BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Fast Food Can Be Substantial To The Recovering Economy

In response to my opponent's previous claims: A 2% tax would raise a $5.00 meal by 10 cents. Would you consider this 10 cent different a considerable price difference that would deter buyers? I believe that your second statement and first statement contradict each other. Correct me if I am wrong. In the new healthcare plan passed by the legislature, the government actually pays considerable amounts toward individual health care. Thus, the greater prevalence of obesity, the more the government pays in health care funding. Now I will move into crossfire questions. Please respond to the questions, and then ask me some if you have any. :) Do you have a figure on what percentage of the federal budget is directed towards parks? Can you please state your main contentions? Do you believe that the federal government should tax retailed items? If you do, then how are they going to accomplish this taxation with no current system in place? Do you have any figures supporting lower salaries for CEOs in fast food industries that are taxed? Do you feel that taxing fast food corporations will end obesity?
Why Fast Food Can Be Substantial To The Recovering Economy

A recent article from USA Today estimates that the increasing obesity rate will cost Americans $344 billion dollars by 2018. The article also reports that an astonishing 21% of health-care costs stem directly from obesity. My opponent even admitted that fast-food is unhealthy. How can they then remark that it "wouldn't change anything negatively?" With the recent health-care bill passed by the legislature, the United States will be funding health-care. How is it logical to look for income from one of your adversaries in another battle you are currently fighting? On average, Americans spend $110 billion dollars a year on fast food. Yes, this seems like a large amount of money, but when you average out the amount gained in taxes, it would only be $2.2 billion. This seems like a large amount of money, but it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to the rising costs of health care (catapulted by obesity) and the average national budget of $2.6 trillion dollars a year. Finally, there is absolutely no factual basis that CEOs of fast food chains would receive pay cuts in the event of a tax. I would like to see evidence on this claim. My three contentions for this argument are as follows: 1. Taxing the fast food industry will not reap enough funds to risk widespread federal taxation of targeted goods. 2. Taxing the fast food industry is a weak attempt to put a band-aid on our nation's rising obesity problem. It would be much more beneficial to attack obesity at its source rather than the companies who only indirectly contribute to the issue at hand. 3. A minimal tax, like my opponent proposes, on fast food items would not produce a net benefit to our nation when considering the obscene obstacles that undertaking such a tax would present. I will await my opponent's response. Thank you, and please vote for the negation.
Why Fast Food Can Be Substantial To The Recovering Economy

Fast Food is a big part of the economy, and is one of the fastest and cheapest ways we can obtain food. If the government were to raise taxes on Fast Food by 2-3%, it would generate millions to stimulate the economy, and could help build new schools, roads, and recreational parks. Even though Fast Food is unhealthy, it wouldn't change anything negatively, and would make the Fast Food chains lower how much money the big-wig CEO's get, making them spend more time working on making the chain more positively substantial in the food world.
China should become a Federal Republic.

I accept my opponent's conditions for the debate, I hope we will have a wonderful exchange. However, before we continue, since my opponent has taken steps to dictate restrictions for this debate, I would like my opponent to acknowledge that: I can argue freely, that the values and morals that I base my arguments on will *not* be judged by any set rubric, social standard, or by my opponent's personal beliefs, and that my opponent will also set no restrictions to arguments in rounds later on. My opponent accepts that my reasons for arguing Con, as long as they fit according to the stipulated rules, must be addressed as legitimate and not ignored or passed on simply because my opponent disagrees with them. I will, of course, extend the same courtesy to my opponent. If my opponent agrees, he can please go ahead and make his first case. If not, we can rehash and negotiate either in the comments or in the next round.
Ewoks are terrifying monsters

That is true ewoks do have the supernatural ability to comprehend space age equipment but like I stated I do not believe this is there first time in contact with that type of weaponry or equipment, and also one of the main reasons the storm toppers lost was because they were over confident and badly organized. The ewoks also had some assistance from rebel commandos. Another shocker was that there best strategies like hang gliders, trip wires, and catapults all seemed to fail, but it was the element of surprise that did the most damage. Maybe once ewoks do become space pirates people will know what there dealing with and not over estimate them. Because the unknown is way more scarier then the known. Last point I feel like we are only going off of the return of the jedi. There were other movies made about the ewoks for example Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure, Ewoks: battle for Endor, and they even made a TV show called ewoks. I mean it was a real TV show it ran from 1985 to 1986, and had . "Don't ask why." So maybe were looking at a dark spot in ewok history. Thanks for the debate. Hopefully I did good for my first time.
Ewoks are terrifying monsters

It's true, we have some truly terrifying beasties right here on earth. That doesn't change the fact that ewoks are scary little guys too. I like that you were thinking not just about what they are but how they got that way. There is one thing you forgot however and that is 1. Ewoks have a seemingly supernatural ability to comprehend and operate space age equipment. That's right ewoks can operate tech that is way too advanced for them and now that there are starships on endore what do you think the chances of them staying put are? Probably pretty small, like smaller than an ewok. If they get out to the galaxy proper and start to reproduce exponentially, you know because of all the "food" that is suddenly available we are talking a full on invasion of little cannibal teddy bear space pirates. Now that is scary. Not as scary as E.T. but that is a whole different discussion. Thanks for the debate. You really did your research I never expected the mosquito angle. Hope we can do this again some time.
Ewoks are terrifying monsters

Well this will me my counter claim and Rebuttal. Yes ewoks may eat people, but many other animals will eat people "if given the chance" like lions, crocodiles, or tigers, and while tigers are near extinction and lions only kill a 100 people per year. Crocks kill 1k per year which is impressive but dogs our household pet kill 25k per year. But all of these tremble at the worlds greatest killer mosquito. They kill a whopping 735 thousand people per year. All the animal deaths combine though equal the population of Bhutan. Also ewoks are being eaten all throughout the universe. "Ewok jerky was mentioned in Star Wars Clone wars." So if there were a food product that must mean that were easy to hunt which means that the ewok that we met might have been victimized to this before and then before you know it they had to evolve so they wouldn't become extinct and now you have the ewok. That also explains why they could beat the clones with stones and sticks and why they could comprehend space age material because they have thought other aliens before. Finally society evolves when bad things happens and the ewoks are no exception. They got attacked and might of almost have gotten killed of for there meat, so they came up with ways to defend there self and get revenge on the aliens who attacked them and killed most of them by eating them. But it could of originally been in self defense then it might have moved to something more dark after that. Maybe since there was ewok jerky which means they must have had a vast amount of ewoks for it to be successful. There might have been other ewoks that don't eat people.
Ewoks are terrifying monsters

My argument includes three simple points. 1. Ewoks have a seemingly supernatural ability to comprehend and operate space age equipment. 2. Ewoks are frighteningly efficient strategists and fierce warriors. 3. Ewoks eat people. I will cover these points in reverse order. 3. Ewoks eat people. Do you remember what the ewoks going to do to Han, Luke and Chewie when they captured them on the forest moon of endorse? I'll remind you. They were going to make them a main dish at a feast in C3PO's honor. Shortly after that princess Lea rejoins the group, but she's not longer dressed like the other rebels she is wearing a dress. Where on endore did ewoks, whom I will remind you have wildly different body dimensions, get that dress? I'll tell you where from a human. Not just any human, but a human who was roughly Lea' s size. That implies more than one dress to choose from. Mathematically that suggests that they have a lot of clothes that don't fit them, and they don't even wear clothes, just those leather hoods. So where did they get the clothes? From people, people we never see any sign of in the movie. We never see them because they're dead because ewoks ate them. You will also observe an ewok at the end of the film playing drums made of storm trooper helmets, because the ewoks ate them too. 2. Ewoks are frighteningly efficient strategists and fierce warriors. You said it first. The ewoks destroy the storm troopers. They don't just win they beat them so badly it turns into a route. The storm troopers are the empire's most recognizable and feared galactic space marines, and the ewoks beat them using paleolithic weapons. 1. Ewoks have a seemingly supernatural ability to comprehend and operate space age equipment. I'll only point to two examples. First when wicket the ewoks mounts a storm trooper's hoverbike he doesn't have to get acclimated to it he just flips a few switched and he's off. Not backward either he's going in exactly the direction he means to go. And as one of the ewoks that appears at the end of the film we know that he didn't even hit a tree and blow up. Something the chase scene featuring Luke, Lea and two storm troopers shows us it is frighteningly easy to do. He doesn't just start that bike, he also pilots it better than trained galactic shock troops trained in its use. Secondly during the actual battle we see two ewoks drop into a scout walker with Chewbacca We know from the troopers thrown out of the cockpit that it takes two men to operate, presumably a pilot and a gunner That means No matter which crew position our heroic Wookie chooses the other must be manned by an ewok. That ewok would have to become proficient in a highly technical task in just a few minutes tutored by someone of a different species that doesn't even have a common language. That is terrifying.
Why I think white privilege is a myth

I'll make my argument now. I was waiting for your response, But didn't get one. But I'll try one more time. Don't want this debate to go a waste of forfeiting each round. The reason I didn't go too in depth in depth in my last response was because in your Round 2 you were all over the place. You talked about other privileges instead of explaining how white privilege isn't real. I will now explain my stance. >White privilege is a myth? Look at white supremacy. >White supremacy ties into white privilege. >The United States (where I'm from) was built off of White Supremacy. >White Supremacy - The belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, Especially the black race, And should therefore dominate society. (Google) >That further proves that white privilege is real. >White privilege also has an official definition. White people don't have to worry about: Easily becoming victim to both law enforcement and the judicial system alike unfairly. They don't have to worry about their teenage children's unjustified death being mocked. Source: https://gawker. Com. . . If that link doesn't go through, Then it's about these white people who were mocking and black-facing Trayvon Martin for Halloween back in 2013. They don't have to worry about informing their children of the harsh realities of systematic racism. They don't have to worry about having a talk with their children about obeying police officers and follow their every command or their life could be gone. They don't have to worry about being articulate and well spoken without people being surprised. They don't have to worry about what they wear or how they act or how they carry themselves without being labeled a thug, Or a gangster. They don't have to worry about the texture of their hair or their skin color or their cultural accessories as the reason why they didn't get a job. They don't have too worry about being monitored in stores just because the color of their skin. They don't have to worry about being told to get over slavery. They don't have to worry about being told to get over Jim Crow. The list goes on. If white privilege was a myth, Then there wouldn't be 'Black Lives Matter'. They are using and taking advantage of their white privilege to disregard Black Lives Matter and say All Lives Matter as if 'Black lives matter' insinuates that other lives don't. That right there reinforces white privilege. We aren't saying that black lives are more meaningful than everyone else's, We are saying black lives are just as meaningful as everyone else's. The Black Lives Matter movement isn't about separation, Or segregation or disengagement. It's about inclusion. And by changing black lives matter to all lives matter, It is an act of disassociation from black people to equality which is what our movement is all about which equates to the belittlement our struggle and patronizing our struggle.
Why I think white privilege is a myth

"can you respond to my debate instead of creating a new one about the same things. " First of all I do what I want to do, It's called multitasking. Just as many other people on this site have more than one debate, I do the same, Even though I don't prefer it. I didn't create the other debate because I wanted to, I challenged someone else because they said black privilege is real in the comments. So I'm doing that debate and I'm doing this one as well, I'm not ignoring you. You actually took a little while to respond back anyways, So that debate was something I decided to do on the sidelines until you reply with your argument each round. Back to this debate. 1. "what ways society has white privilege. " - Oh, There's lot of ways. 2. Sorry that I didn't have the first word, I usually do better reading someone's full argument first and then responding to it. But I should have followed your rules so my mistake. But to be fair, Technically I proved you wrong with one statement in my round one. I said the definition (which is a fact) about white privilege. That alone proves that white privilege is indeed not a myth. And I can even bring up examples, But I'll get to that later. (Goes back to point 1) "Yeah and some people believe the earth is flat when it is simply not. " - Yeah that statement simply goes with "White privilege is a myth" it shows that both of those statements are false. There was no need for explanation of connecting the "White privilege is a myth" argument to it. That's why I said that. I thought that was super clear from the beginning but somehow you didn't understand that. Heads up before we continue, I'm African American. "A huge one is a Two-Parent Privilege. If you are raised by a father and mother, You enter adulthood with more privileges than anyone else in American society, Irrespective of race, Ethnicity, Or sex. That"s why the poverty rate among two-parent black families is only 7 percent. " - Yeah that further proves that white privilege is a real and it shows the advantage it has over black people. "Asian Privilege" - Cool, Wait for the future and see if that happens. Nice round, You did good.
Why I think white privilege is a myth

I shall take this debate. Yeah and some people believe the earth is flat, When it is simply not. White privilege is real. The definition states as follows: White privilege is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, Beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, Political, Or economic circumstances. I'll go more in depth if needed once you explain why you think white privilege is a myth. - Kvng
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2)

While donating food might seem like a great idea Giving the needy money is more beneficial. In an article in the National Post published in November of 2017 We learn that canned foods are actually really hard to deal with "Canned goods have a particularly low rate of charitable return. They"re heavy, they"re awkward and they can be extremely difficult to fit into a family"s meal plan. Worst of all, the average consumer is buying their canned goods at four to five times the rock-bottom bulk price that can be obtained by the food bank itself." Donating food to food banks whom are already overwhelmed is counter productive. All those food items need to be sorted, stored, inventoried and then shoehorned into the food bank"s distribution schedule. By giving out donations and left over food we are ignoring the larger problem that is poverty. On June 31 of 2017 the Conversation.com wrote an article that stated "A key danger of charity food aid is the de-politicisation of hunger. As the charity sector mobilises to meet this need, there is less pressure on the government to address the root causes of food poverty, which are essentially income related." This backs up my point that when we spend time feeding the needy we then are enabling a system within our society that allows certain people to be so poor they have to resort to eating expired food. Sources: https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2)

Foods are not only easy to donate, it will also help bring in revenues for companies. Here are 5 common examples of the hundreds of foods that may be eaten past their expiration date according to the Food Network: a.Canned goods: The expiry date of canned foods usually indicates three years from when it's been shelved, but you can consume them past the date for up to four more years." b.Hard Cheeses (parmesan) may be eaten a month past their expiration date. c.Cereal may be eaten up to six months past the expiration. d.Eggs: put it in a bowl of water. If it sinks, its good. If it floats, throw it in the compost! e.Frozen food: In general, freezing foods help prevent them from going bad, so anything may be preserved date. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Corporate donors are protected from liability under the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. Under this Act, as long as the donor has not acted with negligence or intentional misconduct, the company is not liable for damage incurred as the result of illness. Therefore, as long as the restaurants, grocery stores, etc. are donating with proper conduct, there is no liability to donate uneaten and/or potentially spoiled food. In addition, entrepreneurs have been busy trying to cook up startup businesses that make use of food waste not only because it"s a way to help the environment and the hungry poor, but because considering how much food (and money) is wasted regularly, there"s potential for big profits. Many startups focus on repurposing food that"s already been cooked or has been sitting in stores unsold. Others put the emphasis on "ugly" fruits and vegetables that normally never see the inside of a restaurant kitchen or grocery store because they"re too small or not the most appealing color (Money). With this, we can see that the process of donating our food will not only benefit the environment and the hungry, it will also bring in revenues that would have otherwise been wasted. Sources: 1. "Reduce Wasted Food By Feeding Hungry People." EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 16 Apr. 2018, www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/reduce-wasted-food-feeding-hungry-people. 2. "10 Foods You Can Still Eat After the Expiry Date | Food Network Canada." Foodnetwork.ca, www.foodnetwork.ca/kitchen-basics/photos/10-foods-you-can-eat-after-the-expiry-date/. 3. Tuttle, Brad. "Food Waste: Recycling Food from Supermarkets, Colleges, Farms for the Poor | Money." Time, Time, 12 June 2015, time.com/money/3913386/food-waste-feed-hungry/.
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2)

The process of actually donating food is easier said than done. The Donation of good that is past it"s exporan date as well as those that are almost expired requires a lot of logistical coordination. It also requires precise and through planning. While the idea sounds simple enough there"s a lot of coordination that stores and restaurants would have to go throughout in order to accomplish this grocery shops would need a lot of recourses and time . Elise Golan, the director for sustainable development at USDA. "The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," she said. "If you"re having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that"s not good for anybody." The process of donating expired or close to expiration date food sounds good on paper but the actual process is demanding and hard to accomplish. Sources: "Why the US May Never Pass a Food Waste Law Like France." Google, Google, www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/why-the-us-may-never-pass-a-food-waste-law-like-france-1757351244/amp. Why Grocery Stores Don't Donate All Of Their Surplus Food to Charity, www.flashfood.com/blog/why-grocery-stores-dont-donate.
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2)

Claim: A lot of food that we waste as a country goes unnoticed, but numbers do not lie. Warrant: In 2010, an estimated 133 billion pounds of food from U.S. retail food stores, restaurants, and homes"valued at approximately $161 billion"went uneaten. (a statistic provided by the USDA Office of the Chief Economist). Grounds: In addition, 7.4 percent (9.4 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2016. What is low food security? "These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries (USDA Economic Research Service). Furthermore, 4.9 percent (6.1 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2016. What is very low food security? "In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food (USDA Economic Research Service). If we were to donate the food wasted in supermarkets to provide for these low food security families, we could lower these numbers and provide a system both beneficial to decreasing supermarket waste and increasing food security in the U.S.. 1. USDA | OCE | U.S. Food Waste Challenge | FAQ's | Information Sources, www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/sources.htm. 2. "Key Statistics & Graphics." USDA ERS - Key Statistics & Graphics, www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx.