BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Minimum Wage be reduced to the 1964 rate of $1 an hour in the US

Note that Pro has the sole BOP in this round, and is nowhere close to meeting it. He has made two dubious claims, without a single shred of evidence for either. As a result, I will move into rebuttals immediately. I. "Prices for goods will reduce to reflect the reduction in labor costs."Firstly, this is completely unsourced, and is, therefore, an assertion. Secondly, any reduction in costs would not be equivalent to the reduction in wages. For example, note that for most fast food restaurants, labor is only 25% of costs [1]. This means that, with a roughly 85% reduction in labor costs, a burger that is $4 in the status quo will only drop, in cost, to $3.15, or around a 22% drop. This means that while products may be cheaper, the average person's ability to buy them will be diminished exponentially worse, meaning businesses will sell less, which will lower GDP, and, overall, cramp economic growth. This leads to a much worse standard of living for the average American. Thirdly, my opponent assumes, without merit, that a company will automatically lower prices significantly. A company could also invest the saved costs back into the company (a la Wal Mart), or simply take the profit [2]. Basic economics is simply insufficient with regards to the labor market. Thus, economically, this would be catastrophic. II. "The US Dollar will become stronger, because it will be able to buy more goods."This does not make sense. Again, firstly, this is unwarranted and without evidence. Secondly, currency strength is only partially related to the cost of goods [3]. Other things, like government interventions and economic shocks, are also involved. Thirdly, currency strength is but one measure, and does not mean that the country is economically strong [4]. Note, in my previous source, that 7 of the top 10 strongest currencies are not from countries that are economically strong in terms of standards of living. ConclusionMy opponent has only made assertions, without evidence, which cannot meet the BOP. Even besides this, his assertions are incorrect and irrelevant, respectively. He will need to do better. Sources:1. http://smallbusiness.chron.com...2. http://www.slate.com...3. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk...4. http://www.foxnews24x7.com...
The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days.

"It's a broad window of usage and there is no limit to what could possibly be described as Racism." No it is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." or "Racism: Diminishing someone due to a difference in his cultural or race." The word racism has a limited number of uses and thus there has to be a point where it is no longer appropriate to use it. It has gotten to the point were even stating the fact of another's race is "racist". The movement to get rid of racism is a just cause however there few people who are truly racist most people can joke and laugh about stereo types though few people actually believe that one race is truly superior to another. I believe that the movement against racism has basically achieved its purpose and is now counterproductive. Going back to my previous example of the Indian mascots: no one would have ever thought it racist or offending if no one ever brought it up the fact that the people against racism did created racism where there previously was none.
The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days.

I will agree with those definions however unless other wise noted I will be using the second one. I feel that most people do not understand that racism is negative and thus use it incorrectly. Someone might say "Blacks like watermelon" then some one would say "That is racist!" However unless you think eating water melon is bad or revulting it is not racist. Anouther example would be when people are mad over certain football mascots and they think because these mascots are indian they are "racist" when the intion was never to diminish the indians it was to show them gratitude by idealising them. If i were to make a new definition of racism based on how people use it now it would be; noting differances of diffrent races. I feel it is correct to say there are differances in differnt races because each race has a differnt history. The diferance between blacks and whites is because of racism.However it is not racist to realise there is a differance that was created through racism. The word rarely (as in the topic of this debate) I can not prove however. It is up to the voter to decide how often the word racism is used in this manner in their lives. For me however this is the only way I ever see the word. I will now leave it to my opponent to decide the course of the rest of the debate.
The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days.

I'll accept the challenge.As per agreement in a personal message the word racism is defined as such:"Racism: Diminishing someone due to a difference in his cultural or race."Alongside the more common definition of "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." If my opponent agrees to that.The debate is, as resolved: " The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days. " where my opponent believes that it isn't used correctly or is overused while I hold the position of it being correctly used more often than not. My opponent may object to these definitions if he sees fit.There are 4 rounds, 3 for debating. 8000chrs for each round and 72 hour time frame to post an argument.Standard DDO debating rules apply (no forfeits, conduct is to be held in honour, no plagarism e.t.c)unless there are further formalities that need to be discussed (that can be discussed in the comments or Pm and made a note of at the beginning of the next round) then you may begin your case. Good luck
The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days.

1/8th may not be a large number in itself, but when applied to the roughly 314 million inhabitants of the US we can quickly see that we have nearly 39.25 million people that, according to this survey, would identify themselves as racists. That is, with little exaggeration, 39,250,000 problems that we need to get rid of. Even if most of these things are a jokes as my opponent proclaims, jokes can hurt. Not everyone will find that joke funny, and someone will find the degrading humor to be offending. Racism is still racism, no matter who takes offense to it, if it is minor, major, if it is intended as comedy or as an insult. We have to be careful where we use it and how we use it if we are forced to use it at allIn conclusion:The word "racism" is widely used, that much is true. But we can quickly see that it isn't overly used, for wherever it is used it is with a just reason. For racism is a moral crime, it degrades your fellow human beings for attributes they have no control over. no matter if there are a million that practise it or just one, racism is something that has to be eliminated, and limiting our uses over the word is not going to help us achive that goal. My opponent hasn't defended the resolution and my points have remained largly unanswered, and thus we can see that racism is not used out of context, for as long as it exists, it is always in context.
The word racism is rarely used in the correct context these days.

Poll: Most Americans see lingering racism -- in others (CNN) -- Most Americans, white and black, see racism as a lingering problem in the United States, and many say they know people who are racist, according to a new poll. But few Americans of either race -- about one out of eight -- consider themselves racist. http://www.cnn.com... It all depends if you think 1/8 is a large number. I now disregard many of my previous arguments as they were based off my personal experience, Most people in the area in which I live can joke about racism and not take it seriously even if it is directed at them. I do not see however how seeing the color of anouther person is racist it is not giving them a trait that they don't inheritly have. In conclusion We must remember what the goal of getting rid of racism is - to promote equality and understanding. we must not however direct the word racism at other people with out first asking if we are also at falt.
Women ought not to be the head in a ministerial role

Admittedly, some verses teach taht women are to submit to men and expressly forbid women to exercise spiritual authority over men. But these passages do not express God's will for all time. As Con I believe that it does not matter if women are the head of a ministerial role. In order to express my position I offer the following contentions: Contention 1: It often goes unnoticed, but God incorporated the songs and statements of a number of women into his inspired authoritative Scripture (Exodus 15:21; Judges 5; Luke 1: 46-55). In as much as the whole Word of God has authority over believers, these passages have examples of women having spiritual authority over all (including men) who read them. Contention 2: Women were given the same command to "rule" over creation as were men (Gen. 1:27-28) Contention 3: Huldah was a prophetess consulted by both men and women. Noadiah and Anna are also depicted as pophetesses who could teach (Neh. 6:14; Luke 2:36-38). Contention 4: Reason and Experience reason and experience do not support the notion that women cannot be gifted to exercise the highest levels of spiritual authority. There is no connection between a person's gender and their ability to preach or teach. Throughout history for the past 150 years it has shown that God has used women for preaching, being teachers, evangelists and pastors.
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

i can at best believe what others tell me, as i have to imagine it belief=be lie, as i dont know is true i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine it kNow=physical experience(now) math itself is not true in that it is numbers, imaginary, imaginaiton is not true, so an equation is only true if it fits reality. we call them true numbers dosnt exist in reality, beyond symbols i can write down to understand, numbers are like a limited language i guess.. reality is true, not truth, and not false numbers come from our minds
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

Debate accepted. Now, while the initial mathematical equations outlined by Pro in his opening argument *are* considered correct--at least according to basic mathematics, the subject of reality and imagination itself is in fact a lot broader and not easily defined. For example, if someone has said that they've seen something out of the ordinary; who do we conclude that they haven't? Because for all we know they actually may have seen that something. Reality means different things to different people and can simply not be categorized in being a certain way. Everybody has a different one. Here are some of the maths that I've equated: 0=a number, part of reality. 1= a number, still part of reality. So unlike Pro has argued, both of these numbers are true. 69= reality, therefore, all numbers equal reality and are truths.
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, i know my experience of now you dont know what will be, future is imaginary memory is not real, now is real reality dosnt exist inside my mind, reality is physical not mental you can argue anything, but how do you know.. if i flip over a glass and water runs out on my table, the glass standing on the table before i flipped it is in my mind, not real imaginaiton is future, future is ahead of now. to say 5 seconds ahead of now is real, is to say reality is 5 seconds ahead of reality, you reading these words is not 5 seconds ahead of now. whenever you read these words on the screen, its now reality=Now future and past dosnt exist in reality, they are false and truth, opposite of matter if you did something 10 seconds ago, you are not doing it, thus it isnt real i could put an orange in your hand if it has happend, it isnt happening, thus its not real math is useless without being attached to something, 1 ocean, 1 rock, big difference, whatever you have in your hand is at least 1. im not talking about the number.. the number simply describes it.. this should be easy to understand numbers are not natural, and not a part of reality beyond the symbols i can write down only now is nature, past is machine and future is unicorns.. superman is defined by exceeding man.. you can not just imagine having these powers and it come real, not sure i understand what you mean lying to people and making them believe things makes no things real.. creation is impossible in reality i know the light on my screen and the sounds i hear when i watch a movie, thats it, i have to imagine the rest of it. seeing a movie is like being inside the head of a person, watching stories in its mind imaginaiton guides my actions.. i cant move without my imagination.. but imaginiaton can never be real, simply imagine a supernatural thing and make it real to prove your case ambition dosnt create reality.. a building is a construction machine=match IN energy=knowledge if i stand there.. looking at the house i build.. i can touch with my hands... i can not do that with the house in my mind, why would i even build it i alredy have it in my mind and therfore real? matter can at best transform, make an apple nothing belief dosnt make anything real.. never did, religion is false by default, unknown i am not a unicorn, but you can believe in me
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

was real isnt real, like will be now=reality loop 1 second or less future=imaginary now=physical experience past=memory of physical experience if you describe what happend 10 seconds ago, are you decribing reality? or a memory future is ahead of now i can believe 2+2 equals 5 all day long, but i will never experience it in reality. you can believe superman on the screen is real like you can believe the moon is made of cheese impossible is possible by belief, and possibilities are imaginary so, if i believe i am god, i can create things in reality? like i can put a million dollors besides you right now? basicly you can do it to if what you argue is true belief IS false, possibiltiies has 2 sides, either i am wearing a hat or not, but your belief in my claim that i am wearing it dosnt make it so, i can lie there is no life, in my imaginaiton, imagination is a dead nation. im a gi nation if you become a buisness man you know you did it, if you think about becomming it now maybe you will know you cant be, thus belief is irrelveant even thou you imagine becomming a buisness man.. or women.. you can imagine it all you like, but even if you become it.. you will never come out of your imagiation.. if i want to build a dream house, and i have the perfect image in my mind of it, i build it and its done it looks 100 percent alike but, is the house infront of me, the same house as i have in my mind? if you can create things in reality from your mind, you are god in reality, why believe in a religion then?
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

Pro argues that "only now is real", but obviously both the past is actually real too. To expound on this a little further, me going on holiday to Portugal at the age of 15 was a real event because I visited and experienced it--as well as having witness testimony for that. You can also use the example of historical events like WW1 and WW2, which were real and genuinely took place. Real=events that have happened and are happening. Therefore, both the past and present, and to a large extent the future, are real. Because they are not necessarily happening in our imaginations but in reality. Know=realReal=past and presentLife=realAnd: Matter=past and present Regarding Pros counter-argument that he could create a superman [in his mind] and put him in an animated movie, there is nothing to say that *some* people wouldn't in fact interpret him as real. Someone who feels inspired by the superman could dress up as him, and then basically become him--thus meaning that the superman becomes real. Someone dressing as up as the superman=the superman becoming realThe superman becoming real+the person thinking they're the superman=real supermanThus, a superman exists. Alluding to Pros resolution that "imagination is the opposite of reality", once again this isn't always the case. Largely because people actually make a reality from their minds and imagination. Take ambition for an example: Person wants to be businessman=person becomes businessmanWhich thus means that being a businessman becomes a reality.
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

only now is real false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now, as i dont know facts are past observations, knowledge, and no knowledge exist of beliefs, like i cant remember what your belief looks like.. its not a thing i can see and touch, and whatever i imagine, is not what you imagine even thou it might seem similair in how we agree about an imaginary idea kNow=now, not future and past belief=nothing know=something life is, not was or will be... life is true, life is matter, matter is only now to counter your number argument, i can create a superman in my mind and "put" him in an animated movie, but you wouldnt say that he exist in reality would you? beyond being light on your screen mind=my end=future and past life=my beginning=now so my mind is anywhere beyond now creation and destruction is impossible in reality, matter can at best transform. make the matter that i an apple, nothing, i dare you only physical experiecne is real. thoughts are not real and dosnt exist in reality, but they do exist to my experience reality=nature+life existence=reality+experience
imagination is the opposite of reality, not now and now

Not necessarily. One example would be when people "believe" things that are actually based in reality, like someone can believe they are going to study, because that's something they have previously done. Someone can also believe they are going to go on holiday, because they have already booked and paid for it. So once again, there are in fact "beliefs" that correspond with reality. Another instance would be when an individual believes their favourite sports team will win, on the basis that they're have built up a successful track record. Belief= something that has happened and will happen=reality. Pro states that maths itself is not true due to numbers being from the imagination, however, this contradicts his previous statement that the number 1=matter=true. Then he argues that number come from "our minds", but this still doesn't show them to be not part of reality. Here's why: Our minds=reality. Our minds are actually part of the reality. The world and things as we know them cannot exist without our minds. Human mind=the ability to create. The ability to create is what shapes our reality. Thus making it real. Reality=our minds and how we perceive things. Our minds and how we perceive things=reality. Now back to you Pro.
Do you Think Bullying Is Being Dealt With Appropriately At Schools

First of my opponent continues to believe that there is a problem with anti-bullying programs. Anti-bullying programs have provided help for certain programs. There is always the few people who don't learn much from anti-bullying programs or anti-drug programs, but the purpose of anti-bullying programs is to show kids the problems with bullying. Also adding on to the argument is the fact that School's do properly punish students, and if they don't legal action is usually taken and the heads of the school are fired and the cycle continues. So schools make sure that they take care of the problems by alerting their teachers to keep an eye on certain groups.
Do you Think Bullying Is Being Dealt With Appropriately At Schools

Look I know bullying is a thing now a days because I am in High School. The issue is that you are stating that programs that schools that use anti-bullying campaigns are not appropriately taking care of the issue is ridiculous. It is always better to spread awareness towards an issue. My school has a week dedicated to why bullying is a problem and I have barely ever seen any bullying in my school. Schools do have to intervene and educate, now it really depends on how much a person gets out of the education in their classes will impact the attempt of bullying.
wmpeebles would make a better President of the United States than StephenPerkins

The resolution: wmpeebles would make a better President of the United States than StephenPerkins.I am wmpeebles, my opponent is StephenPerkins.For practical purposes, this debate will not be a semantical one. The word 'better' as mentioned in the resolution means "Greater in excellence or higher in quality" and "More advantageous or favorable; improved" [1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]. The word better does not imply getting more things done since sometimes doing nothing is more favorable than doing something.Rules:There will be 5 rounds in this debate. The debate will be formatted so that the first round will be so my opponent can accept the debate, nothing more. Rounds 2-4 will be for arguing for or against the resolution. I will be arguing for the resolution; my opponent will be arguing against it. My opponent will be arguing that he would make a better President of the United States than me. In the final and 5th round, no new arguments are to be made, but rebuttals can still continue. The 5th round is simply a conclusion round. Since the policies Stephen and I have would affect vote outcome in a real election, this debate will not focus on electability, but will focus on the actual presidency, ie., debaters cannot argue about their opponent's policies being unelectable, but can argue that their policies would be unpopular, detrimental, etc... Since there is an 8,000 character limit per round, if any participant in this debate wants to extend their arguments beyond 8,000 characters by posting a link to a Google doc or something similar to that, they may do so. If any participant in the debate forfeits a round, they lose the entire debate. All debaters will have 3 days (72 hours) to post their argument for each round. Any violation of the rules will result in loss of conduct points in the votes casted by the voters.Good Luck, Stephen! I hope this debate is worthwhile.
wmpeebles would make a better President of the United States than StephenPerkins

After thinking long and hard, I agree with Stephen on pretty much everything he says here and I concede the debate. I'm not sure I could really prove I would make a better president than him. He is a good man. Perhaps I will be his VP or I'll be the head of the US Department of Energy. There are plenty of areas I am interested in; chemistry being my strongest interest. For Stephen, as long as I have known him, he has wanted to be President one day. We need a responsible leader in office. Sometimes you have to trust others, and I trust Stephen Perkins.