BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

I have to disagree, because civilization is exactly what brought to where it is today. Yes, there are a lot of negative effects of this, yet humans are now thriving, we live longer and feel better because of medicine. 10,000 years ago, we turned to the gods to heal ourselves. Now we turn to science. (I want to clear something however, I do believe in God. I just think that advances in science have created a better lifestyle for us and a species.) Also, I'd like to put something else here. We adapted. We didn't evolve, we adapted and used our environment to our use to help ourselves survive.
Civilization (towns, cities, settlements) is the proper way for man to live.

I argue that Civilizations are not the proper way for man to live. The birth of civilization was in the fertile crescent about 11,000 years ago. During an event called the "agricultural revolution". I will argue that before this revolution mankind lived in peace and harmony with each other and his environment. I will also argue that the agricultural revolution never ended at all, with hardship and division as well as innovation and power being things intrinsic due to the nature of the revolution. Not only was man not naturally inclined to build civilization, it has widely been regarded as a bad move.
I am a bad debater

"The two best debaters in the history of the world could have their first debate against each other, you are right, one of them would lose. But they would not know they are the best debaters after their first debate. The loser would still be a bad debater at the time because it was his or her first debate and would not have any experience. " This assumes that the only experience possible would have to be online debating. Real-life debating, or anything to do with language in general, would constitute as experience for debate. My opponent has not mentioned anything about his experience outside of this site, so we shall assume that he has had ample experience, as he has the burden of proof. Nothing else that my opponent said was relevant to the resolution. In conclusion, losing one debate does not make somebody a bad debater, so my opponent is not a bad debater.
I am a bad debater

The two best debaters in the history of the world could have their first debate against each other, you are right, one of them would lose. But they would not know they are the best debaters after their first debate. The loser would still be a bad debater at the time because it was his or her first debate and would not have any experience. Not being able to prove anything or not providing proof makes your topic would make it susceptible to anyone to be able to prove you wrong and you would not be able to rebut it. If you don't have evidence, your claims should be considered invalid and therefore, don't count and aren't true. Sorry Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but you guys wrote some serious bull$hit. (I can't say that either?) On a last note, legible means able to read, as in, my handwriting is illegible. My handwriting is illegible, that's how I know what the word means. I almost forgot to mention that for those of you who aren't religous nuts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are some of the authors of the new testament.
I am a bad debater

My opponent still thinks that having no wins makes one a bad debater. This is false. If two of the greatest debaters had their first debates against each other, one of them would lose, but that would not make that person bad. Being a liar does not make one a bad debater, either. Being unable to prove what cannot be proven also does not make one a bad debater. Typing an argument in Microsoft Word for the grammar check makes one a good debater, because it shows that that person cares about making his sentences legible. In conclusion, my opponent is not a bad debater.
I am a bad debater

With that argument, my opponent should win this debate. That would make me a bad debater because I have participated in a debate and never won one. If you look at that leaderboard of yours, everyone on it has already won a debate. I have not. My win percentage is 0.00 and that makes me a terrible debater. I don't know how I can prove this, but I had to google the word "paradox". I also had to type my argument into Microsoft Word and grammar check it. I hate reading grammatically incorrect sentences and I figured that you would too. I am a bad debater because I am a liar. I knew what the word paradox meant. I'm not using any sources to back up any of my claims and I can't prove squat. Mongeese just saw an oppurtunity to kick some n00bs a$$ and sniped it. I am not a good debater and look forward to losing this debate.
I am a bad debater

My opponent thinks that he is a bad debater, when in fact, he is a fairly good debater. For one thing, he's using his English properly, which puts him above a large number of people on this site. For another, this is his first debate, and he's already setting up an "I will lose this debate" paradox. That's clever. One misconception that my opponent has made, however, is that a person who loses a debate must be a bad debater. This is false. Losing one debate does not make one bad. Just look at the leaderboard [1]. Every single person on the front page has lost at least one debate. In conclusion, my opponent is not a bad debater, because he isn't talking in "leet speak," and he's clever enough to set up a paradox. 1. http://www.debate.org...
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

San Francisco is the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children. The same type of law is gaining momentum in New York. I will be taking the position of con in this debate which will consist of 4 rounds. Round 1 is for acceptance of this debate. Round 2 is for opening statements and for arguments to be presented. Round 3 is to address arguments made in the previous round. Round 4 is for closing statements. The definition of an unhealthy restaurant meal is is a meal that contains more than 600 calories, does not contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

Thank you for your comments, Con. I assure you that Happy Meal toys are more likely to draw kids' attention than Tony the Tiger. Also, dollar store items cost a dollar. If you buy a Happy Meal instead, you get a free toy with yummy food. The parents should be responsible for what children want, but it makes no difference to the fact that the children want it and ask for it often. Some parents are more likely to give in. This bill was created to stop the skyrocketing childhood obesity rates. If these rates keep growing at the pace it is already at, the world will be filled with unhealthy people. . http://www.livestrong.com... . http://www.google.com... Some scientists even believe that this could be the first generation where parents outlive their children. Obese children are likely to have hypertension, high cholesterol, type two diabetes, and metabolic syndrome. Parents should be responsible for their children's eating habits, but some don't know the dangers. 96% of children recognize Ronald McDonald, second only to Santa Claus. Why shouldn't they? So many advertisements have been made featuring the mascot, it's hard to keep track.
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

The San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban is nothing more than politicians telling private business what they cannot do while yet again attempting to tell irresponsible parents how to raise they're children. My opponent's stance corroborates my statements as her entire argument is based on "what kids want" while she dismisses the responsibility of the parents. Politicians claim that this law will force children and parents alike to make healthier eating choices yet the main reason while people who live in lower income areas purchase the "unhealthy" food to begin with is due to the price, not the toys that are provided with the meal. Banning toys with the food does not provide a viable deterrent. At the end of the day, it is not children who make the purchase, it is the parent and government does not have a right to deem eating establishments as unhealthy. That right is reserved for the paying public. This law sets a dangerous precedent as government can simply decide that a private establishment is a danger to children's health and dictate how the establishment can market themselves. There is nothing to stop government from stating that Tony The Tiger makes kids want to eat Frosted Flakes so Tony The Tiger should no longer be allowed as Frosted Flakes are bad for children and leads to obesity.
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

It's really just a matter of parental responsibility. If children walk up to the candy isle and ask for a gigantic bag of sugary sweets, it should be the parent's responsibility to say no. Unhealthy restaurants disguise their fatty, sugary food with small delights for children. It's unhealthy for our children and it's unnecessary to trick them by giving toys with a very unhealthy meal. I do agree that parents have the ability to make a decision if they want to let their kids eat unhealthy meals, and the government should not take control here. But it isn't just the parents. The kids ask for it. A study at Yale proved that 40 of children between the ages of two and eleven ask to go to McDonald's every week. We don't want the children in our country to become obese and unhealthy. Toys lure them in to unhealthy restaurants. It is true that McDonald's offers apple fries, but it's only a way to lead the kids to REAL fries. Anyway, not many kids want to substitute a salty treat for apple slices. Also, the apples are served with sugary caramel, making it almost equally unhealthy. The main problem, though, is the parents. Examples: "Maybe just this one time..." "Ok, but this is all of your dinner. Alright?" "Fine, but get the small fries..." These are promises that don't usually stay true. Sources: http://sundial.csun.edu...
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

"First, did you know that one out of three toys given to a child is from a fast food restaurant? The above statement equates to 66% off all toys are not given to a child from fast food restaurants. "Sure, it's a cheap and easy way to give a child something to play with, but is it really how people should live?" There are much cheaper ways for a parent to purchase a toy for their child other than getting it with food at a restaurant. For example, a parent could simply walk into a dollar store and purchase a toy. With regard to how people should live, it's simply a matter of opinion. How we choose to live is within our rights, just as long as we don't break the law. The issue with this law is that the government is stepping in and taking choice away. Additionally, this sets a dangerous precedent. The government stepped in and created a law based on opinion. An opinion that restaurants who provide toys with "unhealthy" food are to blame for childhood obesity. "But when the child sees the item advertising a new movie, they won't want to see the movie. They'll just want the toy." The child may or may not want to see the movie or may want the toy because the child saw the movie and liked it. Again, just because the child wants something doesn't mean the parent must make the purchase. "A good restaurant deemed unhealthy will improve its menu instead of arguing." Since it's apparent that McDonald's was the target of this law, I will use McDonald's menu to prove my point.[1] When you go to McDonald's and purchase a Happy Meal, you have the option of replacing the French fries with apples slices and can get a milk as a beverage. This total calorie intake for this meal is a little over 300 calories but still wouldn't pass the test as 35% of the fat intake comes from the nuggets. [2] Also, who has the right to deem any privately operated restaurant as unhealthy? It seems that politicians don't have a problem with the toys in as much as they have a problem with fast food restaurants. Many politicians complain that fast food restaurants are plentiful in poor black and Hispanic neighborhoods and the people who live in these neighborhoods opt for fast food because it's cheap and inexpensive. [2] So how does banning toys that comes with cheap, inexpensive food stop parents in these neighborhoods from buying the food and feeding it to their children as it's cheap and inexpensive? The answer is it doesn't. This law is simply a way for government to dictate what parents feed to their children as parents seems to be too dumb to make the decision on their own. What's next, a law being passed that will prevent supermarkets from having a candy aisle because children will make their parents purchase candy? "Candy aisles in supermarkets are undermining the way parents raise their children and is contributing to childhood obesity." states the next politician. How about a law that states that toys can no longer be advertised on television? I now pass the debate to my opponent. SOURCES [1]http://www.mcdonalds.com... [2]http://www.csmonitor.com...
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

I like your views. First, did you know that one out of three toys given to a child is from a fast food restaurant? Sure, it's a cheap and easy way to give a child something to play with, but is it really how people should live? The children see toys on commercials, and automatically want them. You see, the toys are given to McDonald's and Burger King and all the other restaurants for advertising. But when the child sees the item advertising a new movie, they won't want to see the movie. They'll just want the toy. If it's an unhealthy restaurant, it doesn't deserve to give toys. A good restaurant deemed unhealthy will improve its menu instead of arguing.
San Francisco Fast Food Toy Ban Bill

Sometimes the children think of the toy as something more important than the food itself, no matter how unhealthy. Regardless of what a child thinks it's up to the parent to decide. When a television commercial airs and the child screams that he or she wants the next best toy, is it for the child to decide to make the purchase or is it the parent that makes the purchase? What's next? Will government next tell restaurants that they must refuse to honor an obese persons order and suggest an alternative because they meal is high in fat? I've never in my life seen an 8 years old, get into his car, drive to McDonald's, go inside and order a happy meal. I now pass to my opponent.
Should the cadets chose staff or should the SNSI, NSI decide

I am actually two team commanders but i am CO first. Team commanders do not have a say outside there department. Usually team commanders are in those leadership positions to prepare them for additional leadership rolls. There skills are in trial if you want to talk about favoritism they would be technically choosing themselves for these positions. Now i do see where you are coming from but the purpose of the SNSI and NSI is to guide and to mentor the cadets, for the most part NJROTC is to be a totally cadet based and run operation. Meaning that the SNSI and NSI are supposed to step in only when necessary, therefore they should have some say but not to where the current staff are no longer making the decision. For example if there is a cadet who does not wear there uniform, disrespectful there failing classes, and they are considering them for an advancement to CO, XO or OPS or something along those lines, that is grounds for the instructors to step in and take action. But other than that there should not be the ones making the decision. The way i see it the SNSI and NSI are there to keep the unit from falling into chaos and confusion and a few other things.(I'm not here to describe there whole job.) In summary, I may be a team commander but i am CO first. ( I'm double team commander due to experience and training, i went to leadership academy and am still setting up the teams.) The team commanders are in training to achieve higher leadership positions. The SNSI and NSI are there to prevent favoritism, not to run every thing. In other words they stand back until they need to step in.
Should the cadets chose staff or should the SNSI, NSI decide

It is quite the grey area. I do understand your thoughts, and your ideas are pretty good. The NSI and SNSI should still have some say I believe though. They know the cadets, their strengths, weaknesses, and how well the could do in a position. They have the cadets in their class so they have lots of time to evaluate them and decide whether or not they are good for a position. I would like to thank you for a serious debate. Good job Ox!
Should the cadets chose staff or should the SNSI, NSI decide

The SNSI and NSI my make alterations to the decision. To be promoted to an officer you must have there approval. Few exceptions apply, this being one of the few. They are not without any say in the matter of who gets what but they aren't allowed to make the choice themselves. The only thing I do not want is the power to be taken from senior staff. Now I also don't want them to have to much power. In conclusion we in my eyes are both right. we both have equally correct statements and angles of a grey area. I thank you for staying serious through this debate.
Should the cadets chose staff or should the SNSI, NSI decide

The NSI and SNSI may be there to guide, but they should also have a say in the decision. It may be up to the staff mostly but the NSI and SNSI should still have a say as to whether or not someone can be an officer. If you're a CO of a NJROTC I do not believe you should also be a team commander. You're the CO of a unit, correct? Then you understand the importance of the staff. The NSI and SNSI need to keep an eye out and help decide to make sure the right person is chosen for the job. If the NSI and SNSI help choose it could also prevent someone from being accused falsely of favoritism. Yes you may have a lot of leadership experience, but it is still possible to accidentally show favoritism.
Can war ever be justified or moral

To truly understand what justifiable means we must look at the definition: capable of being justified; that can be shown to be or can be defended as being just, right, or warranted; defensible. If this in fact is the definition, then all war is justifiable because countries start conflicts for a reason whether it be a political, economic, religious, or social view, but this is not the case Human hostility only occurs when the environment and situation call for it. This is very similar to animals, animals are in situation's where they must survive, but they do not have the mental capacity to work together like humans do, and as humans in our society today, we do not rely on our primal instinct. To say that war is justifiable is the same as saying killing is justifiable, whether it be for any reason, a country will always prefer to keep their interests diplomatically as oppose to risking lives violently
sex ofender registry

This topic stands nearly exactly where it did in the previous round. I. Voter are not obligated to search for information on sex offender registry. It is your job as my opponent to present that here, and the voters job to eliminate all personal bias and consider only what is presented in the course of our debate. II. You concede that it can work in some situations and assert that it often causes additional crimes in its current form, but you offer no sources or alternative options. Therefore, these claims are neither factually or logically considerable at this time. III. As I previously stated, it is fine that you disagree with what is currently considered as a sex crime, because that does not devalue sex offender registry. Your BOP in this debate is proving that the concept of sex offenders being registered is wrong, not that our current system is flawed. As such, many of your contentions are ultimately concessions.
sex ofender registry

I have been very busy this week. I'm not able to give this the time it needs at the moment. That said, I will state some things that people might need to look into for themselves. I think answers are available fast by web searching "sex offender registry doesn't work." We will find common ground in the fact that it might work in limited situations, and with out public knowledge. The public knowledge ends up promoting other crimes as they become alienated. The registry looses credibility in it's current form. If I can prove someone that pees in public is compared to a violent rapist, then I can get many in the main stream media to think the registration is a joke altogether... And they will be less likely to take the intent of it seriously.
sex ofender registry

Thanks for the topic, Con. I"m sure this will prove to be an interesting and informative debate. For the sake of clarity in this debate, let"s agree to define sex offender as "generic term for all persons convicted of crimes involving sex, including rape, molestation, sexual harassment and pornography production or distribution" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...). My opponent has stated by his position on this debate that he is against sex offender registry. However, as we see almost immediately in his first round, he only really disagrees with what is considered as a sex crime. There is certainly a large gap between the concept of ensuring sex offenders of my above definition are registered and the flaw in our current legal system"s interpretation of what is a sex crime. To win this debate, my opponent must show that sex offender registry is intrinsically corrupt, not just that we need minor legal reform.
All Biological Life Was Created!

All right Sage lets go. First of all, I would like to say that I respect your right to believe whatever you want. This is my view, and my opinion. Just like your opinion is yours. But, again I respect those who are religious, your opinion is wrong. I would like you to PROVE, with science, that god is real. AND without the bible. You cant. When proving something, you NEED more than one piece of evidence for your argument. That is the basis of science. There is so much evidence of Evolution that is NOT deniable. Dinosaur skeletons, DNA testing, Carbon dating, fossils, radiation left over from the big bang, I could go on and on. Not to mention, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, one of the most famous and respected scientists around the world, said in his T.V. show on National Geographic that Evolution is real. It is the Second episode of the first season of cosmos "Some things that molecules do". This was on National Geographic, a channel and Magazine that people the World over trust for facts. If you say "only good could have written the bible" then you are wrong. The codex gigas, the largest book in the world, was written by one man. It is 165 lbs, over a meter in length, and about 1-2 feet thick. So anyone could have written the bible. So that argument is thrown out the window. With all of this evidence stacked up against ONE, count is ONE book that anyone could have written, the the religion argument just falls apart. This is also shown with more and more people realizing the truth and ditching the idea of a god. Sorry, but you have been worshiping the equivalent of empty air your whole life. Evolution happened, and it is how we got to we are today. Don't think that I am one sided. For the sake of science and exploration, I attended a religious camp for 3 years. And it changed nothing. They just ranted on and on about respecting god instead of how we came to be, why we should, or convincing us of god in the first place. There is a reason evolution is taught in public schools. It is the truth. The curriculum is teaching the general public evolution because it is the truth. If it is being taught in schools, then we have no reason to believe that evolution is true. If you think the schools are wrong, then they could be wrong about anything. I have many sources. I'd like you to cite an article that does not have quotes from the bible. Or the bible itself. Checkmate. http://www.pbs.org... Some of the things that Molecules do Season 1 episode 2 https://www.khanacademy.org... http://humanorigins.si.edu...