BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away (2)

There"s a reason companies put expiration dates on food. Love strong. Org stated " common signs include cramping in the stomach area, frequent vomiting, fever, dizziness, dehydration and persistent diarrhea. The symptoms may last a few hours, days or weeks depending on the severity of the condition. Some food stored past its use-by date in poor conditions can even become contaminated with the serious bacterial infections salmonella or listeria." When talking about the side effects that eating food past the expiration date. Another thing to consider is that the foods that last for years and can be consumed after the expiration date are loaded and packed with preservatives. Perservatives keep food fresh for longer by filling them with chemicals. The Huffington Post states that "There are three varieties of preservatives: antimicrobials, which stop bacteria, yeasts, and molds from growing; antioxidants, which slow the oxidation of fats, which can turn food rancid; and compounds that inhibit rot in produce." things like cereal which is one of the foods that can be donated as well as many fresh foods are loaded with them. In a perfect world there wouldn"t be any hunger. Unfortunately there is. When grocery story"s give away food to food banks it takes the pressure of the government to make a change, not to mention that food care even when donating requires a lot of time and resources to be successful, and those whom are needy should be given food that"s good for them not food that is expired or packed with preservatives.
Religious texts are valid forms of evidence when advocating for the validity of a religion.

Evangelists often times have the best of intentions when engaging in debates with potential converts. However, they typically seem to fail to even consider the possibility that their particular religious document could be an elaborate work of fiction that has no foundation in credible fact. They essentially set up a self confirming feedback loop that cannot be broken until they consider their religious texts as subject to error. This is different from scientific articles used to support a scientific hypothesis because each accredited scientific article is first subjected to peer review before being published. I propose that you cannot use religious text as evidence to support the validity of a given religion.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

For starters my opponent discredits my evidence because I have never tried the Jones soda personally. I allow his point to stand but at the cost of him losing this debate. If he will not accept anything but first hand evidence then I must reject his resolution as he has not had a first hand experience attempting to drink carbonated gravy. Furthermore my opponent states, "REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT JONES TURKEY AND GRAVY SODA TASTED GOOD, THERES NOTHING SAYING THAT CARBONATED GRAVY WOULD TASTE SIMILAR TO JONES SODA OR BAD AT ALL." In other words my opponent has now severed his link to Jones Turkey & Gravy Soda. This in turn means that my opponent has no point standing in round that states why someone "SHOULD" carbonate gravy. All that my opponent has left are points stating that gravy CAN be carbonated. Thus I attack those points, my opponent defines a liquid (my comments are interjected) : 1: flowing freely like water (Does gravy flow like water....? No.) 2: having the properties of a liquid : being neither solid nor gaseous3 (Gravy is a suspension, it is literally a mixture of a solid and a liquid) a: shining and clear (Is gravy shining or clear?) b: being musical and free of harshness in sound (what....) c: smooth and unconstrained in movement (Smooth? Could be... maybe? It moves slower than water however.) d: articulated without friction and capable of being prolonged like a vowel (This has nothing to do with what we are talking about..) 4 a: consisting of or capable of ready conversion into cash (No not really.) b: capable of covering current liabilities quickly with current assets (.....) Gravy arguably demonstrates none of these traits, that is because gravy is a suspension. A combination between solid and liquid. Gravy, as an entirety, cannot be carbonated in the sense that my opponent means, only the liquid portion of it could be. Thus I negate my opponent resolution on two levels: 1. He provides no evidence for why Carbonated Gravy should be sold. 2. He provides no evidence stating that gravy can be carbonated.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

FIRST OF ALL, MY OPPONENT STATES THAT JONES TURKEY AND GRAVY FLAVORED SODA DIDNT TASTE GOOD BECAUSE HE READ THAT IT DIDN'T, ALTHOUGH HES NEVER TRIED IT FOR HIMSELF NOR PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE SUGGESTING THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO DRANK IT WERE LESS THAN SATISFIED WITH THE TASTE. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT JONES TURKEY AND GRAVY SODA TASTED GOOD, THERES NOTHING SAYING THAT CARBONATED GRAVY WOULD TASTE SIMILAR TO JONES SODA OR BAD AT ALL. EVEN IF JONES TURKEY AND GRAVY SODA AND CARBONATED GRAVY DID TASTE BAD, JONES SOLD ENOUGH OF THEIR PRODUCT THAT THEY HAVEN'T DISCONTINUED ITS PRODUCTION, THEREFORE THERE MAY VERY WELL BE A DEMAND FOR CARBONATED GRAVY. SECONDLY, AN UNKNOWN ARTICLE THAT THE AUTHOR OF A BLOG FROM AN UNTOLD SOURCE CITED IS IN NO WAY A CREDIBLE SOURCE. THIRD, MY OPPONENT MUST PROVE THAT GRAVY IS NOT A LIQUID. ACCORDING TO www.merriam-webster.com, LIQUID IS DEFINES AS: 1: flowing freely like water 2: having the properties of a liquid : being neither solid nor gaseous3 a: shining and clear b: being musical and free of harshness in sound c: smooth and unconstrained in movement d: articulated without friction and capable of being prolonged like a vowel 4 a: consisting of or capable of ready conversion into cash b: capable of covering current liabilities quickly with current assets FORTH, BY DEFINITION (www.merriam-webster.com), ALL THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE FOR A SUBSTANCE TO BECOME CARBONATED IS FOR THAT SUBSTANCE TO COMBINE OR INFUSE WITH CARBON DIOXIDE. IT IS POSSIBLE TO COMBINE OR INFUSE GRAVY WITH CARBON DIOXIDE, THEREFORE GRAVY CAN BE CARBONATED.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

Alright, first we are going to take a quote from the Jones Holiday site page concerning the turkey & gravy soda. This quote states, "Anyway, the product's aroma definitely smells like turkey and gravy, but the flavor is another story. The taste is noticeably salty and has a mild sweetness to it. There is a slight "turkey 8 gravy"-like finish to the product, but the addition of carbonation and sweetness generally hide the taste otherwise. Honestly, it was pretty hard for any of our testers to keep from spitting the product out." It goes on to say that, "We have to give Jones Soda credit for putting this product out there purely to create buzz -- and they definitely succeeded on that front. " So while the Turkey and Gravy flavor may have created buzz it did not particularly taste good. Secondly my opponent wants to carbonate gravy not gravy tasting soda. For all we know the soda may not have been created with any real gravy what-so-ever. Actually I just came across and interesting blog in which one of the bloggers stated, "I read an article about it and it supposedly has no animal ingredients in it." http://www.veggieboards.com... The main problem though still remains that my opponent is attempting to carbonate something that is not a liquid. Considering that he is the instigator I challenge him to prove that he can carbonate gravy.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

I CHALLENGE MY OPPONENT TO PROVE THAT YOU CANNOT CARBONATE GRAVY (EVEN THOUGH IT COULD BE EXTREMELY WATERED DOWN) OR ANY OTHER NON-LIQUID SUBSTANCE, AND THAT GRAVY WOULD NOT TASTE GOOD WHEN GIVEN THE EXTRA BITE OF CARBONATION. JONES SODA SOLD ENOUGH TURKEY AND GRAVY FLAVORED SODA IN A HOLIDAY PACK DURING THE 2007 CHRISTMAS SEASON THAT THEY HAVEN'T RETIRED THOSE FLAVORS YET(www.jonessoda.com/files/limited_editions.php), SO TO SAY THAT GRAVY WOULD NOT TASTE GOOD IF CARBONATED IS CLEARLY NOT TRUE TO EVERYONE. GIVEN THE SUCCESS OF JONES SODA'S HOLIDAY PACK, AND THE RELATIVE POPULARITY OF REGULAR NON-CARBONATED GRAVY, ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THERE'S AT LEAST SOME DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR CARBONATED GRAVY, THUS SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

Which I am going to have to attack in two different ways. 1. Gravy is not a liquid. Thus it is mildly impossible to carbonate a suspension. Though I suppose you could carbonate the purely liquid part of the gravy. Sadly this doesn't mean that the gravy itself would be carbonated. 2. Gravy in itself may taste good but not when given the extra bite of carbonation. It would be like gravy with a strange singe of nastiness. Anyways, I challenge my opponent to prove that someone should sell carbonated gravy.
SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY

I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD SELL CARBONATED GRAVY. THEY COULD PROBABLY SELL ALOT OF IT IN THE SOUTH OR AT NASCAR EVENTS. HELL, I WAS SIXTEEN YEARS OLD BEFORE I KNEW THAT GRAVY WASNT A SOFT DRINK. IT COULD COME IN MANY FLAVORS LIKE BROWN OR WHITE, CHICKEN, PORK, BEEF, FISH, TURKEY, OR WHATEVER. THEY COULD EVEN MIX IT WITH WHISKEY AND SELL IT AS A MIXED DRINK.
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

Thank you for beginning this debate and I hope to cast light on the truth of the subject. Rush Limbaugh is undoubtedly a hard-line conservative, who discusses current news with a decidedly Republican tint. Democrats and critics love not just to thrash him, but to attempt to try ties between his often controversial rhetoric and Republican candidates in a given election, on the assumption that those who correspond or listen to Rush must be idiots. In fact, it is a sad but somehow funny fact that 70% of the public attacks on Limbaugh are provided by just ten people. (1) However, the truth of the matter could not look more disparate. Now briefly, before I present my case, I would like to clear up two things. A. I am not in fact conservative or affiliated with the Republican Party. This is simply a matter of fact. B. My opponent's one cited bit of "evidence" is too easily rebutted to afford it its own section. Conservatives have been found less informed about healthcare matters generally, and I am sure (though you do not cite your source) that the same is true for Limbaugh's viewership. Nevertheless, it is one small matter, and a broader scope of knowledgeability should be addressed. Studies on the Topic: One study by the ever-reliable Pew Research poll took a slightly bigger look at the knowledge, or lack thereof, of people who frequent various media sources. The study asked three simple questions: which party controlled the Senate, which the House, and who the Prime Minister of Britain was. In all three categories, Rush's audience blew out their opponents, especially those on the left and Independents. Interestingly enough, the only rivals to the Limbaughians' (I know, I know) superior smarts were the viewers of Fox's Sean Hannity and the dreaded Bill O'Reilly. Simply put, Rush Limbaugh's listeners had a better grasp of the current political landscape then any other type of media subscribers. (2) Despite heavy searching, this study seems to be the only focused specifically on Rush Limbaugh's fans. So let's focus on conservatives in general. Pew conducted another great poll, studying the differences in the understanding of issues, intelligence, and open-mindedness between conservatives and all other political groups in the United States. The results are shocking, and I'll let The Daily Caller summarize it for you: "The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party." (3) Harsh. And that is indeed approximately what the Pew survey concluded, and what it implies. Thus, to say that Limbauh's followers are somehow less informed than anyone else is clearly errant. I recommend revising or withdrawing your statement. The facts simply do not support you. With that said, good luck to my opponent in the following round. (1) http://mediaequalizer.com... (2) http://www.politicsdaily.com... (3) http://dailycaller.com...
rush limbaugh listeners are generally objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners

rush limbaugh listeners are objectively less informed than other talk radio listeners "Didiots-Limbaugh's Legion of Fans Now, am I saying that dittoheads are ignoramuses? No. I don't need to. Listen to Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania: We just concluded a study of 360 people, whom we watched watch the health care reform debate for nine months. And at the end of that period, we took the people who said they relied on talk radio, and by this, we mean primarily Rush Limbaugh. . . . And we asked them how well informed they felt. . . .Of all the people we watched, they said they were the best informed. And of all the people we watched, they were the least informed. What a surprise, huh? Limbaugh listeners thought they were the best informed, and yet were the least informed. How is such a thing even measured? Well, like all the other people studied, talk radio listeners were asked questions of "objective fact" such as: "Which groups (the elderly, poor, middle class, etc. "are most likely to be uninsured?" The Limbaugh listeners were "highly likely" to give an incorrect answer such as "the elderly" who, of course, are all covered by Medicare. But why would people so woefully lacking in the basic facts of an issue think they were the best informed? Social scientists call the phenomenon "pseudo-certainty." I call it "being a [i][color=#ff0000]flooping[/color][/i] moron."
Minimum wage should be lowered

Well, I would consider the cancer situation to be a matter of private charity versus social security and private healthcare versus public health care. On the matter of employment for John as well as the fact that he needs money is that first that Governments could stop taking so much of his income in all these taxes. Such as income and property taxes also in my first comment I did discuss how a minimum wage actually makes it hard to join the job market alongside other economic issues such as price controls.
Minimum wage should be lowered

1st argument: Minimum wage was originally made to keep jobs for able-bodied white men. in 1912 Sidney James Webb, 1st Baron Passfield OM PC a British socialist, economist, reformer and a co-founder of the London School of Economics wrote an article called the "The Economic Theory of A Legal Minimum Wage" which basically said that married women, the disabled and other "parasitic invalids" (ethnic minorities and possibly sexual minorities) were taking jobs from the able-bodied white men. Basically trying to get the less fit out of the job market and thus was adopted by white supremacists. Economist Dr. Thomas Sowell who just so happens to be African-American is quoted as saying and I quote "A Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia's minimum wage law as a means to 'protect the white Australian's standard of living from the invidious competition of the coloured races, particularly of the Chinese '". Argument 2: Rising the prices of things lead to less affordable and thus people buy or use less of those things which leads to higher cost for those who still want to use the objects because the providers of this product need to charge more in order to make a profit and if they can't do that they begin laying off workers which lead to a higher employment rate which leads to higher taxes because fewer people per capita are paying taxes which lead to less purchasing power which causes the cycle to repeat plus add on inflation and tarriffs and the mess grows. This why some governments raise taxes and place price controls on things such as gas and alcohol because they may want people to use less of that.
It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

I will concur that a full, unconditional surrender to our northern overlords would be the most peaceful option. However, a nuclear war might just be the solution to global warming, via nuclear winter. Our nation, under the preeminent leadership of President (for life) Trump, needs to demonstrate a clear and strong response to the threat of global warming. Our 'huge hands' should "quickly and decisively bomb the heck out of Ottawa", forcing mother nature to cower in fear.
It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

I admit it. Global warming means we should migrate to Canada in order to avoid heat stroke. The biggest issue though is still found in nuclear war. If everybody in congress and the military is willing to go through with this, other countries will respond. Nuclear war may not occur, but war on some scale will. Whatever happens will be negative. In order to survive, we should instead concede all of our land to Canada. We would, in fact, own Canada, just from a backwards perspective.
It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

In a world where global warming is a stark, and undeniable, reality, the United States should begin to plan for the new world that is coming. The annexation of Canada would carry no risk of nuclear war. They are not a nuclear armed nation, and their primary military ally is the United States. Other allies (The U.K., E.U., etc) would not risk engaging against an obviously unhinged United States. The benefits far outweigh the small, almost non-existent, risks. I concede the Bieber point, I had not factored that in to my thought process.
It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

This annexation wouldn't benefit the U.S. nearly as much as it would harm it. Reasons: 1) Nuclear War: Nuff said 2) Justin Bieber: If we were to annex Canada, we would be stuck in a hell where teenage girls would suddenly migrate north to meet Justin Bieber. Given that guys like girls, they would change themselves to be just like Justin Bieber. Unfortunately, Justin Bieber is a jerk. Therefore, to avoid a mass migration and, subsequently, a generation of jerks, we should not annex Canada.
It would benefit the United States to unilaterally annex Canada.

In a world where global warming is a stark, and undeniable, reality, the United States should begin to plan for the new world that is coming. Reasons: - Canada would give access to the newly opened (due to warming) arctic ocean for mineral exploitation and trade. - Control over Canada would give the United States access to a larger pool of fresh water in a world facing water scarcity - The United States should take preemptive action to protect against potential future aggression by Canadian actors (or Canadian-backed non-state actors). - The action of annexation would demonstrate U.S. strength in an increasing multi-polar global political landscape.
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

First of all Rosie the Riveter is based on an actual person, that had just as much as an impact on society in the U.S. as Rosa Parks.For example, the U.S. civil rights movement was bound to happen, regardless of if Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat many other figures in history made moves to free black people and any other minority from oppression. In fact she is very similer in the fact that she lead the way into changing history, but did/or was able to do very little about the actuall situation.and finally Yes, actually Bugs Bunney, Spongebob, Barack Obama, etc... are all posted on actual currency it is called Celebrity-Cash and has been llegal sience 1967! (Actual Currency!!!) http://www.celebrity-cash.com...
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

Hey I would like to start by saying great debate so far! Now ill start. If we put Rosie the Riveter on the 10 dollar bill, what's next? Bugs Bunny? U.S currency should only have non-fictional characters like Rosa Parks. She helped sculpt the great country America the way it is today, a free, non-racial country. A quote from her I find very inspirational is "I believe there is only one race- the human race. She is not afraid to stand out and fight for what's right.
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

HISTORY OF SAID WOMAN PT. 1 Rosie should be posted on the new 10$ bill because she is one of the most infamous cultural icons of the 20th century, Rosie although a fictitious character represented on a poster that said "YOU CAN DO IT" was a very inspirational figure based on Michigan factory worker Geraldine Doyle in 1942. Rosie is so impressive a character that she is said to be "representing the six million women who entered the workforce for the first time during World War II" (singularitynyc.com). Woman in this time were for the first time going and working in factories to support their husbands in the war effort. She was Painted for the cover of the May 29, 1943 edition of The Saturday Evening Post, (below "WE CAN DO IT") She represented the common woman worker stomping on "Mein Kampf" under her feet and casually eating her sandwich, if you notice not without style with her nails, lips, and hair done, representing woman can still retain their femininity...
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

I believe Rosa Parks should be featured on the $10 dollar bill. She was a HUGE influence in black rights when she refused to give up her seat to a white person. Without her inspiration things may not be the way they are today. She is a very important symbol of the civil rights movement. Ill save the rest for round 3 as well.
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

Alright,I will start by saying I believe Rosie the Rivitor should be put on the 10$ bill1) She was a major influence for woman in WWII and continues to be an icon for those who worked hard during that time and womans equality to men in the workplace. I will save the rest of my arguement for round 3 as I do not have much time now...
Who should be on the next 10$ bill? (PRO/CON Doesn't matter in this debate)

If you havn't heard the treasury is replacing Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first secretary of the treasury for a woman, My debate is who should the woman pictured on the bill be?http://www.nola.com...Rules: 1) It must be a woman2) She must have made an extraordinary impact on society in some way and might have accompliced alot regarding womens rightsR1) AcceptanceR2-3-4) DebateR5) Conclusion
USC (Southern Cal) in the Pete Carroll Era has become the nation's premier college football program

pretty self-explanatory, in my opinion. The first debate I'm initiating, so I guess from what I've seen, I'll list some definitions. http://dictionary.reference.com... football - a game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goals at opposite ends of a field having goal posts at each end, with points being scored chiefly by carrying the ball across the opponent's goal line and by place-kicking or drop-kicking the ball over the crossbar between the opponent's goal posts premier - first in rank; chief; leading wikipedia.org Pete Carroll - Peter Clay Carroll (born September 15, 1951, in San Francisco, California) is an American football coach, former National Football League head coach, and the current head coach of the University of Southern California Trojans football team, having held that position since 2001. Thanks in advance to whoever decides to accept this debate. My first point: snelld7 has forfeited his first round, and from comments seems to genuinely disagree with my contention. Yet he was unable to say anything worthwhile. nothing! It is not easy to find evidence to disprove the statement. ;P With that, I renew that challenge and wish whoever accepts good luck!