BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Curb childhood Obesity for USA

I would like to start my debate off with some statistics from: "http://www.annecollins.com...; USA Obesity Rates Reach Epidemic Proportions >more than a third of American children, aged between six and nineteen are either overweight, or at risk of becoming obese >58 Million Overweight; 40 Million Obese; 3 Million morbidly Obese >Eight out of ten over 25 is Overweight >78% of American's not meeting basic activity level recommendations Obesity Related Diseases >80% of type II diabetes related to obesity >70% of Cardiovascular disease related to obesity >42% breast and colon cancer diagnosed among obese individuals >30% of gall bladder surgery related to obesity >26% of obese people having high blood pressure Childhood Obesity Running Out of Control >New study suggests one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes (impaired glucose intolerance) >Between 8% - 45% of newly diagnosed cases of childhood diabetes are type II, associated with obesity. >Of Children diagnosed with Type II diabetes, 85% are obese >60% already have one risk factor for heart disease -Wellness International Network Ltd. web.winltd.com The United States of America Is the fattest country in the world, and obesity is becoming a rising epidemic. Children need to be more involved in school activities. and need to eat right to stay healthy. Parents contribute to this rise in weight, they should control what their children eat, not vice versa. This increase in School activities would cost millions of dollars, but isn't it worth it for protecting our youth? Lunch programs are being paid by Farmers and big companies to provide their products in school. Also, companies are making millions by selling food to children that are high in saturated fats and trans fat which cause major health problems in children. therefore, be it resolved, >that the National School Lunch program should shift it's focus from aiding farmers to providing a nutritious lunch for students. therefore be it resolved. >That commercials should exlude characters (ex.Lucky Charm) that seem appealing to youngsters >That schools should include more activities and teach children that these foods are bad for them, and should be taken in small quantities.
Curb childhood Obesity for USA

My following evidence has come from: I) "http://www.mayoclinic.com...; II) "http://www.whitehouse.gov...; I would like to start off talking about the causes and risk factors of Obesity in children. then on to prevention and how to lower the obesity rate. I) Causes of obesity: ". some genetic and hormonal causes . most excess weight is caused by kids eating too much and exercising too little . Children, unlike adults, need extra nutrients and calories to fuel their growth and development. So if they consume the calories needed for daily activities, growth and metabolism, they add pounds in proportion to their growth. But children who eat more calories than needed gain weight beyond what's required to support their growing bodies." II) Risk Factors ". DIET -Regular consumption of high-calorie foods, such as fast foods, baked goods and vending machine snacks, contribute to weight gain. High-fat foods are dense in calories. Loading up on soft drinks, candy and desserts also can cause weight gain. Foods and beverages like these are high in sugar and calories. Inactivity. Sedentary kids are more likely to gain weight because they don't burn calories through physical activity. Inactive leisure activities, such as watching television or playing video games, contribute to the problem. . GENETICS -If your child comes from a family of overweight people, he or she may be genetically predisposed to put on excess weight, especially in an environment where high-calorie food is always available and physical activity isn't encouraged. . PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS- Some children overeat to cope with problems or to deal with emotions, such as stress or boredom. Their parents may have similar tendencies. Family factors. Most children don't shop for the family's groceries. Indeed, parents are responsible for putting healthy foods in the kitchen at home and leaving unhealthy foods in the store. You can't blame your kids for being attracted to sweet, salty and fatty foods; after all they taste good. But you can control much of their access to these foods, especially at home. . SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS -Children from low-income backgrounds are at greater risk of becoming obese. Poverty and obesity often go hand in hand because low-income parents may lack the time and resources to make healthy eating and exercise a family priority." III) "Childhood obesity is a costly problem for the country. It puts stress on American families. The US needs to put on an interesting series of ads encouraging children to exercise. One way for this nation to cope with the issue of obesity is to get people outside -- whether it be through sports or hiking or conservation. We should encourage parents to encourage their children to participate in the great outdoors. Healthy diet choices should also be discussed. That is one great way to get people outside."
Curb childhood Obesity for USA

My opponent agrees with me that obese people are being discriminated against, that the cause IS because of their surroundings, (like I have mentioned) but he also said that we should not help them. Sir, I would like to point out that many children are being affected by this disorder and the effects that come with it such as: >Type 2 (non-insulin dependent) diabetes (an autoimmune disease that results in destruction of insulin-producing beta cells of the pancreas.) >Cardiovascular disease >Stroke >Hypertension (high blood pressure) >hypothyroidism (caused by insufficient production of thyroid hormone by the thyroid gland.) >Dyslipidemia (a disruption in the amount of lipids in the blood.) >Hyperinsulinemia (where excess levels of circulating insulin are in the blood) >Insulin resistance (the condition in which normal amounts of insulin are inadequate to produce a normal insulin response from fat, muscle and liver cells.) >Glucose intolerance >Congestive heart failure >Angina pectoris >Cholecystitis >Cholelithiasis >Osteoarthritis >Gout (a disease created by a build up of uric acid. In this condition, crystals of monosodium urate or uric acid are deposited on the articular cartilage of joints, tendons and surrounding tissues. These crystals cause inflammation and pain, both severe. If unchecked, the crystals form tophi, which can cause significant tissue damage. Gout results from a combination of elevated concentrations of uric acid and overall acidity in the bloodstream.) >Fatty liver disease >Sleep apnea and other respiratory problems >Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) >Fertility complications >Pregnancy complications >Psychological disorders >Uric acid nephrolithiasis (kidney stones) >Stress urinary incontinence >Cancer of the kidney, endometrium, breast, colon and rectum, esophagus, prostate and gall bladder Not all, but most of these will result in a painful death, and sir, you stated "Why should we help them...?" If we don't help our children prevent these treacherous diseases and conditions, who will? Not the media! in fact, they are contributing to diseases. but that's a whole different debate for a whole different time. Not the government- they have caused more problems than they have solved we have to attack one of the main sources: Schools! As I stated before "schools contribute to this growing epidemic when they limit food sources to saturated fats." We need to gather parents and school administrators and warn them of this disease that is growing before America's eyes. We need to donate money to raise awareness in health classes and we need to raise the number of Physical workouts everyday.
Religion is the source of peace.

Evidently, not all people participating in the wars knew about economic and other reasons. As for authorities initiating this wars the main aim was money, ordinary people sought the Paradise after death. This way people killed each other and did not even feel guilty, as the religion allegedly justified their actions. Perhaps, if the warriors had known what they are fighting for and what suffering are they bringing to the world they would not have followed their stale leaders. In this case religion was misused in order to deceive people and cause a conflict.
Religion is the source of peace.

There are different situations, as the ones where a person is far away from a church, anyways my speech is about general cases, the number of general cases is much higher than the number of special cases. However, there is still an argument which supports my position. Even though religion usually justifies wars, as if they were started because of it, most wars are started for territorial gain or economic reasons. For example situations in Arabian countries often caused because of terrorists who appear to be Muslims. However, there are many other terrorists who attack peaceful places and nobody cares about them as much. Maybe the reason for it is the lack of oil. It is well known that Arabian territory is rich with oil and is a strong competitor to the United States. It is a great reason to pressure these countries using Muslim terrorists as a reason. As I mentioned before, religion is about peace and positiveness, about spending the life right. This is why it cannot persuade people to kill other people.
Religion is the source of peace.

If a person gets seriously hurt it is physically very unlikely that he will be near a Church or a Mosque at that moment. There are Mosques, Churches and other religious institutions almost everywhere, however, the number of starving people in the world is still very high. Religious institutions may provide people with food and shelter. But where this suffering and poverty come from?? They are caused by the wars in the name of religion!! The positive economic impact of religion is very minor compared to the losses it brings to society.
Religion is the source of peace.

Places like mosques or churches always help people to survive in all ways. Mentally " when people have problems with their families or any concerns of what is right and what is wrong, they easily can go to a church or a mosque. The God"s servants as priests listen to suffered people carefully and try to give them wise suggestions. Physically " in situations when a person got in a fight and got hurt, he also can go for example, to a mosque. He will receive medicine and other supplements in order to feel easier and better. Economically " while a human is having financial problems and cannot afford any food, he can go to the holy place and ask for it. There a priest can give him some meal and treat him well. People who strongly believe in religion are always happy to help others. This is another way of how the religion can bring people to peace.
Religion is the source of peace.

I would like to return to holy books, for example the Bible. Commandments from it are used as the basis of Western legal and ethical systems. What teaches us the tolerance for people of other races and religions is the religion. I will use my personal experience as a strong argument on order to show that religion is the was for peace. When I was in the United States I have met many people. All of them were different and individual. However, majority of them who went and did the church activities seemed more kind and polite. They would care about person's feeling and try not hurt him. People who took part in religion were also more positive and passion.
Religion is the source of peace.

Theocratic states often become totalitarian regimes, where people even do not have a voice, where the authorities are all-powerful and can do anything to the folk. A system where the government is right even if its wrong, just because it was allegedly appointed by God cannot be right. A state where people do not have any freedom of speech, of thought and any right to express their disagreement with the actions of the government will make all its citizens unhappy. So religion is contradictory in its essence and it is too evident, that it is being used as a tool co control people not as means of self-improvement. On the other hand, such examples from the history like the Reformation in Germany in 1519-1521 and also the recent events in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan speak against the stability of theocratic regimes. Finally, if read the world history it is very striking that the vast majority of wars were launched because of religion.
Religion is the source of peace.

The religion is always connected with human's spirit. How he or she should spend lives. When everyone follows religion it affects not only the society, but also the economic and stability states. For example the theocratic states like Iran prove that religion can be valid source of political strength. Countries which are not theocratic seem to be much less stable, because presidents or in other words leaders of the governments are not viewed as if they were appointed by God. Political stability in theocratic countries later lead to economic welfare, which is the second plus for religion.
Religion is the source of peace.

Religion is rather source of conflict than of a peace for several reasons. First of all, people have always been using it in order to justify their brutal actions. There is too much space for controversy in almost all the religious books which lead to conflicts between people who misunderstand each other. There is a plenty of examples for it in the history of the humankind such as Christian Crusades, Inquisition and terrorist acts in the name of Religion.
Religion is the source of peace.

Religion has always been one of the most influential forces in the world. It has been a force for peace. Anytime person feels not confident about the action he is going to do, he can easily look up in the holy books for the answer. These book are like roots of trees give people the start. As they are used to teach humans the right way to live the life, they are person's main teachers. This is why religion is the strongest force that can influence people not harming them physically. Great example of people who used religion as a good source to put people on the right way are Martin Luther King Junior or Mahatma Gandhi.
Corporal punishment on children by thier parents.

Parents should use corporal punishment on their children because children start off life with almost no knowledge as to what is good for them. They have instincts to be fed and physically comfortable, and demand attention. These are all good and ensure survival. But once the child reaches an age when they can act on their own, they retain the drive to get what they want to be comfortable, but lack discernment between what appears to be beneficial, and what actually is. For instance, tactile discovery is essential for development, but grabbing wires or a hot surface, or a wasp, or the cat's tail, or sticking of the fingers into electrical sockets, or eating a cigarette butt may be harmful beyond what should be allowed in trial-and-error exploration. If the child just wants to lick a bar of soap as an experiment, that might be considered tolerable because they would likely quickly refuse to do so in the future with no serious physical side effects. For those things that would result in serious injury, a slap on the hand is a good substitute for electrocution or a wasp sting. The same point gets across to the child, (doing that results in pain) but the physical harm is not permanent. The same thing applies to older children, but more often for behavioral reasons than to avoid physical harm. A slap on the bottom after stealing from another kid on the playground should instill psychological disincentive toward stealing now, rather than trying to retrain an adult who robs a house who never got the lesson. Or worse, the untrained, selfish adult steals and gets into a lethal altercation during a robbery, or is incarcerated for a long time.
Corporal punishment on children by thier parents.

WheezySquash8 voted in my poll that I should debate this topic. The poll's not over yet, so jump in if you want. There won't necessarily be 1 winner. http://www.debate.org... I am taking the position that corporal punishment is an effective and non-detrimental way of disciplining children, by their parents, as long as the reason for discipline is correct, punishment is proportionate, and no permanent physical harm is done. (Spanking with hand or switch, etc.) If the challenged does not wish to accept, this will turn open.
Smoking Ban is a necessary law.

FrameworkPro clearly drops my arguments totally, and concedes them. I will be putting my defense, and rebuttals. Remember, BoP is shared to both of us. Pro says that Con's arguments outweigh Pro's, which is a concession, and he also agrees to all of my points made in the debate. DefenseOkay, my defense will be really short because Pro has agreed to all my points.1. EconomyPro does not explain about what happens if we ban smoking, says that he agrees to my point that if smoking is banned, the economy will turn worse. Pro fails to explain to rebut how the consequences will be when there is the smoking ban, of the economy getting worser, destructs the whole country.2. Liberty, SolutionPro also concedes to this point also. He says that a person is allowed to make his own descicion. That was what my whole liberty point was about, and he concedes it. I will tell about the solution. My solution is that we ban smoking in public places, and home is not a public place. We also make smoking zones where smoking is allowed. Pro says this loses money. However, if we ban smoking, it loses more money that this. Therefore, making a smoking zone is much more helpful, and costs less money.3. DependencyPro does not explain this in his first point. Pro says just the ban of smoking should happen. Pro fails to explain the connsequences of the jobs lost in this act like all the tobacco farms. This is a dropped argument. Extend my arguments, vote for Con. RebuttalsOkay, I will go into my rebuttals.1. Smoking kills youOkay, Pro's first argument is that smoking kills you. He explains that Smoking is dangerous when inhaled, and gives stress. However, there is a easy way to rebut this argument. Don't people have the right of choice? People want t smoke, that is why they are doing it. We cannot take the liberty for people if they do not harm any others. This is the harm principle, that we can do things that does not harm others. Secondhand impact gets rebutted by my solution, so then there is no harm, making there no reason for the government to take our choices. I thank my opponent for the fun debate. Onto the next round!
Smoking Ban is a necessary law.

I apologise for any grammatical or spelling mistakes. As you can see in the below link , the cons of tobacco use clearly outweigh the pros. http://www.instah.com...1. As for the economy , I agree that a quite a lot percentage is made up by the tobacco industry. That is precisely why it must be stopped . Perhaps they ( they govt. or any other company) could find a non harmful way smoking cigarettes, maybe replacing the tobacco with something else. As you have taken my position before, I hope you understand. I agree that if smoking is banned, then the economy may go into recession, therefore I suggest a gradual decrease in use and manufacture of tobacco/ cigarettes. This can only be done if a fitting replacement is provided. 2 and 3. I agree with this point also. A person is allowed to make his own decision. But not if it adversely affects him and more importantly, others. Con has suggested banning smoking in public spaces. I agree. But then you are permitting them to smoke in their homes and houses, which contain other family members, which affects them too. WHen you pay money to get into a 'smoking zone' , one kind of loses the charm of getaway from stress and tension. Then these become another zones which have reduced police surveillance .. therefore it leads to increase in betting or any other illegal casino like activities. 4. As I have written in the 1st point, a fitting replacement such as nicotine patch or an unharmful combination of nicotine patch and cigarette must be provided. Whose manufacturing can be taken up by the previously cigarette manufacturing companies. So no jobs will be lost. And if the non harmful replacement is used, then no need to make 'smoking zones'. Just the ban of tobacco needs to take place.Even if a govt. makes a smoking ban law, people will find a way to get around it, they will find loops in the law, which will make them impervious to the police. The main goal here is to reduce the consumption of tobacco and cigarettes. The messages before, during and after movies and films, isn't enough. By banning tobacco/ cigarettes, the smokers who think of themselves as lawful people will stop smoking and might opt for a patch. Therefore smoking/tobacco/cigarettes/cigars must be banned worldwide.
Smoking Ban is a necessary law.

A smoking ban is very much necessary. I have no idea why it isn't already in place? You know some people contest that it's the person's wish if he or she wants to smoke or not. But I just don't get it. Smoking kills you. Doesn't matter if you need combat stress or tension. And smoking is more dangerous if passively inhaled... That's another important point where there should be a ban on smoking. If they really want to get some kind of relief, let them get some nicotine patch or any other 'legal' means to relieve themselves. The government has a duty to look after its people's well being. And I believe that banning smoking is best for the population and the world.