BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Adopting children

i'm the one who dont have support with this motion 1. Adopting Children need more money to the parents who want to adopt Any parents who just adopt children just wanna to make them feel happy when any a child can accompanny them. but, if they dont have good financial they will neglect their children dont give them food and another things that children. The children can safe but they will dont keep from their children. how can they fulfill their daily life and love. 2. Adopting Children cant change stigma about people who dont have right like a child Children who dont have parents and adopt by teir new parent can take about their parent's money they dont have right to rules their money of the parents it self 3. Adopting children is will make another child will feel envy with another child who are in parent's home They will have envy when another children will get so manny and it make them feel envy and dont much to love i think its will more save if the children can adopt by the goverment and the goverment must care about the children who are displaced in the society
Classic American Muscle is better than Modern Imports

American-made products are NOT better than some imports. American made-products are far more expensive than Chinese-made products or from products with cheaper labor. American-made products are also very inferior when it comes to quality compared with Japanese or German products, except when it comes to military products (although that's not surprising when America spends a third of its annual budget on the military). American-made cars are very inferior to Japanese cars. Think about it: many countries in the world do not trade restrictions, yet you rarely see American cars outside of the U.S. Why? It is because they are not that good. Japanese car companies like Toyota and Honda have the most cars that, 20 years later, are still on the road. Luxury cars like Ferrari or Bugatti are also from Italy and France, not America. Also, Ace Hood literally has a song called Bugatti
Fire and water ARE living things.

You're moving the goal posts. It's a logical fallacy. In your original argument, you gave three reasons supporting your claim that fire and water are not living things. However, when I successfully exploited your inaccurate definitions and assumptions, you introduced new reasons, in addition to the original three, in order to support your claim. The proper way to conduct a debate is to defend your original points, not to invent new ones. Other than the fallacy, all you did was repost the same argument from round two. You ignored my rebuttal from the second round, so I have nothing new to say. Reference: http://books.google.com... As a disclaimer, I fully understand that fire and water are not considered living things. But your presented reason is fallacious and unconvincing.
Fire and water ARE living things.

You said that water and fire reproduce asexually.This is not true.Fire does have some characteristics of a living thing but not ALL of them.If you don't have ALL of these characteristics than you are NOT a living thing.Fire can move and grow bigger so when another spark or fire comes then its the same things but its just moved.Fire does NOT have a mitochondria,Nucleus,Blood cells etc. Which means its NOT made up of cells. Fire can move and grow but it can NOT reproduce,excrete,respire,and it doesn't have a circulation system.(it cant eat or drink.) Same goes with water,water cant reproduce,excrete,respire and it doesn't have a circulation system. Its NOT a living thing. A non-living living thing. In order for water to be a living thing it needs to pass the four tests listed below. ( Got this from my 7th grade science book) 1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic acid, which is called DNA. 2. All life forms have a method by which they take energy from the surroundings, and convert it into energy that helps them live. 3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes. 4. All life forms reproduce. As we can see water can't reproduce, can't take in energy to make it live, and does not have DNA. In order to make be classified as a living thing, it can't even not pass one test; it has to pass all four. But water does pass the third test, since the water crystals react to words and music. (Find out more at Dr. Emtemo's website about water crystals.) Overall we can obviously conclude that water is not a living thing. Also Cyanobacteria do eat things! They make there own FOOD by using Photosynthesis.It eats! So in conclusion Water and Fire is Not a living thing Here is a link of a teacher/scientist talking about living and non living things.Please click the link below. http://www.teacherthomas.com... Thank you.
Fire and water ARE living things.

Sexual intercourse is not necessary for reproduction. A "boy" and a "girl" are not necessary. For example, bacteria can reproduce asexually via binary fission. Fire and water reproduce themselves asexually, as demonstrated during the first round. I know what the water cycle is. In your original argument, you simply said that water cannot reproduce. You failed to preclude one form of water producing a different form of water, a type of reproduction. Mitochondria are not necessary for life. There exist amitochondrial organisms which lack mitochondria. A cell wall is not necessary for life either. Humans do not have cell walls, but they are alive. Because there are living things which lack mitochondria and some which lack cells walls, fire and water do not need either in order to be considered living things. Cyanobacteria don't eat, per se; they're autotrophs. They derive their energy from the sun, but that is not akin to eating. Saying that blue-green algae eats is like saying a car drinks gasoline. It's not technically correct. Besides, you're modifying your definition of "living thing." You're committing the goal post fallacy. Don't add new criteria to the argument. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
Fire and water ARE living things.

1st of all you said that fire and water can both reproduce and that fire can create new fire.There is no such thing as a boy fire and a girl fire that had sexual intercourse to make another baby fire.It cant reproduce. You also said that water can reproduce well it cant because there's no such things as a boy water and a girl water they cant have sexual intercourse.Also you said something about the pregnant cloud.Well that's not true either.http://www.google.co.nz... If you looked clicked the link then you would have seen a picture of the water cycle and how it works.The water evaporates from lakes etc,and then it forms into a cloud.While its forming into a cloud its cleaning the SAME water and making it fresh again.Once the cloud gets heavy full of water it precipitates.So its not making a new droplet.We have been drinking the same water that the Dinosaurs have been drinking. Also you said that Fire and water are made up of cells.They are actually not made up of cells.They don't need a mitochondria because they don't need respiration.They don't need a cell wall because they don't need structure because its water. Also Cyanobacteria is also known as blue-green bacteria or blue-green algae.Algae eat things.So Cyanobacteria is an algae and algae make there own food by a process called photosynthesis.Cyanobacteria utilize the energy of sunlight to drive photosynthesis, a process where the energy of light is used to split water molecules into oxygen, protons, and electrons. While most of the high-energy electrons derived from water are utilized by the cyanobacterial cells for their own needs, a fraction of these electrons are donated to the external environment via electrogenic activity. Cyanobacterial electrogenic activity is an important microbiological conduit of solar energy into the biosphere. So ALL living things must be able to eat and drink. Also Cyanobacteria does eat things. In conclusion Fire and Water are not living things.
Fire and water ARE living things.

1. Fire and water can both reproduce. Fire can create new fire. For example, if a wooden stick in placed into a bonfire, the stick will catch fire, a new fire which is not identical to the first. The original fire is a bonfire, but the new one is a wood fire If the stick is then thrown onto a haystack, the haystack will burst into flames, creating yet another new fire, a hay fire. Water can also create new water. Clouds, for example, are made of water vapor. But if the moisture within the cloud reaches a certain threshold relative to air temperature, the water vapor will condense and fall out the pregnant cloud as little raindrops. A raindrop is not identical to a cloud; it is a new form of water. 2. Fire and water are both made of cells. Cells are the constituent units of living things. Fire and water are both constituted of basic units. Fire is nothing more than a combustion reaction, and the resulting flame is the visible manifestation of the reaction. The intense heat of the fire vaporizes the fuel source, and, as the vaporized fuel interacts with air particles (free atoms and molecules), a glowing flame is produced. The glow is light emitted from the exited electrons of the air particles. In other words, the basic unit of a flame is the particles of air. Those particles can be thought of as a type of cell, the basic unit of the existent flame. Water is also composed of basic units. These units are called molecules, and they are of the form HOH (hydrogen hydroxide). 3. ALL living things do not need to eat and drink. Cyanobacteria neither eat not drink, yet they are most certainly alive. Therefore, fire and water can still be considered living things though they neither eat nor drink. Fire and water can be considered alive.
Fire and water ARE living things.

I believe that Fire and Water are NOT living things. My 1st point is that fire and water can NOT reproduce,and all living things must be able to reproduce. My 2nd point is that water and fire are not made up of cells and all living things must be made out of cells in order to be classified as a living thing. My 3rd point is that fire and water do not eat or drink and all living things must be able to eat and drink. There fore I believe that water and fire are NOT living things.
American democracy is a failure.

Thank you, Con for a compelling argument in the negation. However, my opponent's rebuttal fails in 2 key places, first my opponent claims that America has never been a democracy. Although technically this is correct, America is not a democracy in the classical sense of the word, America IS a democracy, just not a TRUE democracy. America IS a representative democracy. Even if you don't buy into that, you have to accept the fact, that the wording of the prompt assumes American Democracy exists, be it functional or not. My opponent instead of engaging in an educational and intriguing debate topic dances around a real debate by attempting an unfair, and noneducational attack on the rhetoric of the prompt. Aside from this abusive assault on my case that restricts the educational qualities of this debate, my opponent offers no rebuttal to my multiple points as to why American Democracy is a failure. Thus, I should win this debate. Vote in the Affirmation for these reasons.
American democracy is a failure.

I hope this debate will be one of a positive learning experience relative to the title of this debate and Pro's Round 1 setup. Relative to the title of this debate “America,” I'm assuming the USA, was never a “democracy” it has always been a republic! Therefore, “American democracy is a failure” is not possible for the USA was never a democracy. If Pro feels the USA is a “democracy,” the Burden of Proof (BoP) rest on Pro to prove the USA is a “democracy. ” Until then, Con will claim American [USA] democracy is NOT a failure, for the USA was never a democracy. I realized Pro may be a victim of the quality of education found in our government controlled educational system. And in saying that, a good place to start for indoctrination deprograming is viewing the following two presentations: . https://www.youtube.com...
American democracy is a failure.

Too bad Pro forfeited this debate. I was hoping to demonstrate to Pro one of the safeguards in the U.S. Constitution, presently under consideration ("Convention of States"), where the State governments could collectively remove power from the Federal government and/or make amendments to the constitution without the consent of the Federal government. http://www.newsmax.com...http://www.conventionofstates.com... http://www.conventionofstates.com...http://cnsnews.com...Therefore, the United States' Republic is NOT a Failure! If the Federal government continues down its current path, we the people could support the “Convention of States” by petitioning our State governments.When the ruling-class follows the U.S. republic's constitution yields the best form of governance known to mankind. Failure in any form of governance is a function of the morality factor of the ruling-class.
Minimum Wage

Wow, this is getting long! Anyway, here is my closing argument. (Sorry for arguing in the last round and not letting you rebut, but you may challenge me to a part 2 if you please. I'll try to not make a bunch of new points.) "My opponent used an example of a pizza parlor that loses customers because they raise the prices to compensate for the minimum wage being doubled. For one, the competition the pizza parlor has also has to pay minimum wage so they both have to compensate." There are exceptions to this. For instance, maybe federal minimum wage stays the same, but the city where the pizza parlor is may increase its minimum wage while the parlor's competitors in surrounding cities might not have their minimum wage increased. People living between the two cities would likely choose to go to the pizza parlor with the lower prices which would be in the city with less minimum wage. Also, the pizza parlor's competitors might have already been paying their employees more than what the minimum wage was, so now their employees are still $1 above the current minimum wage, thus not affecting their prices. You say that prices wouldn't decrease because that would lower a company's profits. In some instances, lowering their prices by, say, 50% (I know this big of a change would likely not happen, but it is a round number) could increase their customers by more than 50%, thus letting them sell more pizzas and letting them make more profits overall. The employees might not get as much pay, but you could make them happy in other ways, like giving them more vacation days, giving them a discount on your pizzas, having less hours per week if they can't handle that many, giving them longer lunch breaks, etc. My opponent argues that other things like Wal-Mart groceries won't lower. Again, some minimum wage employees aren't dependent on their job, for example, they could be high schoolers with parents that take care of them, spouses with a better job, etc. Plus, if Wal-Mart lowers their employee pay, they likely could indeed lower their prices. Again, they can make the employees happy in other ways, such as increasing vacation days, lengthening lunch breaks, etc. *Just a note, when I offered the "advice" of raising minimum wage to 1 million, I was not actually saying that we should (not that my opponent was saying otherwise, just to be clear). I was just wanting to show that there are disadvantages. Anyway, if it has more benefits and litte/no disadvantages, it would be a great idea to raise it to 1 million. I argue that there would be disadvantages such as price increases and companies going out of business due to loss of customers due to price increases. To recap, minimum wage is bad because it causes an increase in prices, sometimes leading to things like unemployment and bad service, and the pros don't outweigh the cons. (Again, sorry for making new arguments that you can't rebut, though it wasn't mentioned that I couldn't do so.) I agree that this was a good debate and I hope you understand my point of view better now. Good luck in the voting period!
Minimum Wage

In this argument, I will summarize and rebut the most general, bigger picture arguments. My opponent used an example of a pizza parlor that loses customers because they raise the prices to compensate for the minimum wage being doubled. For one, the competition the pizza parlor has also has to pay minimum wage so they both have to compensate. Also, consider the alternative: If the pizza parlor didn't have to pay minimum wage, they could make the wage whatever they wanted. My opponent would like you to believe that this would lead to lower cost of living but this is untrue. 1. Prices would not lower as companies are incentivized to make the most profits 2. No minimum wage=unhappy employees 1. Prices will not lower >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I said in Round 3: "If the restaurant has better service, people will definitely come more often. Thus they get more money. However, they are not necessarily incentivized to lower prices. Why would they do that? Then they get less profits! The restaurant is more likely to keep the prices the same or raise them. Let's just say they keep the prices the same, then the workers are still paid less but the cost of living still hasn't gone down. So now the workers are even poorer." My opponent argues that the cost of living would lower but this is not true. Even if the restaurant lowered their prices, there are still many other costs that still have not lowered. The employees' rent has will not lower,their bus fare will not lower, gas money will not lower, Wal-Mart groceries will not lower. They still have tons of costs and not enough money to afford them. 2. No minimum wage=unhappy employees >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without a minimum wage, companies will pay their employees whatever they want. When companies pay their employees crap (excuse my French), productivity will lower. The employees have no inspiration or motivation to work anymore. If they keep the job, they will be unhappy because they can barely (if at all) take care of their families or themselves. They will be awful to customers and won't work as hard since they are not being paid as well as they should be. Since their will be terrible service, customers will leave, not stay. And this the company makes less profits. My opponent also said that if their are no downsides to minimum wage, then why not raise it to a million? I disagree with this for two reasons: 1. The minimum wage is not perfect but it is much more beneficial than the alternative: a world where employers pay whatever they want to workers, a world reminiscent of the Industrial Revolution 2. Raising the minimum wage to 1 million is not what I'm insinuating. What I'm saying is that the minimum wage has far more benefits than disadvantages as is. Thanks for debating me, this was a good one :).
Minimum Wage

Apologies for the late response. I believe that minimum wage is good for 2 reasons: 1. Prevents companies from taking advantage of employees, especially immigrants 2. The logic of allowing companies to decide wage is flawed They will be combined as one argument for flowing's sake. 1/2. Prevents companies from taking advantage of employees and the logic of no minimum wage is flawed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without some regulation, companies would be able to choose their own wages for employees. In factory working jobs, for example, without a minimum wage, the company could pay the employee $1 dollar an hour. People opposed to the minimum wage argue that if such a company payed such a low wage, no one would work there. This argument is flawed for 2 reasons: 1. In America, in 2014, 62 percent of people over the age of 25 did not have a degree. Studies have shown that the less education you have, the less money you make in terms of the jobs you are able to qualify for. While not all of these people are going to work for a minimum wage job, a lot will because these are the types of jobs they can be hired for. Since they cannot get other, higher paying jobs, they WILL take the $1 an hour wage. Because a tiny wage is better than none right? Employers know this: it's exactly what happened in the Industrial Revolution. Companies took advantage of their employees because they could. http://www.politifact.com... 2. This logic only works for certain jobs. If I am a teacher and the school offers to pay me $20,000 a year. I could take it but at the same time, there are hundreds of other schools and high demand for teacher jobs. I could go to a different school, or at least I have a better chance of finding a better job. Or a doctor for example, if the hospital doesn't want to pay them the money they feel they deserve, they could go somewhere else easily. But this only applies to jobs in such high demand. People with only the skills for jobs in low demand are likely to be taken advantage of. Note that high demand jobs such as being a doctor are different from high demand jobs like factory workers because doctors have more leverage than a factory worker. If you don't believe me when I say that employers will take advantage of their employees just take restaurants as an example. Waiters and waitresses are not paid minimum wage because they receive tips which can provide payment. When you go into restaurants, people look at you weird if you don't tip or if you don't tip a lot. They say: "How could you be so mean? That's their salary!" Well, that's just IT. I didn't come here to pay for their salary, I came to pay for food. Now, the responsibility rests on the client instead of the employer who gets away with paying their waiters $2 an hour. Now, waiters hustle for tips and depend on them to survive. That is not how it is supposed to be. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being honest, I realized through research that I would rater debate whether we should RAISE the minimum wage but after this debate, I'll just make a new one.
know=physical experience

Know is defined as " to be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information."Information can be obtained from another and thus you can physically know something without physically experiencing it. We know that everything will not disappear when we blink because it is literally impossible. We know that the sun will rise again even though we've never experienced tomorrow. We know history even though we never experienced it, because just because we don't individually experience something doesn't mean it only exists with us. In order for my opponent to win they must show we cannot know anything we do not experience for our selves, AND that know is thus defined as a solely physical experience.
know=physical experience

god couldnt kill it no.. - But we don't know there is god, we believe there is a god, so we don't know if he can destroy it, we believe he can. i don't know Means, i have to imagine it, so if i take my hand behind my back, how many fingers am i showing? - Your fingers do not cease to exist just because i can't see them, i know they exist even though I am not physically experiencing them at this time. I am not claiming you know everything regardless of experiencing it, i am saying you don't always have to physically experience something to know it.
Batman is not a true superhero

I fully believe that batman is a true superhero. a)He is one of the original DC superheroes. The term was originally coined to describe him and Superman so he is the measure by which other superheroes are measured by. b)He is superhuman. I'd like to see any normal master of martial arts do some of the stunts batman's able to pull off. He quite clearly has superhuman strength, and with thousands of gadgets and the bat mobile, he's reached a level of prowess and indestructibility that cannot but be described as super. c)He is a hero. He does good for humanity and tries to save lives. He frequently works as an extension of the (lets be honest) hopeless Gothem City Police Force