BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse.

To compare childhood obesity to child abuse is preposterous. In contradiction to my opponent's views, it is unfair to dictate how a child lives his or her life. Rather than hounding children about what they eat and how much they weigh, we should be encouraging them to feel confident in his or herself. It is agreeable that no, children don't always choose what they would like to eat, some times there are simply no other options. I, myself always being on the go as a child, am aware of the strain it puts on a family. It isn't always possible to sit down at a table and eat a nice, healthy dinner. Not only is it cheaper, but it is also easier to grab something on the go. In opposition of comparing childhood obesity to abuse, we should be making families aware of the dangers of constantly eating unhealthy. And since there are not always alternative options, if it is necessary to eat unhealthy - it should be eaten in moderation. For example, rather than ordering a twenty piece chicken nugget with a large soda and a large fry, perhaps an alternative should be a 6 piece chicken nugget, small fry, and a water. It doesn't matter how hard someone tries to instill good habits in a child, if the child is not motivated it will not happen. Perhaps it would be better to encourage a mandatory physical education class. As my opponent stated, "The fat kid will be teased" because "students will bully him because of his weight." Rather than worrying about this child's weight, we should be concerned with the school. If the school is allowing children to bully one another over something as trivial as weight, then we evidently have a bigger issue on hand. The school should be worried about making both children and their parents aware of bullying issues rather than a child's weight. And even if a child is overweight, why should it matter? Shouldn't we be encouraging children to feel comfortable in their bodies rather than concerning them with not fitting in with society's opinion
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse.

http://www.youtube.com... Childhood obesity has doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. In 2010, more than 1/3 of children and adolescents were overweight or obese. We even have obese infants. Children and adolescents generally don't pick the choices of food that they have. They aren't the ones bringing in sugary cereals into the home. Sure, they may ask for it, but it is the parent's responsibility to make sure they eat well. There's nothing wrong with sugary cereals in moderation. By giving a child an excess of unhealthy foods and not instilling good health habits (less TV/video games, exercise, play sports, etc.) Parents are abusing their children because they are allowing their bodies to get used to overeating. Thus leading to type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.By giving your child the opportunity to play outside you are allowing them exert energy and get the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity. Also, by age 6 most kids are in school. The fat kid will be teased. The fat kid can't run around like his classmates. Why? Because his parents let him get so big. Students will bully him because of his weight, which is something that he cannot control. We know that bullying can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicide. [1] http://www.cdc.gov... I'd like for my opponent to argue the following arguments: -Parents work too many hours, so therefore the easiest option is to buy fast food, pizza, etc. -Since the average household income is $40,000 junk food is cheaper than healthy food. -The schools should keep our kids active by mandating physical education classes -Parents are doing the best they can
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse.

The majority of society does not think it's okay to be obese. Parents of obese children have created a pathway of destruction. They are abusing their health and wellness by not incorporating consistent healthy lifestyle habits. "Teaching a child that they aren't perfect because they don't fit society's beliefs unbearable to think about." In response to my opponent's statement, we are taught from childhood that nobody is perfect. Parents shouldn't be teaching perfection. A parent should set standards for the child and encourage them to set goals which they should achieve in a reasonable amount of time. "The average income of a family does not necessarily provide people the ability to buy their children all organic, healthy food. It is both easier and more cost-effectively to simply provide a child with something that is unhealthier for them." With regards to this statement: "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em". As much as people desire to have children, it is not fair to the child if their physical, emotional, and health needs aren't being taken care of. The average amount of children per household is 2.06. Instead of having 2 or 3 children, maybe people should have 1 child. This would cut back on expenses. What do parents find so difficult about making sure that their children get at least 30 minutes of exercise each day? Thanks for debating with me! [1] https://www.cia.gov...
Childhood obesity is a form of child abuse.

"Society's opinion is the right opinion." To understand this phrase my opponent stated, we must first understand who "society" is. Defined by the dictionary, a society is a community with shared customs. By that standard, a high school can be a society. Here's a quick example of when society's opinion was, in fact, wrong. 18 young girls at Gloucester High School (Massachusetts) decided it would be the right thing to do if they all go pregnant together. In addition, what happens when a society's beliefs leads to bullying, harassment, or even suicide? Teaching a child that they aren't perfect because they don't fit society's beliefs unbearable to think about. As stated by my opponent, childhood obesity is preventable. However, it isn't exactly easy to do. We live in a society where our national food is pretty much a Big Mac. The average income of a family does not necessarily provide people the ability to buy their children all organic, healthy food. It is both easier and more cost-effectively to simply provide a child with something that is unhealthier for them. [1] http://www.afa.net... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
An electric car is better than a gas/diesel car

Since my opponent has forfeited round 2, I will be brief and simply introduce the main issues with electric cars:Electricity costs depend heavily on both location and time of use and can vary drastically. Of course EV users will fuel up on non-peak hours, but this may not always be practical. Costs per kWh range from 8 to 55 cents.[1] In addition, the cost of traditionally fuel, by comparison, is usually heavily taxed. Battery replacement costs are estimated to be at least 9,000$. [2]Range is limited compared to gasoline cars, something like 100 miles [3]Recharge time varies, but is much longer than what customers are used to [4]The charging time can range from 15 minutes to 20 hours or more, depending on these factors.I will address environmental issues in the next round if necessary.[1] http://www.edmunds.com...[2] http://www.plugincars.com...[3] http://www.hybridcars.com...[4] http://www.afdc.energy.gov...
An electric car is better than a gas/diesel car

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that a progressive news site is running a story touting electric vehicles. But does the article in Pro's source carry the burden of proof? Pro's resolution implies that an electric car is better than a gas/diesel car right now, not in the future. The huffpost article does not make this claim. Instead the article states: So here are a few of the reasons that I have learned that lead me to believe that within 50 years a majority of our cars will be equipped with electric drivetrains.The article then lists six reasons. Pro has not included these reasons in the debate so I question the need to refute them, but none-the-less, I'll do it anyway.1. Electric vehicles are more efficient at turning energy into milesThis is true but completely ignores the energy required to turn another fuel source into electricity and get that electricity to it's destination. In addition, only some consumers care about this. Also, as I showed in round 2, electricity costs vary wildly and are dependent on time of day. 2. Electric vehicles are greener than gasoline-powered carsThat depends on a number of factors [1] as wikipedia states:"The study found that in areas where electricity is generated from natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric or other renewable sources, the potential of plug-in electric cars to reduce greenhouse emissions is significant. On the other hand, in regions where a high proportion of power is generated from coal, hybrid electric cars produce less CO2 emissions than plug-in electric cars, and the best fuel efficient gasoline-powered subcompact car produces slightly less emissions than a plug-in car"Coal still produces about 45% of the electricity in our country which significantly mitigates the greenness of EV's.[2]3. Electric vehicles have the potential to support the U.S. economy and reduce our dependence on imported oilSure, but oil production itself supports our economy and that production is growing dramatically.[3]4. An efficient distribution network for electricity already exists in the U.SAn efficient distribution network for auto fuel already exists in the U.S too.5. Range is less of an issue than most think.Really? Then why aren't consumers buying the cars? While the author may be correct that the average daily commute is within the range of most workers, are we supposed to own another car for vacations, holidays, etc?(I skipped #6, because it didn't make much sense to me)The bottom line is that this authors is only one opinion and the only opinion's that matter are the combined opinions of all drivers. So far, the vast majority of Americans are not buying electric cars. [4]. This is despite the fact the federal government is essentially paying these buyers $7,500 dollars to buy them. The reason is simple. They cost too much, they take too long to charge, they don't go far enough on a charge and consumers fear the cost of battery replacement.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.c2es.org...[3] http://www.cbsnews.com...[4] http://www.plugincars.com...
An electric car is better than a gas/diesel car

My apologies for my non participation in the previous round. Although I do not wish to make excuses, this was due to some work issues. I will try my best to make up for it in this last round though. Electric cars vs Gas cars. A hot debate topic thrown around for a long time now, but has anyone come to any real conclusions to state that electric cars are our future? Here you go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... I rest my case.
The Sixth Dimension - Sideways In Time

I'll give you an example of a probability timeline. If Attila > hadn't been persuaded to back off and leave the city of Rome alone by > Pope Leo, there'd be no Roman Catholic Church today. History would have > taken a different course. Can you imagine what North America would be > like today? The Spanish wouldn't have been driven to explore for a safer > place to live, away from the Spanish Inquisition, which like today's > psychiatric establishment can nail anyone. There'd be a totally > different culture in South America and Central America that would have > had a different influence on North America than our background. > Well, that world is here, sideways in time. There was a timeline > where Attila simply charged right through those harmless priests, > destroyed Rome, and destroyed the Vatican, leaving its pagan > superstitions to influence the people. It is very difficult to visit > that timeline and even harder to stay there, for, we are tuned to our > background, not theirs. We only can take little trips sideways in time > where only a few little things are different. But this can convey a sense > of power. > Charles Dexter Ward said something like, " I have summoned demons > down from the stars. I have harnessed the shadows that drift from world > to world sewing insanity and chaos. I can change the course of the > planets. Time and cosmos are mine.....but, it's messy". Whatever he was > doing he was only changing timelines so that it appeared to him that he > was accomplishing all that. He simply went to the timelines where things > were already like that. > I had a friend who had a potato farm full of potato beetles. He > took one of those potato beetles, put it in the sampling cup of his > radionic machine, rubbed the rubbing plate, setting dialed numbers each > time his hand stuck. He came up with the number for those potato > beetles. He let the sample beetle go. He then, having five dials, > subtracted that number from 99999 and got the radionic complementary > conjugate number of the potato beetles. He set his machine on that > number and left it. All his potato beetles disappeared. What actually > had happened is that he traveled to the timeline where he had no potato > beetles. > It says in the Bible, "If you have the faith of a mustard seed and say to this mountain move, > it shall be moved". It looks like, with will times the imagination, which > is mind power, materialized by speech, we change our timelines. We say > to that mountain move, and then we become conscious on that timeline > where that mountain is elsewhere, where we want it. With this knowledge > faith becomes fact. I can win a revolution, without taking anybody else > with me, by going where it is definitely won. The psychiatric > establishment is already overthrown. All I have to do is think > optimistically and I will go where it is overthrown. You'll still see > what you think is me, but I will be elsewhere, sideways in time, > conscious on another timeline where I have what I want. Each of us win > the lottery on other timelines. Let's go.
the government has a responsibility to censor political speeches due to saftey and terrorism concern

hey thank you so much for debating, i have never used this site before and realized after i posted this that i should have explained my intentions better, it wasnt fair to someone who really wants to debate. I thought i could post the question and watch others debate it. Im taking a debate class, and this is the topic, im supposed to come up with 3 arguments for and 3 arguments against each side. other than free speech, and protecting people overseas from harm, i cant think of anything else for or against. If you feel like helping me out, i would really appreciate it. If not, i again apologize for wasting you time.
the government has a responsibility to censor political speeches due to saftey and terrorism concern

I believe that it is the governments job to protect is people they are working for them. Too many politicians use shock/show politics to gain publicity. This can damage the country they are campaigning in significantly! If they offend any type of extremist group that works in there country or beyond its borders terrorism could be a huge threat to the country and that politicians safety. An example of this was in South Africa. Nelson Mandela made a speech that angers white political extremist group the AWB in return they bombed shopping malls and ran around black shanty towns open firing weapons just because Mandela laughed at there attempts to keep him quiet. If Mandela had only not spoke about this hundreds of lives would have been saved.
Philippines should run under One ruler

Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people). It doesnt need to be a leader that kills, we need a leader that leads. Although, i dont care about the killings, as long as they kill the squatters, rapists, murderers and any person that doesnt obey the rules. I mean would you protect this people? Having a one leader makes a country prosper. Corruption is inevitable for government officials, so instead of having a dump load of these so called "officials", why dont we just have a one ruler. You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay.
Philippines should run under One ruler

For "under one ruler" I believe you are talking about a dictatorship government. Dictatorship:a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator. [1] You say "Con can now proceed",so I will start posting arguments. 1. Dictatorship can result in terrible consequences, for example, Nazi Germany. "Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler soon became a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires one person and one party to be in control of a nation and a climate of fear - this was provided by Himmler's SS. Personal freedom disappeared in Nazi Germany." [2] And this could happen in the Philippines too, if only one ruler controlled the whole country. Plus, millions of people are slaughtered by dictators. " Hitler, who started the war, was responsible for approximately 50 million deaths as a result of the Second World War. Throughout recorded history of the world, dictators driven by anger, power, greed, pride, and/or paranoia have killed far more than 100 million people. Just in the last century, to name a few of the most well known: Stalin of the Soviet Union, Mao of China, Hirohito of Japan, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Amin of Uganda, Mussolini of Italy, and Hussein of Iraq have collectively slaughtered tens of millions of people." [3] There are 92,337,852 people in the Philippines. [4] Putting them under one ruler puts all those lives at risk. The ruler/dictator might not listen to the people either. Currently the Philippines is a republic. [4] A republic is "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. "[5] However, things that happen in dictatorships are not chosen by the people, but one ruler! [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Philippines should run under One ruler

"seriously man? We are talking about values and mores here, dont use metaphors that will degrade your ingenuity. If you did something WRONG, you will be punished. WRONG = unjust, dishonest, or immoral action" However, in a dictatorship, the ruler decides what is WRONG, so he/she can decide that wearing pink is WRONG, for example. They do not need to listen to the people about their opinions. Also, values have nothing to do with "mores". It does have things to do with morals. "A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough" You just assume that ALL government officials will be corrupted and just GUESSED how many each will take without giving evidence. You just think that the official will take 1/2 billion and that the officials will take 1 million each, which has no evidence as the numbers are pulled out of nowhere. "GETS? " Who gets what? "its like talking to a brick wall here" So you mean that I did not get all of your statements. Let's see your statements. "Remember, not all ruler think alike." A ruler cannot think. You draw lines and measure distance/width/height/etc. with it. "You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay." You did not give any actual number of embezzled money other than imagined numbers. "We are talking about values and mores here." Customers want to get "more" high "value" stuff for less. "A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough" How do you know that the ruler will take half a billion? "Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people). ... Please do read your history, Adolf hitler didnt intend to hate the races that you have mentioned, hate is an emotion, and as such cannot be completely explained and doesn"t follow the rules of logic." My argument: "... and other victims of ethnic and racial HATRED in these camps." [1] Plus, remember to use [ ' ] and CAPITALIZE names. Conclusion Pro dropped many of my arguments. pro didnt usee ciorrect gramer and speeling! Dat not goodd! He not get speeling and gammer point. i getit. Pro ignored many of my arguments or maybe did not even read my whole argument. Pro's statement was filled with illogical refutations, e.g. [Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people).], wrong grammar and spelling, and criticism for my inability to read it. [1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Philippines should run under One ruler

its like talking to a brick wall here anyways i shall proceed to my last argument On your statement ((Therefore, the ruler can decide that anyone who wears pink should die.)), seriously man? We are talking about values and mores here, dont use metaphors that will degrade your ingenuity. If you did something WRONG, you will be punished. WRONG = unjust, dishonest, or immoral action On your statement (("Less official operating the country" Do you mean the country should have less OFFICIALS?")), can you please read the below logic A - single ruler B to M - 12 officials Z - 1 billion dollars A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough .:government needs 1.2 billion to feed these sharks GETS?
Philippines should run under One ruler

You didnt answer my question, would you protect this kind of people? It is not being racist, it is being practical. I mean, would you live in a country where this kind people freely linger around? In the first place, why are we referring to the single ruler as a demonic kind of man. Remember, not all ruler think alike. Please do read your history, Adolf hitler didnt intend to hate the races that you have mentioned, hate is an emotion, and as such cannot be completely explained and doesn"t follow the rules of logic. (("Plus, you said this, (the weaker people should be killed) then you said only squatters, rapists and unlawful people, which is self-contradicting because weaker people are not unlawful. (Unless a ruthless dictator says that weak people should be killed.)")) It is not contradictory because I didnt state such thing. You are not obviously reading my argument here, I said that Adolf did this and did that (killing weak people), I am not saying that this will now be the image of Single ruler. Which i stated will only kill unlawful citizens. Are you getting the point or do i have to spell it out? The whole point of this is not the killing, it is about protecting and on your statement (("This means that the dictator (single ruler) could be, inevitably, corrupt, and this does not cause the country to prosper.")), didnt you read my last statement (("You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay.")). Hence, less official operating a country, means less money they will take. What more if we only have one ruler, right?