and would not have to suffer any longer nor the mother knowing that the child growing in here well not lead a normal life and could quite possibly have a painful life ahead of him/her. Basing aborting off weather or not a fetus can feel pain is quite absurd if you ask me as a baby takes about 38-40 weeks to full develop and only allowing an abortion to occur within 7 weeks of impregnation is asinine as anything that could compromise the baby"s health and body during that time which would/ could compromise the baby"s ability to live in the outside world normally. And by normally I mean eat talk walk have 2 arms 2 legs, everything fully formed able to cognitively think feed one"s self take care of one"s self once one comes of age and not be born with a disability such as little brain function and put in a wheel chair for the rest of their life due to the mother coming down with an illness during the child"s 17th week of growth but the mother couldn"t abort as it would cause pain to the fetus. With the law being if the child is viable the child would be aborted.
point of fetal pain should be used instead of viability as abortion regulation standard

i think it was clear enough that con should have been someone who think the status quo should exist, with viability as the standard. i should choose not to engage in con's argument. but, instead i will compromise and refer him to my generally against abortion arguments that i've made before.... http://www.debate.org... if con wishes to engage in this debate, he should refer and respond to the arguments in that link.
point of fetal pain should be used instead of viability as abortion regulation standard

In your argument your argument is just the fact of why base abortion off viability, and instead base abortion off of when the baby would feel pain. The problem with your argument is when a fetus would first feel pain. Fact it we don"t know for a fact we do know when and how fetal brain development happens but when it would feel pain is a different animal. And since you are for the abortion just arguing how it should be done and when and I"m con I"m going to turn this argument and say why regulate abortion at all. See my philosophy is you only get one life you are born then you die that"s it weather you believe there is an afterlife if a different topic all together, but we"re not here to argue that but here about abortion. Like I said we all just get one life and we should be able to live it the way we wish and the way we feel best and with that being said we just get this one body and you can choose what you want to do with it to get piercings, dye your hair, hell even get boob jobs. So why should we regulate abortions this is a woman"s body her one and only body and is staring to make a new human but has to rely on her till he is devopted enough to survive in the outside world; and maybe that woman doesn't want to have a child anymore due to financial issues, or life issues, or maybe just not ready to have a child. And such that the woman"s body is using up her resources her time and all the countless issues that come with having a child that I as a male could never understand. But like I said this is her body why should we decide what she should do with her body by saying if she could have an abortion or not or regulating it by weather the fetus is viable or can feel pain. And with that said I well finish my argument and look ford to your next argument and if you would please keep religion out of the argument as I would not like to turn this into two arguments instead of one. Good luck.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

Black people aren't ugly, and they have different levels of intelligence just like every other race. They only drink beer or play basketball if they choose to. They don't cuss unless a disgusting racist like you provokes them. give me one quote from the Bible that says being black is a sin. I don';t think there is one- white people didn't even know Africa was a place at the time of the Bible's writing.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

Well black people are ugly and stupid, so they should be sent to prison. All they do is drink beer and play basketball, and go around cussing at people. That is why there should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood. Being black is a sin, did you know? The Bible says it is. For our next debate, debate #17, let's do: Beaker from the Muppets is retarded.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

To say you are a racist is not an ad hominem. It is a clearly established fact. Your claim is racist, sir. Black people do not statistically cause too much violence. You can claim something is proven by statistics, and it seems that would be undeniable, since statistics are not opinion, but I'm afraid to say that the real statistics prove you otherwise. Here's a pie chart of all crimes committed in America by race. Please don't deny the existence of this credible graph. https://infogram.com... To send black people to prison if they didn't commit a crime would be outrageous. It would cut through everything America is supposed to be, it would be a violation and a mockery of everything we hold dear. You're mentally disturbed. Go seek help.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

That was ad hominem to say I'm racist. But anyways, I will debate. Black people statistically cause too much violence, but we cannot send them off to ghettos, so the best idea to ave a strict limit of one black family per neighborhood. What to do with the remaining blacks? Send them off to prison until there is a neighborhood currently with no black family inside. This is debate #16 this year, and we are moving fast thru the debates! Now let's see what you have to say.
There Should be a Limit of One Black Family per Neigborhood

There should be a limit of one black family per neighborhood, because black people cause too much violence. Vote pro. Here are the rules: 1. Burden of proof will be on pro and con during the debate. 2. No ad hominem attacks. 3. The n word is not allowed during the debate. Absolutely not. 4. Gingers and Indians can vote or comment. 5. Blacks are accepted in the debate. 6. Jews can enter unfortunately.
Mandatory euthanasia for people older than 55

>1. People don't normally retire until 65, so many are still contributing to society past 55. Check mate skinny boy. There will be no use for their work because they are already so incapable and we don't have to take care of all the dying old scum. >2. When I am 55 I will still be the strongest on DDO. I think I am stronger than you and I would defeat any and all people over the age of 55 in a battle. >3. Old people have knowledge of the past. But they can't remember it. Kill the old scum!
Mandatory euthanasia for people older than 55

Old people do have uses. 1. People don't normally retire until 65, so many are still contributing to society past 55. Check mate skinny boy. 2. When I am 55 I will still be the strongest on DDO. 3. Old people have knowledge of the past. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. I'll kick your a$$.
Mandatory euthanasia for people older than 55

My grandparents died before I was born, never needed them, never wanted them. >Who will look after the kids while we're on holiday? Our kids are more important than holidays. >Who will teach us how to bake cakes? >Who will cook us our Sunday roasts? Internet >Who will lend us a tenner when we need to buy a bottle of vodka to suppress or alcoholism? Get a job loser. If you can't get a good enough job get educated dumbo. >It won't be granny. No, for granny shall be 6 feet under with maggots festering in her eye-sockets. Good >Will this law be nationwide? If so then our elders will move to another country. They might even go into hiding and we'd have to hunt them down with a pack of hounds. It should be worldwide. I would love to hunt old people like animals. They are too old and stupid to hide from us. Old people are of no use to the world. They are just taking up space, time, energy, money. By killing old people we can fix all of our problems. We can fix climate change just like that! We can take all the money from the old people and give it to starving kids. We can fix poverty, disease, everything. Old people have no purpose, they have lived long enough. Kill em all!