BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage should keep pace with inflation

A minimum wage creates a demand for higher skilled labor. By preventing a vending business from paying a worker $2 an hour to sit in a box and hand people drinks, it makes it profitable to pay an engineer and a mechanic to build a vending machine. "A form of charity, or at least a bet on the future." Great point. A bet on the future. Businesses that make long-term investments tend to do far better than businesses that intend to cut corners. Warren Buffet likes to point this out.If a person only has $2 worth of productivity, they shouldn't be employed. They should work harder before they're employed. By removing from the labor pool workers who do not produce enough to justify being paid the minimum wage, the minimum wage raises standards for hard work in much the same way it does for sophistication. It results in scarcer "badly made" goods, requiring goods that were made more intelligently and durably.And as for tax funded student loans, this is exactly why minimum wage "must keep pace with inflation," which is more on topic with the debate anyway. Because workers can't pay for their own college, and because the nation needs college graduates, the government makes an investment in student loans. But because the government makes this investment, colleges continuously raise their prices for the "average" student, and continuously hand out larger scholarships to priviledge the few star students that the college believes will add to their reputation.For providing for a family, if the source of income should disappear, a below-minimum wage is a temporary solution that will drown itself in the future of inflation and real gdp growth. A minimum wage causes a temporary unemployment, but the increased tax revenue that comes with the employment of the rest of the nation provides the government the funding it needs to empower the family breadwinner to take a breather, learn a new skill, and get a job that will be in demand for decades to come.Real wealth is born from properly allocated competition. Competition can occur in the form of lower wage, but this form of competition soon falls behind the global economy, turning Americans into the warehouse workers of the world. A better allocation of competition is to require workers to find new ways to be productive. And, in fact, economic growth and the value of exports and a function of the worker's innovation, and the least we can do is enable our standards to keep pace with it.
Minimum Wage should keep pace with inflation

In a growing economy, low wages stunt both the sophistication and the wealth of the working classes, and an unsophisticated workforce stunts the economy's growth and global leverage. Among other things, a growing economy means growing prices. Not all prices grow equally or predictably. The price of college, for example, has risen much faster than the rate of inflation. A college-trained workforce can design cheaper transportation, more efficient agriculture, lower maintenance housing, more adaptive business strategies, patent more inventions, and if there's extra college-trained workers left over they can choose whether to accept lower paying jobs, export their services to Europe (or other nations in general) and thus increase American wealth, or attend a graduate school. Graduate schools add a whole new competitive dimension to a workforce's global prestige. Their pools of graduates raise the bar for scientific research, pharmaceutical quality, political soft power strategies, economic research projects and the arts. They add personnel to hospitals, research centers, legal firms, think tanks, and to the very universities that contribute so heavily to the workforce to begin with. Formal training aside, living above the poverty line allows people to rid themselves of worries about where their next rent payments will come from, freeing them to turn their attention to their mental well being and that of their families. The economic benefits of this vary in levels of abstraction, but in general, an economy that cares for its participants will be cared for by its participants. Economically, we are destined to fall behind nations that place a higher premium on the mental well-being of the middle classes than we do. As our growth and inflation leave behind our workers, the workers of Japan and Europe and other smart economies will leave behind our nation.
Minimum Wage should keep pace with inflation

Low-skilled labor is a natural precursor to more mechanization; as supply increases, demand is capable of increasing. If demand increases enough to justify more investment technologically, then it will do so. It seems Pro agrees with me; as I stated in round 2, the silver lining to inflation is that the minimum wage becomes less effective. However, the point made in round 3 was that there is not a race to the bottom in labor; yes, companies can afford to hire workers above the minimum wage, and yet the demand for labor compels them to choose that higher price for labor than the minimum price they could pay. The cost of labor is part of the investing process; most of the gains from a process are spent back to make more of the product, while the initial start-up is purely an investment in employing the correct amounts of capital and labor to bring a good to market. Minimum wage reduces this effect. As investment increases, labor can diversify. There is a need for people with intelligence to specialize more in a subject than others; the opportunity cost, however, of an engineer performing maintenance compared to someone who specializes in knowing how to fix the machine doing the job is high, as is the opportunity cost of someone good at fixing machines when they do go wrong stuck at simply using the machines the majority of the time it works. There is indeed a hierarchy of skills, but trying to push more machinery into operation than is currently profitable through State action results in a system only a number of current firms can adapt to, while driving up the risk of a new venture. Such pushes do not lead to innovation, but stagnation. Ultimately, the price system incentivizes finding the best means to using current resources for consumer demand; where low-wage workers are employed, it is because such production practices are more likely to create a social benefit (desirable use of resources) than the alternative of investing in machines to do the same job. Lastly, it should not be forgotten that a less effective minimum wage encourages easier entry into the workforce. A solid work ethic, work experience, contacts to vouch for those qualities, and even experience gained on the job (an engineer who has worked the factory floor of a company he designs machines for can think of relevant production issues) are useful to people of all skill levels, regardless of whether they will spend little time improving skills to live all the other aspects of life or a lot of time improving skills for a job they love. The work experience provided by a less effective minimum wage, not mentioning all the economic benefits society receives, is as useful to the high school drop-out as it is the P. H. D holder. I hope the audience shows leniency to Pro for extraneous circumstances. It has been an enjoyable debate, and thank Pro for the engagement. May you all vote for the better competitor.
favorite heroe

This is a very short debate here, only 500 characters long, so I will talk about the burdens, etc. DebateThe debate is about favorite hero. Con is negating. That means the debate is not about which superhero you like. You need a debate like, "Is raven better than Superman? ", or what so ever. This is not a debate topic, should be a poll. My opponent has the BoP of the debate, and he needs to fullfill it, but right now he is not doing this.
Evidence for macro evolution

Thiest_1998, let me first start by saying that it is not a strong argument to say everyone else is wrong expect you or everyone else is wrong except you and your small group of followers. Still, I will answer your argument and point out your flawed reasoning. In K-Ar dating, they can be sure that samples millions of years old are accurate because the decay of potassium-40 at 1,250 million years or other elements found in igneous rocks is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical answer or assumption being made. The sequence of the radioactive decay of isotopes in rocks is predictable and never changes. How long these sequences last is also not speculation as the same amount of time passes every time that isotope is decayed into another isotope. Feel free to do your own research on this.In your opinion of the Earth being 10,000 years or younger I would like to ask you if you believe that God made the Earth and Adam and Eve in 6 days, which would make the Earth about 6,000 years old. Or if you are just taking a guess partly based on this and what you know about life and the Earth. You state in your argument, "human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people" I'm sure you can come to a conclusion based on these facts along the lines of more readily available medicine, less large wars, easier to travel, huge natural disasters, more free time, etc, and that 7 billion is actually ALOT.In response to your claims about Earth's magnetic field I must state that Earth's magnetic field is helpful and harmless. By this I mean that it doesn't affect things on the crust of the Earth yet it teams up with the atmosphere to protect life on Earth. Earth's magnetic field also has not lost about 5% every decade. It has been on a downward turn in the last century losing about 10% of its strength, but it ebbs and flows and cannot be succesfully predicted. This also has minimal effect on carbon dating. You cannot dispove scientific facts with speculation. Your claims about the mammoth and whatever else that you didn't want to put in for times sake are also simply invalid. As we saw in the last round, you cannot disprove science by the flaw of one man. I encourage you to keep reasearching and pursuing the truth.In conclusion I must ask you: If you believe the Earth is 10,000 years or younger but have no definitive proof whatsoever, then isn't that just a random lie that you are trying to persuade yourself to believe? Also if you think the Earth is 10,000 years or younger than how would you explain the formation of fossil fuels? Where is your proof?Thank you for debating me and please research THEN try to disprove my beliefs with verifiable facts and not speculation.
Evidence for macro evolution

You said that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old ("We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y. Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long 1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison My response If K-AR dating doesn't work on samples much younger than 6,000 then how could they be sure that samples millions of years old is accurate, nobody can personally observe that and testify if a sample is a million+ years old when they try and date and they get a million+ year they're pretty much assuming they're right, maybe the dating method isn't accurate (just a thought). My answer In my opinion its 10,000 years or under I don't have any definitive proof but my reasoning is this; human population is only 7 billion yet we're taught that humans have been on earth 200,000 years if we have been on earth for that long shouldn't there be more people also magnets lose their strength over time just like the earths magnetic field which means the earths magnetic field use to be stronger it loses about 5% every decade which means the earth cannot be billions of years old because if you go back 30,000-40,000 years the magnetic field would be too strong for life to exist and that also means carbon dating doesn't work because the amount of c-14 in the air is directly related to how much radiation gets in which would be deflected by the magnetic field which would be too stronger, carbon dating doesn't work. Also a few flaws with carbon dating too one man dated a lower leg of a mammoth at 15,380 years old but the skin was 21,300 years old same animal There's a lot more for times sake and the people who don't like reading long paragraphs I won't https://www.sciencealert.com... https://core.tdar.org... Thank you Mr SAVAGE!!! I look forward to your reply
Evidence for macro evolution

This is somewhat of a continuation of a previous debate because I missed a round. http://www.debate.org... In June of 1992, Dr. Steven Austin took a sample of dacite from the new lava dome inside Mount St. Helens, the volcano in Washington state. The dacite sample was known to have been formed from a 1986 magma flow, and so its actual age was an established fact. Dr. Austin submitted the sample for radiometric dating to an independent laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The results came back dating the rock to 350,000 years old, with certain compounds within it as old as 2.8 million years. Dr. Austin's conclusion is that radiometric dating is uselessly unreliable. Critics found that Dr. Austin chose a dating technique that is inappropriate for the sample tested, and charged that he deliberately used the wrong experiment in order to promote the idea that science fails to show that the Earth is older than the Bible claims. I will leave a link to the paper which can be downloaded http://www.icr.org...
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

No, the paragraphs I mentioned were taken from the middle of the section. The opening paragraph refers to whether or not it was on purpose, but both purposefully and accidental are still classed as sin. It is focused on sexual fluids, and the punishment for any action in the section is to give a sin offering. The reason I must ignore my previous statements is because I promised to try and find the paragraph I mentioned earlier. I never found it, but I did find this section. I had to re-read up to Leviticus again for this debate, but I know in a few weeks time, you'll start this debate again like it never happened. I will say it once more. Masturbation is a controlled sexual bodily discharge. According to Leviticus, the sinner must give two offerings, one a sin offering and one a burnt offering, both pigeons or doves, to the priest, who then has a pigeon sandwich. This debate is over, but I'm sure we'll meet again, Duncan.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

so i take it that what you've said up till this point, since you can't back it up, has been pretty much a waste of time. id say as to your leviticus verse, 'unusual discharge' could refer to many things, wet dreams or other health problems, and doesn't necessarily include masturbation. 'unusual' connotes something that defies lay man understanding, very reasonably perhaps. add to that that the bible is generally pro male, we shouldnt assume that the verse is referring to masturbation.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

Good news and bad news. While I couldn't find the wet dream mentioned, (haven't read the bible in 4 years) I did find Leviticus 15, which contains instructions for Unclean Bodily Discharges. While a lot of the section is largely about hygiene, paragraph 14 and 15 involve a sacrifice for the sin of bodily discharge. There. An outright description of wasteful ejaculation as unclean and sinful. I admit, you can ignore the Catholic Churches teachings, and you can overlook that you said "God strikes people dead for not heeding his commands all the time" even though there are dozens of times in the bible where he doesn't, including where Moses says that he cannot convince the Pharoah to release the Jews, and in return for questioning him, God gives him a magic staff. (Exodus 4) and later on, Moses complains again (Exodus 6) and the bipolar Lord lets it slide. And then in Exodus 14, he not only allows some one to challene him, he straight up forces the Pharoah to give chase after deciding to release the Israelites "I will make him stubborn, and he shall pursue you, and my victory over the king and his army will bring me honour". Look, my whole point here is that the bible is completely unreliable, and a passage's interpretation can only be determined when the text is so definitive. The answer for masturbation is temporary exile, a bath, not being allowed to touch anything, and then two pigeons as a SIN offering and a burnt offering. Throw out all the rest, the bible just taught that masturbation is a sin. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

"I cannot recall the section's proper line or location, but for the next round I will have found it, but it refers to the rules by which to live. Leaving the town for the whole day was the punishment for masturbation (the term used was literally wet dream). If you do not think wet dream refers to masturbation, then I will return to your sections. you're referring to something the bible says? i'm sure it doesn't say anything about 'wet dreams', and i've never heard anything about leaving town etc. you need to cite and be more specific. "To covet thy neighbour's wife and his belongings are separate commandments, so covetting the wife is lusting for her (usually in the form of masturbation). covet means more than just desiring. lusting in the more generic term is merely admiring another's property, not coveting. covet is an indordinate unhealthy attachment, and a "you would if you could" in terms of the Matthew verse. "On the subject of Onan, if God did want him to impregnate his wife, he would have just told him to try again, or do a Samson on his and grant him newfound power in a certain body part (not his hair). God strikes people dead for not heeding his commands all the time. we have no reason to think he'd have "just told him to try again". in fact, this doesn't sound like the God from the bible, as much as he strikes people dead. i also notice with this onan point and the covet point, you basically contradict yourself, given you said you wouldnt use those passages to argue against masturbation, but then go on later to argue how you would use them that way. "My final point until you return fire is on your interpretation of the bible. True, the bible cannot be taken seriously, and must be interpreted if believed at all, but the head interpreter is whichever Pope currently resides on the Holy See. So since the Catholic Church (and so are all the others) is against masturbation, that is the official interpretation. You can argue againts that answer, but there are too many attacks on sexual activity not between a man and a woman for the aforementioned sections listed by you. there's no reason we have to take the catholic church as the final arbiter of faith and morals. i think the catholic church has contradicted itself, on the points of limbo, and whether there is salvation possible for non catholics. sure, these can be argued against plausibly, and perhaps we should heed that church's teachings as final. but i don't see why that's necessarily the case, and seems that is probably not the case. and at the end of the day, i'm arguing about what the bible teaches on its own merit. that means we dont look to the catholic church, just what the bible says. and even if we did look to the CC, that doesn't mean the bible says anything about masturbation, just that the CC does... but the point of the debate is regarding the bible, not CC teaching.
"the Bible does not teach masturbation is a sin"

You again? Remember me from the Tiller debates? Ok, this'll be fun. These are not the sections I would use as proof against masturbation from the bible. I cannot recall the section's proper line or location, but for the next round I will have found it, but it refers to the rules by which to live. Leaving the town for the whole day was the punishment for masturbation (the term used was literally wet dream). If you do not think wet dream refers to masturbation, then I will return to your sections. To covet thy neighbour's wife and his belongings are separate commandments, so covetting the wife is lusting for her (usually in the form of masturbation). On the subject of Onan, if God did want him to impregnate his wife, he would have just told him to try again, or do a Samson on his and grant him newfound power in a certain body part (not his hair). My final point until you return fire is on your interpretation of the bible. True, the bible cannot be taken seriously, and must be interpreted if believed at all, but the head interpreter is whichever Pope currently resides on the Holy See. So since the Catholic Church (and so are all the others) is against masturbation, that is the official interpretation. You can argue againts that answer, but there are too many attacks on sexual activity not between a man and a woman for the aforementioned sections listed by you. I await your response.
the islamic belief of getting a bunch of virgins upon death shows it is a false religion

Read the bible! What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah,when god was fed up with sins in that land he destroyed the entire land.Lets look at the USA for example,the sexual immorality in that country might measure up to Sodom and Gomorrah!l'm talking about porn,group sex etc.Remember God is the same yesterday,today and tomorrow. Just thought l should let you know!
who would win in a fight superman or the flash

Superman is extremely durable and he can use the sun to make his wounds heal faster. Because of this, he would be able to take a beating from the Flash until the Flash is exhausted. Then he would punch The Flash in the face to stun him. He would then flight to the sun which would take about 10 minutes. (not long enough for the Flash to recover and chase him down) Superman would just then go into the sun, and by the time the Flash reaches him, Superman would be practically invincible.
Raging is bad.

Round 1 was simply for acceptance and my opponent didn't really say anything. My arguments: Raging causes fights. Raging is often the cause of death. Raging often leads to violence. My rebuttals: My opponent stated that raging is a good way to release your anger. The only problem with this is that raging also often hurts others. Lets say your stressed. You take a rock and throw it at somebody. Not only can this kill the person, it can get you into big trouble. I await arguments.
WODC R2: This House believes the United States should nationalize oil exports and seek to join OPEC.

Rules 1. Bop is on Pro 2. No arguments in the last round. Terms: Nationalize: To transfer ownership of an enterprise or industry to a government institution. OPEC: (acronym) Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries: an organization formed in 1961 to administer a common policy for the sale of petroleum. Its members are Algeria, Angola, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Ecuador and Gabon were members but withdrew in 1992 and 1995 respectively seek: The concious desire to obtain or achieve something.
The story of adam and eve is completely backwards (IMO)

Well, first off, I was raised without religion or spirituality, and I have taken a strong interest in them, almost obsessive, in the past few years, so I didnt really grow up with a religious bias. Anyways, regarding the story of adam and eve, it makes a lot more sense if you switch the role of god and the devil in that story. Think about it, god is not the author of confusion, why would he withold the knowledge from us? So we can never die and be mindless drones? Im sure thats why god created us. It would make more sense if the devil didnt want us to hold that knowledge, of our spiritual nature, to keep us from having a personal relationship with god and learning what we can do. If all the core teaching of every religion is that we are divine beings, then why does almost every religion tell us not to dabble in the spiritual? People just dont want to lose their power... you cant rely on other people to bring god to you, you have to bring yourself to god