BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Schools in the US should ban junk food.

I would like to point out that as a high school student, I know the teen mind better than my twenty three year old opponent and therefor know what teens are more likely to do. While my opponent argues that it would become inconvenient to the students to stop at stores, this simply isn't so, for in several cities I've been to, and several cities my friends and family live in, there is a CONVENIENCE store right next to the school. So I fail to see how this would be inconvenient. There may be an impact made by banning junk food in schools but it would be so ridiculously minuscule there would be no point in doing so.
Schools in the US should ban junk food.

Haha sorry forgot about this thingy.. anyways.. Okay so you reckon that children will just buy stuff at the store right ? Well after a while of doing that they will get to the stage of not being bothered anymore, you see buying food at school is a lot more convenient than stopping at the store on the way to school. So you will find that a lot less people will be buying their food after a while. I mean to go to the store every day before school will take a lot more effort and from what I know about youth they just cannot be bothered with that effort just for junk food. Sure a few people will make sure they eat junk food - but if banning junk food at schools could help even one person then it would be successful. In reality it's human lives at stake. So you say "Rarely do teens listen to authority. Rarely do children skip a chance to stuff their face with sugar" ?? Well firstly maybe just you are a rebel like that :P But not most kids and by stating that you are simply perpetuating an ill conceived stereotypical viewpoint. Also I disagree with the whole "stuffing their face" idea .. I think in today's society where we know so much more about obesity and also where celebrities are hounded by paparazzi for being "overweight", teens become a lot more conscientious about what they are eating. Lets face it.. You know just as well as I do that banning the sale of junk foods at schools will make a difference. It may be a slight difference or it may be a great one. But even the most incremental of positive changes is worth it. PS: My argument > yours bye =) aha
Schools in the US should ban junk food.

Your assumption is correct. And I have no intention of defining junk food, because this should be quite obvious. Now, I would like to state my case and attack my opponents. It is quite useless to ban junk food in schools as it truly wouldn't solve our problem at all. First off, there seems to be an issue with youth and rebellion. I know. I am young. If schools were to stop selling junk food, many students would indeed bring junk food to school. And so you say parents will be able to monitor what their children are eating. While this is true to an extent, it is also true that many children get an allowance. They could still buy these high sugar and fat goodies from a convenience store without their parents finding out. So nothing will be solved by not selling these goods at school because they would still have them available. Next my opponent says: "And really, what do you need junk food at school for, there are plenty of healthy alternatives which are just as tasty!" Getting a thousand America children and teens to believe that would be difficult. Getting them all to try it would be darn near impossible. Yes, there are healthy, delicious alternatives. But a generation raised on these snacks we have as of now will, for the most part, not be willing to try these alternatives out. My opponent may say I am being ridiculous or closed-minded about today's youth. I would like everyone out there to think for a moment about the children and teens you know. Rarely do teens listen to authority. Rarely do children skip a chance to stuff their face with sugar. Children and teens would go out of their way to get these snacks if they weren't in schools. And so, I stand on the Con side of this resolution. Thank you.
Schools in the US should ban junk food.

So let me break it down.. You guys are fat.No offense.. Face it america has an issue with obesity. Now there isn't any way to adress that issue whilst still allowing pupils to purchase junk food at school. Sure you might say "well the kids will bring junk food from home" , and even if that is the case it will be an improvement over the current situation whereby the kids can buy whatever unhealthy foods they want at school without a parent or caregiver's knowledge. Now, the reason for this change being an improvement is that bringing food from home will allow the parents to monitor what their children are eating, and hopefully they can be responsible enough to disallow their kids from eating "junk" food in excess. In theory, this will greatly decrease the amount of unhealthy foods that children eat, and can go a great way to sorting out the issue with child obesity. And really, what do you need junk food at school for, there are plenty of healthy alternatives which are just as tasty! Frankly obesity is not acceptable in today's society. And as long as schools continue to sell food to the pupils then it will continue. Also, if you want come out and say "well define junk food" and "what would they ban and not ban", just don't. Use your brain and you know whether something is junk food or not - yes a deep fried chocolate bar is in fact not good for you.. Oh yeah, me being in NZ, i assume you mean by "banning" junk food, you mean that the school isn't allowed to sell it to pupils - if I'm wrong in assuming that then just argue against my "incorrect" assumption to be fair..
Once a cheater Always a cheater

There is no denying it, a majority of cheaters never feel bad for the ones they hurt, and the only ones who do only feel bad for a few days Here is proof supporting this: https://www.elitedaily.com... also, all of their reasons to cheat are inexcuseable "i was drunk" People who are drunk always have some way to control yourself, they are still concious, the only thing that drink did was do what the person who got drunk was going to do in the next few weeks "our relithionship was toxic" so why didnt you guys break up? their is no need to have sex with someone else. "i wanted to get back at him" this reason makes them hypocrites for saying that they should forgive them, when they wanted revenge in the first place. "I got tired of having sex with my spouse" ok, so why didn't you just wait a bit, and than have sex with her/him again?
Once a cheater Always a cheater

Thanks for the debate, Pro. It took me all night to read Pro's last round. I'll still respond to Pro's objections. Let's end this. *Responding to Pro* Pro reasons: "Yeah but if you cheat on a math test, you still cheated on a match test. " My response: Aside from the unexplained concept of a "match test" this doesn't make any sense at all within this debate. People who use cheaters on a *math* test are just trying to read the test items more clearly, and this does not make the people themselves a pair of glasses; it makes them resourceful test-takers. Cheaters are a pair of glasses per the accepted definitions of this debate no matter how people perform on tests. Therefore, things that were once cheaters aren't always cheaters, because pairs of glasses can be melted down into other things and Pro never touched on this.
Once a cheater Always a cheater

Thanks for your lengthy response Pro. Pro attempts to use an association fallacy; it didn't go well. I'll use this round to address Pro's 3 sentences. *Responding to Pro* Pro asks: "Technically.... if they are called a cheater, wouldn't they still be a cheater?" My response: I believe Pro is asking about melted down cheaters here despite Pro's ambiguous antecedent. If that's the case, the implication couldn't be further from correct. Cheaters are a pair of glasses, and when melted down, as the picture I provided in the previous round clearly shows, the remaining mound of plastic/glass/metal is not a pair of glasses, thus not called cheaters nor remaining cheaters. Pro gets fallacious: "plus, most cheaters have no spine, and do The glasses have spine? no. so technically, they would still be a cheater." My response: Pro is committing an association fallacy by trying to put melted plastic/glass/metal in the category of cheaters simply because neither the melted amalgamation nor cheaters have spines. The problem is that not having a spine doesn't qualify something as cheaters, or else squids, octopi, and jelly fish would all be a pair of glasses. Sharing one characteristic with members of a group does not make something a part of that group unless that group only has one characteristic, and cheaters have tons of characteristics that make them a pair of glasses. The resolution has been negated because cheaters do not remain cheaters forever.
Once a cheater Always a cheater

Thanks for the debate Pro.I think this topic is rather odd, but if it helps people see clearer, why not discuss it?Truth be told, this topic needs to be seen from a particular lens.It also could use some definitions, which I will supply later.*Cheaters*Look, I get it.Cheaters can hurt you, frustrate you, and leave you downright uncomfortable; they truly can be harmful.It also sort of feels like no matter how much you try to adjust them, they stay the same and just hurt you even more later.I even agree with Pro that cheaters likely never feel bad for the ones they hurt, but, then again, who cares?They don't actually have feelings themselves...they're cheaters for cryin' out loud!I think the problem is really that some people don't see things clearly and thus are more likely to be with cheaters in the first place. This then makes those individuals likelier to be hurt by cheaters more than once.Over and over again, instead of exploring other options, these people instinctually reach for the cheaters they're used to having with them all of the time, and, since these cheaters aren't a good fit for these people, the cheaters end up causing some minor trauma.This is the vicious cycle people with ill-fitted cheaters experience.It's sad because just having a little bit better vision could solve all of it; no cheaters necessary, right?*Remaining Cheaters*The good news is that harmful cheaters do not forever remain cheaters, especially after setting them on fire and melting them down!In about 10-15 seconds after putting them into a large fire pit, the cheaters begin to melt and you can watch everything from their outsides to their insides burn and singe, and then slowly watch their overall structure gradually fade away, negating their existence as cheaters for all future time.What's left from the fire is a mound of hydrocarbons and silica that can be a doorstop, a paperweight, a crude representation of Jaba the Hutt, an eccentric piece of jewelry, or a kid's toy, but this lump cannot be considered cheaters. *Conclusion*Therefore, contrary to the resolution, cheaters are not always cheaters...they can be melted down into other things.Definitionsonce - at some time in the past.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...cheater (cheaters) - a pair of glasses.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...always - for all future time; forever.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Roblox is way better than Minecraft

Roblox is more fun because: 1. More physics. 2. More Items and gadgets 3. Can have up to 20-50 players in 1 server 4. Different Games in every server 5. You can create games 6.More monsters like Slenderman, Jack the killer, Mummies and many many more. 7. You could be the monster. 8. More friends to be explore. 9. You can dress up your virtual player. 10. You can create more. 11. Crop pictures of you and place it in your game
The term "allah" was also used by the pre-islamic pagans to refer to their moon god.

Muslims claim that Allah is a generic term that just means God in Arabic. They claim that Allah was ALWAYS the biblical God and that Islam just continued and perfected Judaism & Christianity with the same God. This claim of continuity is profoundly important in their attempts to convert people and to legitimize their faith. Many Muslims cite that Christian Arabs call God Allah, so this is proof that Allah is a title or word, NOT a name. They claim this was always what they called Allah and even try to claim that Allah is mentioned in the Bible. In the ancient Middle East, people were predominantly pagans; they worshiped a moon god, among many others. The word for god in Arabic is "ilah." Archaeologists have unearthed many temples to the moon god, as this was the most widespread religion in that part of the world. The crescent moon was the symbol of this moon god. This same symbol is still used today. The moon god had many names, the most prominent of which was "Sin." Remnants describing this god have been found throughout Mesopotamia (Sumeria, etc.) The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Akkadians also worshiped Sin. Sin married the sun goddess and had daughters and sacrifices were constantly made to them. The title of the highest god, the moon god, was "Al-ilah" or "Allah." Pagan Arabs even used the name in their children's names, ex. Abdullah. Mohammad's father's name was Abdullah or "slave of Allah." Clearly, Allah was the name of a pagan god long BEFORE Islam was established. The most popular deity in Mohammad's birthplace, Mecca, was Hubal. This is a variation of the sun god "Baal" who is referenced in the Bible and detested as a pagan deity. Baal is also known as "Beelzebub" or "Satan," a coincidence worth noting. Hubal, the Meccan moon god, was the MAIN god among 360 others. The Qur'an does not mention Hubal but speaks of 3 daughters attributed to Allah: Al-Lat (the feminine version of Allah,) Al-Uzza, and Manat. The moon god of the Arab world was always known to have daughters, but the Qur'an chastises the pagan Arabs for attributing daughters to Allah specifically. Since the Qur'an claims that the pagans credited Allah with 3 daughters, Allah had to have been a specific god and could not have just meant "The God." Ergo, Hubal and Allah WERE one and same god. The Qur'an NEVER warns against worshiping Hubal, so why did Mohammad stop short of warning the new Muslims of worshiping Hubal, who was their greatest pagan god? Because he needed the pagans to follow him in his new religion: Islam.
Rinnegan is better than Sharingan

Now to refute my opponents points, and to backup my previous and new ones. First, to back up my old ones and refute his refutations. My opponent says, "The first and foremost problem is the fact that Kabuto Yakushi and Orochimaru were simply hypothesizing that the Rinnegan is an evolution of the Sharingan; thus, it is not actually possible to determine if the Rinnegan is an evolved form of Sharingan [1]. " However, I would like to say that, Madara Uchiha himself said that the Sharingan transformed into the Rinnegan, so why are you disputing this? It has been proved as my link below states. . http://www.mangahere.com..., and. http://www.mangahere.com.... If you read carefully then you will see that Madara states that his Sharingan did evolve or transform into the Rinnegan, thus making it more powerful. Then my opponent states that evolution won't work the same way in both worlds, but if you look at it, evolution is the same no matter if it is our world, Naruto's world, or any other world. Therefore, evolution would work the same. As for the fact of using/copying any Jutsu, you can use any Jutsu with the Sharingan, but if I absorb it all with the Rinnegan to render it useless, then what would you do? Hand to hand combat? No because I then grab you and take your charkra that way. it is a no win situation. This by the way is if the Rinnegan is only in one body, or six. Plus factor in the Planetary Devastation. if you somehow manage to survive it, you would be very tired and weakened. I admit going back to look at the information I was wrong about any dead. my opponent is correct on the fact the Rinnegan user has to kill them to bring them back to life. And controlling the tailed beast, I doubt that the Sharingan can control five bijuu formed tailed beast at the same time. The Rinnegan however can. . http://www.mangahere.com....The Sharingan can not beat the Rinnegan because of its unknown true abilities, and able to suck charkra by touch or if you send it at the person. Therefore it is a absolute attack and defence. (see above)Again, the EMS is nothing more than a Mangekyou Sharingan as my opponent states above. "the Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan is not much different from the other two. "Additional Rinnegan Abilities: the Rinnegan has the ability to suck up the charkra of a opponent, and to revive another person, summon any animal, make it's body any weapon, the Almighty Push, and suck the soul out of someone. so if you think the Sharingan can defeat an opponent of this caliber, when only a touch can suck charkra out, will win, then you are mistaken.
Rinnegan is better than Sharingan

Now to get to business. Since all my opponent did was list the abilities of the sharingan and eternal mangekyo sharingan, I cant challenge anything since it is correct to the best of my knowledge. Now for my arguments. The rinnegan is an evolution of the sharingan. After kabuto revived the real madara uchiha, madara revealed that after his battle with the first hokage, his sharingan was able to evolve into the rinnegan. If the rinnegan is not more powerful, why did it evolve? The rinnegan was also a know kekki genkai of the sage of the six paths himself. He was well known for using the rinnegan, and using it to control the ten tail bijuu. Next, the sharingan was created by the sage, for the uchiha clan. Its abilities far outstrip the sharingan. Sure you can copy jutsu's, and see movements before they happen, but this is small compared to the rinnegan. The rinnegan can create any jutsu without limitations. For example when pein (nagato), brought Kakashi back to life. it also allows the user to better control the tailed beast. with the Sharingan, you can, but with the Rinnegan, it is complete control. an example of this is when Tobi first fought the fourth Hokage, (Minato,) once Minato placed the seal on Tobi, he lost control of the Kyuubi. But Naruto on the other hand, removed the spikes, and through the Rinnegan Tobi still had control over the tailed beast, proving the Rinnegan is better than the Sharingan. Then lets take the Six paths of Pein. by doing this, you make it not only harder to beat the Rinnegan because of the linked vision, but also by sheer numbers. For example, Sage Jaryia, one of the legendary Sannin, couldn't beat Pein because he didn't know his full abilities. Naruto wouldn't of beat him either if Jaryia hadn't left him clues and messages. this is the only reason Naruto won, so you think Sharingan can. I got more for the next round.
Atheists do not understand the Bible

First, I'd like to point out that I've already made mistakes. I failed to read the introduction PM sent to me automatically because I did not see the icon. Because I did not see the icon, I didn't format my argument correctly or provide evidence. I will make blunt mistakes like this to come, but this does not give my opponent a reason to be easy on me. I also would like to apologize for being so late to reply. As you see, most of the debate time has been consumed by my delay and we will most likely not reach round 5. There were several setbacks, none of which I could do anything about. With that aside, I'd like to present sources for my information- Frank Zappa quote- http://www.positiveatheism.org... Cosmic Jewish Zombie copypasta- https://www.google.com... Parentheses 1- Almost anywhere with atheists on the internet (dearly sorry, most of the links I had evaporated) Not a zombie- The Holy Bible, Luke 12, John 20-21 Not magical- The Holy Bible, Genesis 3 Thank you for replying. The following is my response- I do not believe that saying that atheists do not understand the Bible is a generalization, but a statement such as "all black people are of African descent", however much less obvious or objectional it may be. I did, in fact, have a link with a huge scary text wall of proofs, but I lost it. I will continue looking for it and if I find it will post it in the comment section. As for divinity, you are correct. I used that word for lack of a better one. But whatever nationality God is, my point still stands- Jesus was only half-Jewish. While some "Christians" do believe things that are against what the Bible says or not in the Bible, this should be regarded as "non-canonical", as it is not supported by anything. While the Bible does discuss slavery, it does not condone it. Your [5] is ridiculous, as the Bible says "Thou shalt not kill". I don't recall anywhere in the Bible where God says to kill someone. Thank you for taking the time to read my (probably flawed) response.
Atheists do not understand the Bible

My opponent has forfeited due to a faulty internet connection. I understand that the forfeit is not due to poor conduct and therefore he should not lose the conduct score, in my opinion. Since no arguments are given in this round, I will start to refute his earlier arguments. "(By the way, atheists are constantly doing things they accuse the church of doing, such as murder, libel, bigotry, not complying with scientific laws. They also believe that they are "scientifically correct", when the smallest bit of research hints toward Christianity. This further implies that atheists are delusional.)"Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. [1]My opponent has not proven this argument, and for the "murder" part, one criminal believing a specific belief does not mean everyone believing the belief is a criminal. Therefore this argument holds no water. And society and churches are utterly commiting bigotry against atheists. "Disturbingly, Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," despite being only 3% of the U.S. population according to Dr. Edgell, associate sociology professor and the lead researcher in the project." [2] Scientific evidence may point towards a religion, but religions are not scientific theories waiting to be proved right. Plus, this statement can be turned around and say that whenever scientific evidence points towards evolution, creationists will take quot from scientists out of context. (They have done it , with the "absurd in highest degree" quote) [3] ,which is just as fallacious. Original quote: To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.-- Charles Darwin"Atheists, according to my experience, resort to insults when stalemated, checkmated or proven wrong."Let's see.. insults I used so far in this debate: 0.Insults used by my opponent: 0. Thanks to my opponent for this debate.[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]http://atheists.org...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...