BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
soda is bad for you

DefinitionsSince my opponent did not provide definitions, I will. soda: "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol"[1]bad for you: unhealthyArgumentMy opponent's argument, in syllogism form, is the following:1. Soda is highly addictive2. Soda is high in acidity3. Therefore, soda is bad for youIf I can show that statements 1 and 2 are false, then statement 3 is false. This is becase the converse of a statement is not necessarily true. For instance, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares, and thus, one cannot say a rectangle is a square. So if I can prove that not all sodas (rectangles) are squares (bad for you), then one cannot say soda is bad for you. Highly addictiveNot all sodas are "highly addictive" (which, none are really highly addictive, in comparison to other substances, but I will let this slide). My opponent is referring to the caffeine present in many sodas when he states they are highly addictive. However, there are several sodas which do not contain caffeine; for example, Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola and Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi do not contain caffeine. These sodas do not contain caffeine, and therefore they are not addictive in that regard -- and even if there were other substances in these products, you must prove they are "highly addictive" -- which to call caffeine "highly addictive" is already a stretch compared to other substances. High in acidityNot all sodas are "high in acidity. " For instance, Creeper Cola[2], Zevia[3] and most root beers do not contain phosphoric acid, the chief acid in soda. Therefore, not all sodas are extremely acidic. ConclusionBecause I have proven that not all sodas are highly addictive, and not all sodas are high in acidity, one cannot vaguely say "soda is bad for you" without any conditions. I look forward to my opponent's responseSources1. www. bettycjung. net/201/Wsreports/Soda. pdf 2. . http://www.bongwatersoda.com...3. . http://www.zevia.com...
Governor Northam should resign

This is not an argument of partisanism as you state, But an argument of committing a crime. Hypocrisy is still not committing a crime. Your claim that Governor Northam is inciting violence by authorizing abortions is also invalid. Federal Law states that abortion is legal and can not be prohibited until viability has passed. The controversial abortion bill in question would allow abortions up to the day of birth is still legal according to Federal Law because a baby only gains rights when it is born. Furthermore, Governor Northam is still protected by the First Amendment when he endorses after birth infanticide. Something like that would never pass and if so, The courts would strike it down. But this hasn't happened yet so it can't be used as evidence for why he should resign. Another point that I forgot to mention is that Governor Northam is an elected official. He was elected to serve as Governor of Virginia. Resigning from an office that is elective should only occur under extreme circumstances. A photograph that the Chicago Tribune deems as possible obliviousness instead of racism that was taken 35 years ago when Governor Northam was 25 years old is not an extreme circumstance. Endorsement of after birth infanticide, Which has not been enforced, Is still not an extreme circumstance. Furthermore, If Governor Northam did resign, He would be replaced by Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax who is currently being accused of sexual assault, An actual crime.
Governor Northam should resign

If the Governor is protected, Then so are all the other people that the democrats label as "racist" or "sexist. " Using their logic, Governor Northam should resign. Plus, If the speech or message being presented does present some inciting of violence, Then it isn't protected. His (as you put it "barbaric"- a very precise term), Abortion views DO, By definition, Incite violence against the baby. Based on these facts, He should resign.
Governor Northam should resign

Although Governor Northam may have done some racist things, They are not grounds for resignation. His views on abortion are also barbaric, Yet they are not grounds for resignation. Resignation should only occur when the person in question is incapacitated, Unable to serve, Or breaks the law. The First Amendment entitles us the Right of Free Speech, No matter how preposterous the statement might be. As long as the statement doesn't cause or heavily insight harm, It is perfectly legal. The governor posing in a racist photograph is protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, In defense of the governor, The photograph was taken when he was in medical school, All the way back in 1984, Over 35 years ago. People do stupid things in college. The governor admitted his wrongdoing and even confessed to covering his face with shoe polish to resemble Michael Jackson. The governor apologized and I believe that he is sincere. What happened 35 years ago happened 35 years ago. And regarding his stance on abortion, He is still protected by the First Amendment no matter how sickening his stance might be. If the governor signs a bill into law affirming abortion after viability, The courts must surely strike it down as unconstitutional. In conclusion, The governor is protected by the First Amendment and has not broken any laws.
The Great Depression was primarily a result of socialized programs not failed capitalism

"As i stated earlier the stock market crash clearly played a part in beginning a recession, but recessions happen in all economies, he stock market crash itself was not nearly enough to start the great depression. After the stock market crashed the economy as a i said started leveling off as expected and did not take a turn for the worst until after the previously mentioned governmental programs. " The stock market crash directly affected the great depression. People lost their money, went to the banks and the money wasn't there. It's that simple. I remind the voters that my opponent has the burden of proof and [unfortunately] I have provided more proof than he has. " i showed how the economy was stabilizing and only went for the worse after these programs were enacted" No you did not. You just stated it and didn't prove it. ===Conclusion=== My Opponent has stated no proof, even though he is the instigator and the proposition. He has stated 0 sources. He has stated no evidence.
The Great Depression was primarily a result of socialized programs not failed capitalism

The Smooth Hawley Tariff, NIR, Agricultural adjustment act and the wagner act were all but into effect in an economy that was stabilizing as shown by my statement "In October 1929, the stock market crashed, two months later unemployment peaked at 9 percent and subsided for the most part for the next several months, down to about 6.3 percent in June 1930(essentially allowing the free market to do its thing)". Following the enactments of the previously mentioned the economy immediately hit a downward spiral, i believe this economic downturn to be a direct effect of the socialized programs implemented. They were put in place to stimulate the economy and the exact opposite happened, this should lead to at the a sensible person to see the correlation. the NIR was enacted in 1933 still very much during the great depression not after. As i stated earlier the stock market crash clearly played a part in beginning a recession, but recessions happen in all economies, he stock market crash itself was not nearly enough to start the great depression. After the stock market crashed the economy as a i said started leveling off as expected and did not take a turn for the worst until after the previously mentioned governmental programs. Your argument for the desire for consumer durables going down leading to the great depression seems by far more presumptuous then mine for the governmental programs for two reasons. 1. i showed how the economy was stabilizing and only went for the worse after these programs were enacted 2. there is no basis you have shown of Americans being satisfied with what they have or of that correlating to the great depression so in conclusion i wish to summarize arguments and take note of my key points. 1. the stabilization of the economy with a free market after a recession 2. government intervenes on a massive scale 3. immediate economic downturn after government intervention 4. No basis for assuming free capitalism lead to great depression I would like to take this time to thank everyone for reading this and voting, and my opponent for accepting my first debate on debate.org.
The Great Depression was primarily a result of socialized programs not failed capitalism

==Refutations== "Smoot Hawley Tariff Act" Please prove that the two are directly correlated. This tariff was a failure yes. That does not mean that it was the cause of the great depression. "NIR" This point is not related to the cause of the great depression. It deals with the after affects. ===Points=== 1. "The 1920's were a time of unbelievable prosperity. The stock market was going through the roof and the United States seemed to have the formula for limitless prosperity. However, the same formula that generated all of that profit would also be the cause of Black Tuesday. Investment during the 1920's was based on the unstable basis of margin buying. Investors bought borrowed money from their brokers, who went to banks for that money. When stocks failed and investors needed to default, the money was permenantly lost. However, adding to the crash of '29 was the slowing economy. The desire for consumer durables (expensive items refrigerators, radios, and automobiles) went down as Americans became satisfied with what they had. This in turn affected the companies and workers that produced these items. A downward spiral was set in motion." [2] ==Sources== 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.angelfire.com...
The Great Depression was primarily a result of socialized programs not failed capitalism

In October 1929, the stock market crashed, two months later unemployment peaked at 9 percent and subsided for the most part for the next several months, down to about 6.3 percent in June 1930(essentially allowing the free market to do its thing). which brings me to my first social program. The Smoot Hawley Act was enacted, designed to reduce unemployment by restricting imports in the US so more of these would be built in the US. Within 5 months of the bill being passed there was double digit unemployment for the first time and never subsided below double digits for the entire decade of the 30's. FCR then brought in the National Industrial Recovery act, the Agricultural adjustment act, and the Wagner act, this was the largest governmental social programs for stimulating the economy at this point in history, and yet unemployment never came below double digits for the entire decade. So basically I propose that the economy with a free market had a down period, like all economies do, it began correcting itself and the "adjustments" Hoover and FDR made to stimulate the economy was the leading factor in creating the great depression. in order to be shown wrong Rockylightning should show that these policies were not the leading factors in the great depression, but that capitalism's failure played more of a pivotal role.
Junk food should not be banned in school

Given that children will eat junk food at home or outside...banning it completely from school cafeterias is a good idea as it ensures children eat healthy food at least once a day..the amount of junk food children consume today is too harmful for them in the long run .. Moreover banning junk food in schools is important because other than promoting a healthy lifestyle it will also educate children about health and nutrition(we often think we are educating them with what we say..but actually our actions speak louder) Now i would have refuted your argument..but you did it yourself when you presented the idea that a good way to protect children's health is providing them with healthy food in schools in your r3 argument But what I need you understand is junk food isn't only limited to obesity..it degrades you both mentally and physically while healthy food does the opposite.. what you basically argue is this..that it's children's right to have the choice of junk food at school..this argument is invalid ..well simply because there's no such right :) Thankyou for the debate
Junk food should not be banned in school

okay. I understand. I agree that junk food is not healthy. however, it is not reason for banning junk food from school. and there is another way to protect children's health from obesity such as providing a good healthy food to children in school (not the banning), make a mandatory (required) healthy class, or healthy food cooking class, etc. therefore, My argument is there is another way to protect children's health from obesity. not just banning the junk food.
Junk food should not be banned in school

I'll start by presenting my argument Banning junk food is a good start in the right direction(I.e. Healthy lifestyle) .. And the benefits of banning junk food aren't only limited to reduction in obesity .. Junk food is very harmful ..and that's why it's called junk food and not healthy food It Has low nutritional value..in the long run it takes more than what it gives back to your body I've already mentioned the harms in the above argument While on the other hand eating healthy food is beneficial to the health of an individual .. I mean our body has food requirements ..and We have to meet them Now while if the children eat junk food to meet their hunger requirements ..it results in degradation of their mental and physical health..which is not desirable While if they eat healthy food their would be an upgradation of their physical and mental health..which is desirable Food is an integral part of our lives..and we should start seeing it as one rather than just a medium to meet our health requirements..right food can be such an important part in growth of an individual..while the wrong food can be just as important part in slow degradation of an individual Now to refute your argument Just banning won't solve the problem of obesity..but junk food isn't only limited to obesity ..it results in degradation of an individual in so many other ways(see them in above argument and its link). And pretty sure if children decide to snack on rat poison not understanding how harmful it is we can't allow that :) Sources http://www.nerdwallet.com... http://www.thehealthsite.com...
Junk food should not be banned in school

I accept the challenge.. I think junk food should be banned in school..well simply put...because it's harmful to the health of children while eating junk food satisfies one's hunger but it is very harmful in the long run..it can lead to type 2 diabetes , it can cause digestive problems , it can lead to obesity , it can cause fatigue and weakness , can lead to depression and for even more reasons refer to this link .. http://www.thehealthsite.com... Banning junk food in schools is a start towards the goal of a healthier lifestyle for children
World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

Most of them are flawed and have some kind of logical fallacy within them. The new "source of plagirism" does not work out too well, since I used a different way (actually: 3 ways) to prove it. By the definition of evolution new species should be forming, thus, there is pretty much no other way to word this. In conclusion although I forfeited my conduct point, the argument is still in the game; voters should look carefully at my opponent's arguments/one-sentence-rebuttals and see if they make sense or are just claims not backed up by any sources. Vote me.
World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

1. FetusesThe initial stage being similar is just another one of the "only if" fallacies, as explained in 2b.2b. AnatomyI did refute the contentions, by arguing that the logic was wrong, as it assumes that Evolution is the only possible explanation, invalidating the first premise. TL;DR: Pro's case would have worked out, but its conclusion does not follow as its first premise assumes that evolution is the only possible explanation for this phenomenon.2c. The second example (From the second, not third round) was also plagirized, unfortunately. This debate: P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming. P2: We see new species forming. C: Evolution is (likely) true. Source of plagirism: P1: If and only if evolution is true, then we should see new species forming. P2: We see new species forming. C: Evolution is (likely) true. (. http://www.debate.org...)3. SpeciationThis assumes that evolution is true, as the tree of life is ordered according to evolution's closest relatives concept. (Circular reasoning)Also, camels have humps (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) and are mammals. (Unless it's a different kind of hump. )4. Chromosome mergePro has pushed the burden of proof onto me. "Nothing suggests that this didn't happen in nature. "Well, guess what? If the burden of proof worked like that, then:"A huge banana is floating over your head and the only reason you can't see or otherwise know it's there is because it moves really fast. It's true because nothing suggests that this is not true. "The above is equally valid as pro's argument, as both push the burden of proof to the negative side. "Why, humans didn't exist before chimpanzees, so there is no possible way this happened through natural selection or some artificial juice or something. "Pro misrepresents my case. I did not ask you to prove that it was not caused by random scientists injecting artificial juice into animals. I asked for proof that it can happen in nature.5. Natural SelectionPro's rebuttal was irrelevant to my rebuttal that the natural selection examples did not include mutation, a central part of evolution. CONCLUSIONPro did not meet his Burden of Proof, as he failed to show that Evolution is true. All I (con) had to do is show that there was reasonable doubt of evolution, as I did by showing that Pro's arguments have a lot of flaws. This is because Pro has the BOP.
World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

REBUTTALS1. Fetuses The only thing that mattered was the initial stage: they all looked very alike2b. Anatomy: my opponent failed to rebut my contention that Common Ancestry=Evolution2c. I have two more examples... -.-3. Speciation. I'm sorry. You may now deduct conduct point from me. I will now give an entirely new, not plagirized argument. The Family Tree argument: Within the "family tree", the closest relatives are put together. For example, birds and crocodiles are so close, and birds have more relation to crocodiles than any other animal on the tree. However, since crocodiles have no feathers, we can therefore conclude that their ancestor must have had feathers. This may sound flawed, however, none of the other animals' ancestors' have feathers at all! The only possible way for my opponent to falsify this is to have any trait requiring 2 instances or more, in the same way in two completely separate locations in the tree. Any mammal having feathers, or primate with humps, etc, would all prove evolution wrong. 4. Chromosome mergeNothing suggests that this didn't happen in nature. Why, humans didn't exist before chimpanzees, so there is no possible way this happened through natural selection or some artificial juice or something.5. Natural selectionAlright, I'll give you a good example: no two non-twin humans act and look exactly the same. This is easily explained by the source: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov.... Because so many mutations occur, we look different. However, since we modern humans do not have too much of a history, so we haven't developed a new species. In contrast, the whole ape-to-human evolution lasted really long and has lots of evidence, as presented in the link following. http://en.wikipedia.org...I may have lost conduct but the majority of my arguments still stand! Make your final round good and worthy!
World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

1. FetusesIn the fetus drawings that are not faked, the fetuses clearly no longer matched up really much.2b. anatomyMy arguments still stand, as con asserts that only evolution can explain this phenomenon, when there are other explanations. Therefore, P1 is false, and C does not follow.2c. Whale PelvisPro conceded this argument.3. SpeciationThis argument does not count, as pro plagirized from one of my previous debates. (. http://www.debate.org...) Let's compare the two text strings. The parts that were identical is underlined. My opponent: Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced, which interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from. [2] My old debate: Goatsbeards are wild flowers introduced from Europe to America. Three species were initially introduced. They interbred, but could not produce fertile offspring. (The hybrids were sterile), meaning that they were 3 different species. In the 1940's, two new species of goatsbeards appeared, which produced fertile offspring only when breeding within their species, and not with the species it evolved from. [2]My opponent: Drosophila paulistorum is a type of fruit fly which had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species. My old debate: Drosophila paulistorum, a type of fruit fly, had a speciation event sometime between 1958 and 1963. Crosses with other strains only produced sterile hybrid flies, meaning that the fruit fly are a new species. Because Pro plagirized some of his arguments from one of my old debates, the arguments point should go to me (as they are my arguments and my arguments were awesome). 4. Chromosome MergePro's link only states that the genes were the same, but what I asked for was evidence that this happens in nature. 5. Natural SelectionHowever, evolution is mutations + natural selection. In your examples, the mutations did not happen, the alleles were already there before the selection occurs.
World Online Debate Cup-Evolution is true

PurposeThis debate is created for the World Online Debate Cup, hosted by Lars Dobbertin-King (Admin, Larztheloser). The rules can be seen here: http://www.edeb8.com... and the current standings can be seen here: http://www.edeb8.com... Debate RulesI will take the negative position that evolution is not true. As I have the negative position, the burden of proof, which will be abbreviated in the debate as "BOP", lies on Pro, 9spaceking. Because the BOP lies on 9spaceking, I would ask that he starts the debate on round 1 (no acceptance). As he has an extra round 1, he should not post new arguments in the last round.StructureRound1: rules and first argumentsRound2-3: Arguments and rebuttalsRound4: Rebuttals only, plus conclusions. (Things like persuading others to vote for you, accusations of plagirism, watching Frozen while stuffing potato based starchy snacks into one's face, and etcetera go here.)