BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: School lunches are better than home prepared meals.

In arguing for school lunches, I will focus on 3 main points. My opponent may make new points as he pleases. My 3 points are nutritional value, availability, and cost. Nutrition: According to the USDA, Meals (usually )contain no more then 1. 30% of calories from fat 2. 10% of saturated fats. [1] Also, a 2001 study [2] shows that kids who bring school lunches are more likely to bring sugars and fats then school lunch kids. According to my first source, only 2% of kids who eat sack lunches meet dietary guidelines. On the other hand, over 75% of schools have vegan options, and 100% have substitutes for milk to still meet nutrition guidelines. Also, meals all meet guide lines for calcium, vitamin d & A, and Iron. 2. Availiability As of now, there are over 30 million school lunches served each day. This is obvious that you can get a school lunch if you need one. 3. Cost. An average meal cost 2.48$, a small sum. Even then the average reduced, there is a 9 billion dollar budget for free lunches each year. With so much money, there is no reason money will not be a problem. [3] Sources: 1.http://www.livestrong.com... 2. http://www.fns.usda.gov... 3. http://paymentaccuracy.gov... P.S These are my 3 points. I am keeping my argument short so my opponent will have room for what his previous argument was going to be. Thank you for reading.
I Should Have Won All Of These Debates.

Hello, Debate.org has a great problem, VOTE BOMBING! Its not just one group of people who is doing it either, regardless of the situation IT MUST BE STOPPED NOW. I have listed debates I should have won below, I would like for all of you to check these debates and vote as you feel. http://www.debate.org... My opponent offered no rebuttals and forfeited the final round. http://www.debate.org... My opponent forfeited every round. http://www.debate.org... My opponent again forfeited every round. This vote bombing BS must stop now.
conspiracy

Take Area 51 for example, it is a military base, the base's primary purpose is undetermined, however, based on historical evidence, it appears to support development and testing of experimental aircraft and weapons systems. Its secretive nature and undoubted connection to classified aircraft research, together with reports of unusual phenomena, have led Area 51 to become a focus of modern UFO and conspiracy theories. Some of the activities mentioned in such theories at Area 51 include: The storage, examination, and reverse engineering of crashed alien spacecraft (including material supposedly recovered at Roswell), the study of their occupants (living and dead), and the manufacture of aircraft based on alien technology. Meetings or joint undertakings with extraterrestrials. The development of exotic energy weapons for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or other weapons programs. The development of means of weather control. The development of time travel and teleportation technology. The development of unusual and exotic propulsion systems related to the Aurora Program. Activities related to a supposed shadowy one world government or the Majestic 12 organization. Many of the hypotheses concern underground facilities at Groom or at Papoose Lake (AKA "S-4 location"), 8.5 miles (13.7 km) south, and include claims of a transcontinental underground railroad system, a disappearing airstrip (nicknamed the "Cheshire Airstrip", afterLewis Carroll's Cheshire cat) which briefly appears when water is sprayed onto its camouflaged asphalt,[63] and engineering based on alien technology. Publicly available satellite imagery, however, reveals clearly visible landing strips at Groom Dry Lake, but not at Papoose Lake.The government decides to keep the intentions of this base confidential simply because if there is something dangerous or troublesome, the public wouldn't be trustworthy. We've seen this numerous times, whenever the public rebels and overthrows their government it's always because the goverment releases previously confidential information to the public and they lose their trust.
The life of a Celeberity

A celebrity is a person who works hard all of their life to become well known, and then wears dark glasses to avoid being recognized. This was stated by Fred Allen. It is because i agree with him that I stand firmly on the Negation side of the resolution stating: The life of a celebrity is totally glamourous. There are four contentions that I will be using in todays debate; Downhill Spirals, Time Spent Traveling (sleep), and Attachment. Contention One: Downhill Spirals There are many types of celebrities. There are movie stars, singers, Tv Show host. There is a wide range of things you could use. Almost all of them have turmoil somewhere in there life. And as seen in this quote I saw in a movie once "No matter how big of a splash you make in this world; wether your Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Bieber or a talking Teddy Bear, eventually NO ONE GIVES A S***. Therefore at some point in there life all celebrities will go on a downhill spiral. Thus shoving them into a pit of dispare where no one loves them anymore. At this point in there life is when most famous people commit suicide, fall into drugs or end up pregnant. Therefore the life of a famous person is not all fun and games. There is lots to deal with later in your life. Contention 2: Time Spent Traveling (sleep) When you are a celeb you are bound to d some traveling. Singers have to go on tour, actors need to go to their sets in who knows where. Fact is when your a celeb theres no way out of it. With traveling there come loss of sleep. For example a singer. He needs to travel from Chicago, Illinois to Kansas City, Kansas. That right there is an 8 hour drive. Plenty of time to get to sleep right. WRONG. Before the concert at KC he (lets say it is a he) must talk with his clothes director for the outfits he going to wear on stage. Then talk to the band to decide what songs to play, then they stop and get some gas and snacks. They can't stop the bus so they keep going. All in all the singer is left with 4 hours to get some shut eye. But the anticipation of the concert keeps him up. In the end the celeb got 3 hours of sleep. He wakes up the next day exhausted. He has to do it all again tomorrow and the day after that. All because he has fans that want to hear him sing. Which brings me to my next contention. Contention 3: Attachments Now we have all seen on the news or somewhere on the internet of Justin Bieber. Hes the "handsome" boy that girls love and has "the voice of an angle". (I have a little sister. ) Her sentence right there shows me a bit of over attachment. Anytime he did anything wrong, some girs were so attached that the cut there wrist. Making themselves bleed. They all thought that if I hurt myself then Justin will know. He will stop what he is doing because it is hurting his fans. It is because of the things celebrities do that make them bad. As you can see life as a celebrity is not all fun and games or "glamorous" as stated in the resolution. I hope that you can see from my argument that the life of a celeb is not all glamour because of Downhill Spirals, Traveling and Sleep, and the Over-Attachments of Fans.
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

Thank you for responding ---------------------------------------- I would like to start of by apologizing for making a spelling error in the resolution and my opponet was caught up in that, I would like to get past that and look at the real issues: Defenses: 1) opponent states that: " If you have a problem with the way your being represented and the things going on call your representative" this is an issue that this country has, we first need to reconize the fact that liberalism is a horrible "idealogy" which was defined by opponent. It is a belief that MUST be fixed in order to better America 2) My opponent did recognize the fact that I left a "s" off of fathers and I do apologize for that, beside that she did not attack that argument, so it still stands. 3) She says that liberalism is an idea that can't be displayed without an actor, thank you for agreeing with me, we need to recognize that liberalism is an illegitimate measure of political science and must act now. And yes, it is ruining the country, we are in debt partially because of the use of liberalism in congress (acorn) Attacks: all of those examples were also supported by conservative-republican individuals.........look at the bad things that liberalism as done: http://www.acorn.org... that is the source of the problems we face today thank you
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

liberlism does not exist. liberalism however does exist. My opponent states that liberalism is a political party against all the American Ideals and is destroying America as a whole. I would like to point out that my opponent is wrong. Liberalism is A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice (http://www.answers.com...) Liberalism is not a party but an ideal or believe. He states that it is "making the country look lazy and ignorant for simply GIVING our citizens money without representation." However, there is a House of Representatives elected by the people. There is a senate elected by the people and a president elected by the people. He may say there is no representation but there clearly is. If you have a problem with the way your being represented and the things going on call your representative. To make such a claim that there is no representation is preposterous. His second point is that is "against everthing the founding father based the country off of" I would like to point out there was more than one father of this the U.S. Thus the founding fathers not father. "Liberalism will eventually ruin the country." Liberalism is an ideal or politcal theory. It cannot be active without an actor. It would be an individual who believes in such things that would actually ruin the country if it were to actually be that way. My Points 1) here is a link of many things that liberalism has accounted for. (http://zeppscommentaries.com...) I would say that woman's suffrage, public education, the family medical leave act, the GI bill, and Bank Deposit insurance have all benefited American society. In sum, Liberalism fights for equality, rights, and liberties, and allows for changes to occur. I await my opponents response.
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

Liberalism is a political party that is against all american idealogy and is destroying america as a whole 1) It is making our country look lazy and ignorant for simply GIVING our citizens money without representation 2) It is against every thing that the founding father based the country off of 3) Liberalism will eventually ruin our country, further worsening the economy because you are spending money on people that don't benefit society. (the only exception is for people that have mental/physical disabilities) Thank you!
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

I would like to attack his points His first point If it is being acted on and it then become dangerous and it can only be destroying something if there is actor. Ideas themselves cannot act without an actor he conceded this. It is a invalid defense for his case. His second point. Acorn is not a liberal program. Surely, just because they have been slandered as liberals does not make them liberals. http://www.examiner.com... The article shown from CNN supports my claim and destorys his. His third point I realize this and I DID attack that claim. I used the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." His fourth point. He claims that liberals are destroying parts of the constitution, yet he fails to show how. He names some but has no reasoning or data or support for his empty claims. My case areas To vote pro is a violation of freedom of expression or American's 1st amendment rights because if liberalism is outawed your ability to be a free thinking individual is taken away. America was founded by free thinking individuals escaping the British rule of only 1 church 1 god 1 belief system. He attacks my public education ideal by saying that republicans also supported it and the same with his suffrage claim. There can be liberal leaning republicans and there has been. Also, just because it is supported by another viewpoint as well does not make the claim that it is a liberal ideal/idea invalid. As I showed he says it is destroying the foundation and basis of America. Through my 1st amendment argument that was ot even touched upon we can see the liberalism or the belief that liberties, the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority is EXACTLY what is the foundation of American society. Vote Neg
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

My Opponent is still stuck on the spelling error I made when I was writing father"s"...you can vote for her on spelling and grammar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attacks: She says: "My only points are still unrefuted. I will now review them." those were not said in the rebuttal, so you can't review them if this is the first time you have said them. 1) I am completely appalled at the fact that she believes that public education is a liberal ideal-----Public schools in the United States are administered mainly at the state level-----she says public education is an ideal, no because and ideal is a belief and public education is a thing. 2) Again women's suffrage was supported by republican's also Defenses: 1) She said: "I want to point out that he conceded the idea that liberalism in and of itself is not dangerous because it is merely a belief or idea. and that is when ideas or beliefs are acted on that they may become dangerous." it is dangerous and it is destroying our country 2) Acorn is a liberal program...I don't think she read the "about" section that I provided in the link 3) Yes I did misspell father"s" she has not attacked that argument aside from the fact that I left off an "s" 4) Liberals are DESTROYING parts of the Constitution (ex: gun rights, health care, and cap n trade) I have CLEARLY won the round because: a. all the attacks on my arguments were unsuccessful b. the attacks I made on her case were successful c. aside from some minor spelling errors I made more compelling arguments
Resovled: Liberlism should not be allowed in the U.S

His defenses are weak. My opponent says that it needs to be fixed in order to better America, yet he fails to show us how or why it would even remotely benefit America. There is more than one founding father and so the assumption of it is against the founding father is wrong. However, if it was not allowed it would violate the 1st amendment rights. (. http://www.usconstitution.net...) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Being a Liberal or preaching or believing in liberalism is freedom of expression. Our founding fathers were very much against not allowing us to express ourselves after coming out of the tyranny of British Rule. Thus, the negatives point is negated. Acorn is not a liberal Group Acorn, is however a group that has been criticized as much by Democrats as anyone. It has been slandered as a "liberal " group without anything to support it. The only thing that could possibly link the two are that they have been more supportive of government subsidies for housing for the poor than Republicans. The fact that Acorn was caught not applying the kind of standards Republicans routinely dont apply to things like going to war or spying on American citizens doesn't mean Acorn somehow reflects liberal philosophy. So, to say such thing without evidence is a invalid claim. My only points are still unrefuted. I will now review them. Public Education is a liberal ideal. Public schools as the iberals teach us, are part of the foundation of democracy. Without the socialization in which every child partakes of the democratic culture of the public schools we would divide into warring classes and subcultures. Woman's Suffrage has created a significantly higher voter turnout rate and has allowed democracy to thrive. 68 percent of white women voted in the last election. 69 percent of Black women voted in the election. Where as only 61 percent of black men and 64 percent of white men voted. (. http://www.baystatebanner.com...) Without the liberal idea of equal liberties women would not have been able to contribute to voting at all and it would have hurt the politcal process as it would not reflect a true majority of the people. I want to point out that he conceded the idea that liberalism in and of itself is not dangerous because it is merely a belief or idea. and that is when ideas or beliefs are acted on that they may become dangerous.
Installing toilet paper rolls with the loose flap "over-the-top" is superior to "underneath".

My opponent forfeits. We may now make it official: toilet paper rolls ought to be oriented with the loose end-flap in the front/top position. with the end pointing towards the user. Promptly, a counterculture of back/hanging-oriented toilet roll installers will emerge, bent on doing things different just to be different. In the end, millions of anuses will decide. Which is better? mmm. Burrito.
Installing toilet paper rolls with the loose flap "over-the-top" is superior to "underneath".

While I'm delighted by your alternative proposal, I sincerely wished to debate the comparison of efficiency between the two methods of installing toilet paper that I proposed in my initial argument. If you cannot present an argument for why the behind/underneath orientation of the loose endflap of a toilet paper roll is more efficient to the user than the front/top orientation, I ask that you kindly forfeit the debate. Further, please note that employing the use of a second individual for wiping one's brown asterisk is actually a decrease in efficiency, since the ability of mankind to perform work in the universe (and perhaps produce more energy) is reduced. Certainly, one person wiping your bottom may use the same energy as you wiping your bottom yourself, but the employment of that second individual prohibits them from performing work in other conditions for that allotted time. Now, under your proposal, every bathroom visit must employ two individuals. The country's productivity would be significantly hindered, especially on spicy-burrito day. Even though the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics hold that there will be a net loss in energy for each transfer of energy, a second individual could still counter the net loss of YOUR energy expelled in wiping your anushole by generating a greater amount of energy. The net loss produced during her generating the new energy could still be lower than the total loss of your energy in expunging the remnants of last night's meatloaf from your rectum. Now, I must insist: argue the fine points of toilet roll orientation, or I will take this debate elsewhere. Sincerely, Peter Z.
Installing toilet paper rolls with the loose flap "over-the-top" is superior to "underneath".

I negate: Installing toilet paper rolls with the loose flap "over-the-top" is superior to "underneath". Reason for negation: I negate, but I do not defend the use of under. My opponent wants maximum efficiency. Therefore, this will be the criterion of the round. I concede; only efficiency to determine the round. Case: I. To maximize efficiency I propose that we let other people wipe us. My opponent believes that the less energy you use the more efficient it is. Ok, then I argue, minimal to no work should win this round. You exert more force by either the top or the bottom if your the one using it. My opponent never said it had to BE YOU doing it. So, therefore have someone else take the toilet paper, and let them wipe you. It's actually sexually optimizing if done by a lover, like your wife. So, therefore, to achieve maximum efficiency, I negate. Instead have someone else wipe you. =============================================================================== This is a clear Con ballet. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I now stand ready for opponents responses.
The jokers statement in the "Dark Knight" that "We are destined to do this forever" is true.

Well Pro didn't respond in the final round, and since I'm Con, I really have nothing else to go by... I guess I have no choice but to extend all of my arguments. Keep in mind that none of my final points (which have trumped Pro's) have been refuted. That said, even if you acknowledge that The Joker and Batman will probably never kill each other, you should only vote based on the arguments made in this debate. I think I've brought up some pretty good points -- hopefully it was enough to encourage a Con vote. Thanks for reading!