BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Five-Second Rule is Real

Rebuttals: “It is just folklore.” Irrelevant. Were the topic The Five-Second Rule is True, this would be on topic; however real is a judgment on existence rather than of quality. Imagine claiming The Bible does not exist because it contains mythology, even while pointing at very real copies of the named item. Is my coffee not real, just because it’s from a lower quality café? “…‘other people employ the rule as a polite social fiction that will allow them to still eat a lightly contaminated piece of food, despite the potential reservations of their peers.’” Near concession? Con seems to be in firm agreement with me that the rule exists, and cites a firm example of how it is used with knowledge of lesser contamination (as opposed to if con was arguing the rule calls for zero contamination). “This was an episode in mythbusters.” Ignoring the obvious problems of that not being MythBusters when represented as such… 1. At 2:07 they step on the food, no version of the Five Second Rule calls for also stepping on it. 2. At 2:20 in the video, they cough onto the food and swabs. 3. At 3:15 they contaminate the samples dropped in dirt with their mouths, which are known to be dirty. 4. At 3:40 they claim a pile of flour is the same thing as bacterium. Unless you are proposing no one eat bread, this is of no merit. 5. No stopwatch was used in the study. Scientists do not tend to rely on such variable timepieces as teenaged girls. 6. At no point are they seen to wear sterile gloves, or even wash their hands before handling the food to be studied; thus there is no way to know if the bacterial growth seen stems from the ground or their dirty hands. “‘There was no significant difference in the number of bacteria collected from 2 seconds exposure as there was from 6 seconds exposure.’” Flaws in their study have been thoroughly proven; see point 6 above for the probable cause of the no significant difference. “Sources” With the exception of the video, those were not actually connected to the argument.
The Five-Second Rule is Real

Thank you for accepting, Ragnar. It is just folklore. This was an episode in mythbusters. It was a myth because 'There was no significant difference in the number of bacteria collected from 2 seconds exposure as there was from 6 seconds exposure. The moisture, surface geometry and the location the food item was dropped on did, however, affect the number of bacteria.' Wheredas Tim Allen put this to the test 'and found that bacteria will cling to food immediately. High traffic areas will lead to even more bacteria on the food.'. In folklore, 'the states that food dropped on the ground will not be significantly contaminated with bacteria if it is picked up within five seconds of being dropped. Some may earnestly believe this assertion, whereas other people employ the rule as a polite social fiction that will allow them to still eat a lightly contaminated piece of food, despite the potential reservations of their peers. There are many variations on the rule. Sometimes the time limit is modified. In some variations, the person picking up the food arbitrarily extends the time limit based on the actual amount of time required to retrieve the food.' Sources:http://kidshealth.org...http://en.m.wikipedia.org...And a video for the mythbuster's episodehttp://www.youtube.com...
Capitalism cannot exist without the state

Ok... it seems there was no coherence to that argument whatsoever. I suppose I'll just continue and offer a rebuttal to a possible and common argument an opponent may make. An opponent may say that capitalism can exist in a stateless society because the capitalists could hire their own private police force to protect their property. However, I would rebut that by pointing out that numbers would not be on their side. Many people can still rise up, take guns, and kill all off said police force or even use their own police force against that one, until they take control the means of production for themselves. The only reason the state prevents this from happening is because the state is so much more powerful than us. It has weapons at its disposal no private citizen can ever dream of having. Under a system without the state, that's all fair game and so all weapons would be available to everyone so people are on equal footing against the capitalists. The advantage, thus, goes to which side has numbers, and that would be the workers themselves, and not the capitalist with a private police force.
Capitalism cannot exist without the state

YOk , for example I have found a country and named it mashammi and it has 18 states siba , roshan , vironi , smuglv , fursti , gabi , shitma , daigat. Mobas , tumar , adhu , zathra , gristaph , Sobash , badbi , shokushtrakaà , faswata , ghazwala , cootra , hishstrs. Then the capital is baitra . then one day a bomb blast happen so badly in all the place except baitra . So it can be a capital with any states . Thank you for reading this . If you think it worth of it then please give a vote to Darshita
Borders

You say only 1 in 10 homeless people are willing to mow a (presumably small) lawn for 20 dollars. That could mean 10% of the homeless get jobs. This is a good thing. I don't think homeless people are all lazy. Many can't read, many have mental illnesses. In most other parts of the economy, the law of supply and demand applies. If nobody is willing to work for a particular wage, then the price (wage) must go up. What is on offer increases until people think "Dang! There's good money to be made out there!". Farming is important work - no food, no people. Somehow we seem to have forgotten this. It would be a good thing for primary producers to get more recognition for their efforts. In a nutshell, borders allow a country to maintain their policies and protect their people from foreign interests. Borders are good and should be maintained. Thanks for the debate. Get well soon.
Borders

Im just too dang lazy to write responses to all that, so I will argue to a few and make some new points.... Thank you for the well wishes to... and I don't care if we are debating... haha its what I do... and I love it... To one of the parts I noted in your arguement that you said that if farmers did not have immagrent workers, than the rate of homeless people would go down because of the fact that more people would have jobs. So now I reference a News show that went on the streets and offered 20 dollars to about ten homeless people to mow a lawn. One showed up. So many homeless people make more on the streets than they would even at minumum wage. They are gennerally just lazy. So I do not think that that would help the homeless situation. And that is a top thing that many people, my grandpa for one, complain about, that immagrents take work from hard working Americans, when in genneral, Americans are too dang lazy to work that hard for that little amount of money. And I am exausted so that is my argument.
Borders

I'm very sorry to hear you're sick. I hope you get better soon, a good sign you're in such good spirits. Sorry we have to be at odds like this, but this is the nature of debate. 1) My first point reduces to: the borders aren't open, so anyone going crossing them without passport and approved visa is breaking the law. So, do we uphold the law or don't we? 2) The law will assume only legal workers - unless I'm very much mistaken. So, effectively: "all workers must be paid at least: $X/hour." 3) If minimum wages must be paid, then why would a farmer not employ legal American workers? This will mean fewer homeless people. If there are no jobs for illegal workers... will the bother to risk jail crossing the border when they know it's illegal? You may not know this, but gas prices are much cheaper in the USA than the rest of the first world. Here in NZ 50% of the price of petrol is tax. I believe petrol (gasoline) is actually subsidised (made cheaper) in the USA. If lots of people who work on farms are paid more, they will in turn have more money to buy other goods and services - this is good for the rest of the economy. If this happens, surely fewer and fewer people will be on welfare. Because more money is being spent on food within the country, less money will be spent on goods outside the country, this will reduces debt. a) Mexico has a rapidly growing population. This is unsustainable. This is not the USA's fault. They really should do something about this, but it is not our place to say. b) (You don't say anything) c) Oh, we've already covered this. Yes I know the US grows most her own food. I meant less money is available for overseas goods (e.g. bits of Chinese plastic) so the US will become less indebted. This is good. 4) The town will probably get quite a bit of attention (at least for a while) while increased border security is put in place. Cross-border trading will still happen thanks to NAFTA. I don't think any jobs will be lost. Friends will find a way. They can get visas or they can emmigrate. It's very easy for Americans to visit Mexico. 5) Terrorist could blow you up, yes. No it hasn't happend recently, but you do remember what happend on the 11th of September 2001 in New York City don't you? People got very upset by that. If the baddies can't get across the border, how do they do nasty things like that? 6) In South Africa, they had open borders for many years. Lots of people from poor countries came to their country. At first, the people there liked having lots of cheap workers, it made them rich! However, the cheap workers decided that they would rule the country - and now, they do. All the best, Derek
Borders

To counter your arguments: I am not in the USA, but because you appear to be, I shall assume you are referring to the US land borders. 1) The borders with both Canada and Mexico are NOT open to free movement at the moment. I've been across both of them, they have toll-booth-like arrangements. Foreigners must have both a passport and visa even for a temporary visit, and so are breaking the law if they enter without them. 2) Farmers are only likely to have to pay more money for labour if they are paying less than the legal minimum wage. If they were - then they were breaking the law. Can't have that! 3) If food prices rise - in many ways this is actually a good thing! Think about it. a) The legal labourers will be better off - you wouldn't want them working themselves to death now would you? b) People will value their food more - this will help them realise the true value of food and not waste it! c) More of the USA's money will be spend within the country rather than on overseas goods - this will help counter the current huge trade imbalance the USA is suffering. 4) I haven't heard about the split town. However, nobody is likely to die if the border there is enforced. If more than one town is on the border, perhaps it could be arranged with Mexico to have one in the US and the other in Mexico. No town need be harmed ;-) Why borders are a good idea: =================== The reason countries have borders is because they are afraid that people from other countries may come in and do bad things. What if terrorists decide that because they look like Mexicans that that will be an easy way to get into the USA and blow people up? They could buy huge trucks full of explosives. They might try to see if they could make skyscrapers fall down like dominos. A big-rig parked next to the base of a big building downtown might be able to do that. Unfortunately there are people who do this sort of thing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Another problem with letting people cross the border is that they are not staying at home to make thing better there. Fit young people leave and while they often do send money home, that is not improving the infrastructure back home. Another problem is that if people have diseases, and they just enter your country anyway, your people could die. Another problem is that people could escape the law. They could rob you then quickly rush across the border. Your police couldn't follow them because their army would say "No!". All the towns near the border could be robbed - people who own guns might start shooting, there could be a war! These are just some the sorts of reasons that nearly every country in the World with neighbours has borders.
Borders

I know not too much about this topic... but I will try to get my point across... Heres a possible effect that closing boarders might have. We close the borders and keep more and more people out. Due to the lack of immagrent workers, farmers start having to pay more money, for generally less work. Due to the higher expense of labor, food prices increase, further affecting and weakening our countries economy. Also, have you read the article on the one town that is split between Mexico and US? If we close off the boarders... Then that town, and probably many others, will be killed.... do we want that at this point???
The Arts should not be the first group of activities cut after budget cuts

When the board of schools realize they have come across budget cuts, their first idea is to cut the Arts. Whether they mean the music clubs AND classes, Drama/Theater, visual art, or all of the above. To school officials, sports never cross their minds. Why not though? Sports cost hundreds of dollars a year in some places. In my high school, the more popular sports like football and cheerleading buy new uniforms every year. Most of the time it is not because they are old or no longer wearable, they just feel like changing the design! Yes, they do fundraise, but not enough to fund all of their needs. There is also the fact they have to rent places to practice if there is no room or proper equipment in the school, then pay any instructors that also help out. You also have to pay for transportation to away games and scrimmages since teams travel together. While supplies for visual arts can be bought in bulk. If it is an instrumental class, many students own their own instruments. So the school is not providing for every student as it would with an athletic activity. Now, I do not believe the Arts should be saved and the Sports cut, or vise versa. Neither should have to be cut from funding completely. I stand by an opinion that the activity with more funding should have part of their money taken away to help with funding for elsewhere in the school, instead of all money being scarped away.
Drinking age should remain at 21

The Definition of privilege can be defined as the following: 1, a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most. http://dictionary.reference.com... I think its safe to say that drinking alcohol satisfies this definition of privilege. So therefore drinking alcohol is in fact a privilege and not a right. To further argue my claim you stated: "I understand driving is not a right, but a privilege". Doesn't the government pass a law by state regulating what age we can drive? Therefor it seems you are contradicting yourself saying "However, it is not a privilege because the government has created a law stripping anyone under 21 of that privilege. So in reality, drinking would be a right if government had not interfered". I assume this is what you are trying to say here. Speaking in rights vs privilege terms in law terminology there is a huge difference. Every American has rights from the day they are born thanks to our bill or rights. A privilege however is a process of requiring something because it is beyond the advantages of most. If there is a requirement for any law in most cases this satisfies a privilege rather then a right. Unless listed in the bill of rights. For an example the right to bear arms. Keep in mind the bill of rights make up our natural rights. When you stated that our Mind continues to develop until we are 25. You gave me even more evidence to support my claim that the drinking age should remain at 21. Thank you for pulling up credible source for the percentage of college students who say they have had an illegal drink before. I still think this data is very skewed however because surveying a specific population makes the variable to fixated which results in insufficient data. Thank you for Debating with me to this point. I will end my rebutting here and end the final found with a closing argument.
Drinking age should remain at 21

1. You may presume that I think driving is a right. Since I never stated that, you are wrong. I understand driving is not a right, but a privilege. I define a privilege as proving you are capable of responsibility. I agree with you that drinking should be a privilege. However, it is not a privilege because the government has created a law stripping anyone under 21 of that privilege. So in reality, drinking would be a right if government had not interfered. 2. "Our bodies become fully developed when we turn 21. Studies show during this time drinking causes Neuorapoptosis which is essentially our brain killing its neurons. Also at this time in our development the liver hasn't been fully developed which plays a key role in the absorption of alcohol. Drinking can also cause cognitive impairment which is defiantly not worth the risk of drinking alcohol at a age before 21." This information is wrong because with more recent studies, they show that the brain is not actually fully developed til the age of 25. http://www.academic.marist.edu... so what would differ between the brain development of a 21 year old and an 18 year old? 3. You are right. 90% of college students do not drink. It was wrong of me to throw random numbers out there. After some research, "college students under the age of 21, 82 percent report using alcohol within the past year and 69 percent report using alcohol within the last 30 days." http://www.alcohol101plus.org...
Drinking age should remain at 21

The Point I am trying to make with the FDA is they try to enforce the law for our own good. Laws might be broken because its safe to say that America is far from a utopia along with almost everywhere else. I Think 90 percent of college students drink is a little off i would like to see a credible source,. Even if this is true they still shouldn't be drinking. Our bodies become fully developed when we turn 21. Studies show during this time drinking causes Neuorapoptosis which is essentially our brain killing its neurons. Also at this time in our development the liver hasn't been fully developed which plays a key role in the absorption of alcohol. Drinking can also cause cognitive impairment which is defiantly not worth the risk of drinking alcohol at a age before 21. http://news.wustl.edu... When I referenced the BAC I solely referenced it to show how dangerous of a drug alcohol can be which is part of the reason why the FDA has an age limit on it. I know its illegal to drive with A BAC of 0.8 or higher. I would also like to see a credible source showing how college students for the following "By setting a drinking age as a law, it only makes younger people want to drink before turning 21 instead of just giving them that right to experiment when they turn 18". I don't think there is any survey available on this. Finally for this round can you define "adult rights" and give an example. I don't think drinking would be categorized as an adult right but rather a privilege. I Presume you also think driving a car is a right? That also happens to be a privilege.
Drinking age should remain at 21

I am not stating that drinking alcohol affects our independence. What I am trying to state is when a person turns 18 they are given all adult rights accept for the fact that you cannot drink. In a legal court, if you commit a crime you will be tried as an adult because you are 18. However, how can you be tried as an adult, if you do not actually have full rights? I believe that alcohol is in fact a drug and that the FDA has strict rules over the drinking age. However, the FDA is not enforcing the drinking age. WE all know that 90% of college students drink in large amounts before turning 21. By setting a drinking age as a law, it only makes younger people want to drink before turning 21 instead of just giving them that right to experiment when they turn 18. My opponent states, "Alcohol clearly affects the way we function. An example is how someone's BAC while driving for the most part directly correlates to a higher fatality rate. This is why driving under the influence is illegal." This in fact is not true. A person over 21 is allowed to have a BAC level of 0.08 legally. If an 18 year old driver had any Alcohol in their blood they would be tried as an adult even though they under 21. Bringing me back to my legal court point. http://www.nj.gov...
Drinking age should remain at 21

Alcohol consumption has nothing to do with independence which seems to be the claim to your opening argument. Can you please give me an example of how not drinking or drinking alcohol affects our independence. Alcohol is in fact a drug. The definition of drug can be defined as any substance that is absorbed by a living organism that modifies the way it functions. Alcohol clearly affects the way we function. An example is how someone's BAC while driving for the most part directly correlates to a higher fatality rate. This is why driving under the influence is illegal. The FDA or food and drug regulation is the administration that is responsible for setting the drinking age in America. Americas FDA is very strict which has many more pros but a couple of minor cons. For an example the FDA regulates all American food products. People who work for the FDA constantly run test on all the foods we can possibly find in our local supermarkets. For an example the meat we find in our local supermarkets are packed individually and frozen at a certain temperature to make sure bacteria such as Escherichia coli which is potentially deadly is not found in our food. The reason why I bring up this example is to show how the FDA or at least Americas FDA cares about our general well being. If we go to other countries such as China for example you will not see the meat even packaged. It will actually be sitting on a rack exposed to airborne bacteria as well as potentially deadly bacteria such as Escherichia coli. Once again the FDA cares about our general well being. This is why they have laws passed regarding drugs. This is also why doctors in America are for the most part the only ones who can pass out many types of narcotics. If these narcotics are not taken properly they are potentially harmful to us in a large variety of ways. This is why many of these drugs are not found over the counter. Some of these drugs can be very addictive which essentially makes them deadly. Alcohol can obviously be deadly. It can also create many other problems if consumed at an age where the brain is still developing. People claim an age limit is put on alcohol because the more mature age group can handle its effects. This might in fact be partially true, However I think the age limit restriction is placed to prevent damage to the brain that is not fully developed. Because of the above I think it's safe to say that the FDA has its reasons for putting an age limit on alcohol use. There are many reasons why they are justified in doing so as well which I will get to in the later rounds.