BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Earth is spherical and the Flat Earth hypothesis is false

I am arguing that the earth is in fact flat for several reasons. For one, satellites may very well conjure fake programmed images of the earth. People who have been in space may have signed an agreement to not release details of this to the public. Also, we do not require gravity because our mass will cause us to fall against air resistance. In this case, water and other objects would not need gravity to stay down since the earth is already flat.
The Earth is spherical and the Flat Earth hypothesis is false

First of all, your first point makes no sense, you talk about putting a pea under a ball expecting the pea not to fall, even though according to gravity it should since the pea is no held by frictional forces of the ball, and then refer to a balloon. Perhaps rephrase your argument more clearly in the next round. Secondly, you say that if the Earth was spinning at that rate, we should land miles away from the place we jumped from. This does not happen, like you said, but it does not disprove gravity, and in-fact further gives evidence. This is simply because... We move with the Earth! Yes, when we are on the ground we move with the earth, and since when we jump upwards we do not exert a force horizontally, we follow Newton's first law of motion that tells us that an object in motion will stay in motion. We can also consider the fact that the Earth is also rotating at a constant speed. Lastly, the reason a balloon floats in place or upwards, is because of the upward, buoyant force exerted by air pressure that is greater than or equal to the gravitational force of 1g.
The Earth is spherical and the Flat Earth hypothesis is false

We do not actually need gravity. There are several holes in the theory of gravity. If gravity really is true, then if I held up a ball and put a pea on the bottom of it, the pea would just fall off. You may argue that this is because earth's gravity is infinitely stronger than the balloon's gravity. But think about it. If this was really true, then the sun's gravity would pull us right in! Supposedly, the sun's gravity reaches out for light years. This proves how gravity is not possible. More proof is that balloons can fly, even though they are heavier than air. But that doesn't matter when they are filled with helium. If you add the weight of helium to the weight of a balloon, they will still weigh more than air, because the balloon itself weighs more than air. I don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the weight of something cannot be negative. Therefore, no matter how much helium weighs, the added weight of the balloon will make it so air is lighter. Also, I have some more evidence against round earth. So earth supposedly spins 700-1000 mph. Now, if I jumped, evidence would say that I would land some miles behind where I started, based on my starting latitude. However, in real life this does not happen. Why does this not happen? If I jump of a flatbed truck, I will be left behind from the flatbed truck. Also, if you could rise even up to 20 miles, the horizon would look flat. This is the same for sea level. How could this be possible on a round earth?
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

The death penalty should be abolished. The death penalty violates the "cruel and unusual" clause in the Bill of rights, life in prison is a worse punishment which is more effective, and it costs too much to just kill one person. It violates the bill of rights so it is wrong. It may be a punishment but America's law states something that the death penalty doesn't follow. Life in prison is a worse punishment because they have to stay in jail for the rest of their life and it will give them time to see what they did wrong. They can self-reflect and go through worse hell than just dying. Being in jail means you have almost no rights compared to other people. It costs too much money to just kill a person. You can use the money for other stuff.
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

The DP should not be abolished for the simple reason that many of the rabid animals on death row will kill again (even in prison, as Clarence Ray Allen did, convincing a paroled inmate to kill witnesses to his crime[1] or inmates killing guards.). The DP is 100% effective at deterring recidivism, imprisonment is not. Preferring life is willingly rejecting the innocent life saved by my plan,for this reason you negate. Pro's argument is self contradicting: He says the DP is cruel and unusual (no warrant), but life is more harsh. It follows logically that life would then too be cruel and unusual. He argues no impact, prefer saved life over this. His arguments lack warrants, impacts and solvency for recidivism. Vote Con. http://goo.gl...
Raising the minimal wage

I will start arguing my first contention that raising the minimum wage will help working class Currently, the middle class is dying. According to the Pew Research Center (. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) the middle class is getting smaller, and the lower class is increasing. There is a misconception that this is because if unemployment, but that is incorrect. The unemployment rate in the US is the lowest it's been for years (. http://www.bls.gov...) so the reason behind the dying middle class is not the lack of jobs, but the earnings from those jobs. As inflation has increased, we have not increased the national minimum wage to counter it, and this has lead to many Americans to not have enough money to keep up with rising prices (. http://www.truth-out.org...) with the middle class dying due to the lack of fair wages, this is not good for the economy. When the middle class makes money, this will make it easier for them to spend that money on goods. This is elementary economics, when more people have money to buy products, this puts more money into the economy. Con will argue that this raising of the minimal wage will increase unemployment, but that is false. In 1968, we had an unemployment that was over 10 dollars when adjusted for inflation. The unemployment rate in 1968 was 3%. History has shown that when minimum wage is high enough to keep up with inflation, our economy does not crumble into anarchy, it thrives. My second contention is that it will help reduce income inequality. Currently, in the US we have a growing income inequality problem. The top 20% are making over 80% of the wealth (. http://www.scientificamerican.com...) and the middle class is shrinking. This can be attributed to many things, such as unfair taxation, lack of estate tax, among other things. Now, I won't argue that this income inequality is because of the low minimum wage, but a raise in minimum wage could greatly benefit the middle and lower classes. Walmart cashiers make from 7.50 to 11 dollars an hour on average, yet Walmart is one of the most profitable companies in the world. They have more than enough money to raise the wages of their employees, but because they want to make money and because they are allowed to shortchange their employees, they make more money. This benefits the rich owners and shareholders of Walmart, but the people who work there have trouble getting by on that little money. If we made the rich pay their employees more, then that could decrease that huge gaping wealth gap. I agree that there has to be some kind of wealth gap in a successful civilization, but this wealth gap where the rich get so much money and the poor get none is unfair to the people. I will argue my third contention in the next round. I will now allow con to give their arguments and refute.
Raising the minimal wage

Thanks, Bernie.The main points I will be arguing (that I can think of now) will be the following;1. Less-skilled/educated individuals will have a much harder time finding work, in turn bumping the unemployment rate up, which will lead to a higher homeless population, which will lead to many other negatives.2. Employers will higher less workers because they have to pay 50% more, again increasing unemployment rate.3. There would be less incentive to find a job that contributes more to society, as $15/hr is more than enough to live on everywhere in North America.4. Business owners may raise costs of merchandise to make up for extra money spent on employees, which will cause the cost of living to go up higher, which will cause people to want the minimum wage to be increased constantly, in a viscous circle.5. Most people living in poverty are living in such circumstances because they can't find work, or they aren't working enough hours. Not because of the "low" minimum wage. Raising this wage would make it even harder for those people to get jobs and experience and find a way out of poverty.Good luck and let's see what's best for society :)
Raising the minimal wage

Hello, I am feelthebernie, and I will be arguing in favor of raising the minimal wage The debate will work like this: 1. Introduction 2. Opening arguments 3. Rebuttles 4. Summary 5. Finishing statements You can refute the opponents arguments in rebuttles and summary, but you cannot argue or refute arguments in your finishing statements. You can cite evidence in anyway that you think is best. I will be arguing three main contentions 1. It will allow the working class to grow 2. It will reduce income inequality 3. It will save the government money I will now allow Con to give their introductions and how they will be arguing
Raising the minimal wage

Thanks for the debate, Bern-o-rama.Minimum wage jobs are not jobs for people to live on. They aren't intended for that. They are intended to be a gateway job into the workforce for the uneducated or younger generation. These jobs are not made for parents or people hoping to start families. If anything, we should lower the prices of education so people can work better jobs. The jobs that pay minimum wage are good experience for people starting out in the work force, and if somebody wants to live on their own or raise a family, they should get a better job.Like I said before, the jobs that currently pay $15/hr are jobs that are beneficial to the community. It takes more brains and critical thinking and experience to work in fields that pay that much, and to chalk up Burger King with important jobs like Health Information Technicians just doesn't make sense. Raising the minimum wage by 50%+ would take away the motivation to get a "good" job, and be more of a productive member of society.The pay you get reflects the work you do, simple as that. If you don't do any work, you'll get the minimum amount of pay, which shouldn't be enough to "live off of." It should be reasonable for someone living at home, or at the very most, renting an apartment. Expecting to raise a family on that is ridiculous, and falls on the employee for having a silly idea instead of the employer for not paying "enough."The most beneficial thing about having a "low" minimum wage is that it gives incentive for people to get a better job, which is better for society. I don't want to work at McDonald's for $10/hr, so I'll either go to school or use my McDonald's experience to apply to better places, like restaurants. The people stuck at McDonald's and not trying at all to get a better job don't deserve more money because they lack motivation and work ethic.All in all, the main viewpoint for raising the minimum wage is a moral one, trying for everyone to be treated "fairly," which in reality is already being done, by encouraging people to get better jobs and be more beneficial to the society around them. If the right people worked the jobs that were intended for them, we wouldn't have very many problems at all.Well I believe that's about it. Thanks again for a good debate!
Raising the minimal wage

Thanks you con I want to use this round to summarize my arguments My first contention was that the middle class will benefit. As I stated earlier, middle class is dying, but the unemployment rate is not high. However, the people who work minimum wage jobs don't earn a living wage that would allow them to survive due to the inflation that has happened since we last increased it. We need to help these people so they don't fall to the lower class and are able to feed their families. It will also help income inequality. We have the rich earning so much money but the poor are not. I am not saying the rich have to throw all their money away, but the wealth needs to be spread a little more evenly and increasing the minimum wage can help those lower income households rise out and grow financially. Businesses should want the minimum raise to be increased because when employees earn more money, its been proven that they are happier and work harder and create more money. Also, if they earn more money, they can buy goods and services and the money circulates back into the economy. It's simple economics and it was proven to work when in 1968, we had an unemployment that was over 10 dollars when adjusted for inflation. The unemployment rate in 1968 was 3%. History has shown that when minimum wage is high enough to keep up with inflation, our economy does not crumble into anarchy, it thrives. We need to look at history and see that it has worked and will work. Lower class needs a living wage, and 7.25 an hour just wont do it. The government can save money. Sure, there are better ways to save money, but increasing the minimal wage not only saves the government money, it also helps lower class, increases productivity, and doesn't increase unemployment. It's hard to get by in hour modern day economy. The rich get a majority of the money, the poor get virtually none, and the lower class is just getting bigger. Raising the minimal wage can help people and help our economy. Let's not miss this great opportunity for growth and to improve the lives of millions of people just trying to get by. Thank you.
Should NBA players that aren"t currently playing or injured should they still get paid when they are

Time for a counter-case.Counter-caseA1: Subject to abuseAccording to the resolution, players [who] are not playing should still get paid, despite not playing. Nba.com reports that the average annual salary for an NBA player was 5.15 million American dollars [1]. So, if an NBA player gets injured for 10 years and does not play a game in that time, that is 51.5 million American dollars that in no way help the NBA team! My opponent did not specify a time-limit on when NBA players, who are no playing, are no longer entitled to money. More conservatively, players could enter an NBA team, become injured or not play, and still earn the years amount without playing a single game, and then retire. To add to the financial conundrum, Bleacher Report states that the annual salary cap is only 58.7 million American dollars, meaning that a tenth of a team's salary distribution could be gone by someone abusing the system [2]. A2: Limited player clauseNba.com also reports that there is a limit of 15 players per NBA team legally allowed on a team [1]. Imagine if all players decided not to play or became injured. That would leave the NBA team unable to play anyone because they are limited to 15 players and they would have to pay the ones that are currently not playing. Basically, the limited player clause forces the NBA team in forfeiture or bankruptcy, when the situation goes horribly wrong.References[1] http://www.nba.com...[2] http://bleacherreport.com...
Man made global warming is a myth.

I would like to invite someone to prove how man is at the cause of global warming. I agree that global warming exists, but not that it is a result of mans actions here on earth. I believe that global warming is a part of a natural cycle of cooling and warming that the earth constantly goes through.. I'm not very interested in links, though you can use them. Anyone can show a link and a counter link. The only time I recommend links is when you are including something that you think is a fact such as a figure. Other than that this is a freestyle debate. This first round is basically for acceptance. Good luck, and good debating.
A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

Hello, Thank you very much for the good debate. I am aware that I should present arguments for a third stage in this debate, but I do not have any, so I guess my opponent wins. I myself am against the conclusion of the ontological argument but I wanted to know what logical error does it commit, thus I tried to defend its side, and I am going to share my final thoughts. Now I have a feeling that using the term (maximal being) in itself begs the question because it already assumes existence as part of it, so assuming that a maximal being does not exist is similar to assuming an existing unicorn does not exist, to which we can reply that there is no such a thing as an (existing unicorn) to begin with, so we connot use this term in the argument, and same goes for the (maximal being).
A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

Hello again. It's a pleasure to debate with you. 1. Please do not be offended by the following statement. Because you call yourself Hamza-mazin. I have conceived the notion and assumed that you are an Islamic terrorist. Would it be fair to accept, that my concept and assumption are factual and therefore proof? No. Because as you rightly state above, concepts and assumptions are at best only "sound arguments" which may lead to a correct conclusion. But of course they may also lead to an incorrect conclusion. Proof will only be achieved through subsequently gained, factual and observable evidence or scientific appraisal. 2. A horse is an animal. A lizard is an animal. Scientific appraisal of these two animals. Has made us aware of specific physiological differences between a horse and a lizard. We therefore regard horses and lizards as two separate classes of animalia. Mammal and reptile. We do not regard them as different by definition. We regard them differently, because it is proved that mammals and reptiles actually have significant physiological differences. Definition is how we subsequently record and explain these differences. 3. If we follow the "right logical steps". Observation, concept, assumption, theory and scientific appraisal. Obviously the conclusion will always be right. And that right conclusion. May substantiate the observation, concept assumption and theory. But of course the right conclusion might also disprove the observation, concept, assumption and theory.
A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

My opponent based his refutation of my argument on that ontological arguments, assumptions and concepts cant be used as a proof. I disagree with this assertion and I believe that a concept can be used to make a sound argument to generate conclusions that are related to said concept, for example: 1- We define mammals as the animals that nourish their young with milk (scientist could have used another definition/classification). 2- Lizards do not nourish their young with milk. 3- Therefor Lizards are not mammals (only according to the definition above) So it seems that as long as you follow right logical steps your conclusions will be inevitably right in relation to your premise. I would like my opponent to pinpoint in what step exactly I made a mistake.
A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

Hello. Ok. I happily agree to agree. You make no intimation as to the nature of your maximal being. So I will assume nothing. 1. Assumption is merely assumption and does not prove anything. 2. A concept is merely a concept and does not prove anything. 3. Therefore the maximal being is merely an assumption and a concept. 4. The maximal being might or might not exist. The ontological argument is simply this. The use of assumption, concept and words, as proof of actuality. Assumptions, concepts and words alone, cannot prove anything. Therefore the ontological argument cannot validate the actuality of a maximal being.
A maximal being can be proved using the ontological argument

The version of the ontological argument I would like to adress in this debate uses the proof by contradiction and it goes as follows:1- Let's assume that the maximal being -regarding every property that can have a maximum- lacks the property of existence. 2- Then we can conceive a more maximal being that is exactly like the first but has the property of existence.3- Therfore the maximal being connot lack the property of existence.4- The maximal being exists.My oponent should agree for the sake of this argument that existence is a property and is superior to non-existence.
The New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year.

>I will accept the burden that my opponent has given me. Sort of. I will discuss it below. >My opponent has clearly changed his mind a bit about his first contention. In his initial argument, he said that " there is a good chance," but now he says that "this is not total proof. " If it is not "total proof," then it is not relevant to the debate. My opponent has agreed to a burden of absolute proof, not a burden of probability. >To rebut his second contention, my opponent cites evidence that the New Orleans Saints, in fact, will work on their defense. I agreed last round that defense is an important issue for the Saints, but this does not mean that they will fix their defense. The Broncos had the same problem from last year into this season. They allowed 28 points per game (. http://sports.yahoo.com...), worse than the Saints. We are provided no guarantee that the Saints will improve at all defensively. >I wholeheartedly agree with my respected opponent's third and fourth contentions, injuries were a problem for the Saints this year. But what does this mean? All teams have players get injured, that is just the way football works. Let's look at the Baltimore Ravens (. http://sports.yahoo.com...). They had more injuries than the Saints (. http://sports.yahoo.com...) and still made the playoffs. They lost key players such as Chris McAllister and Donnie Edwards for the season. Todd Heap, Matt Stover, and Ed Reed are all questionable. Injuries are unpredictable and do not raise the chances of the Saints making next year's playoffs. >As previously stated in my first response to my opponent's fifth contention, the average margin of victory/defeat is what tells us how close the games were. It means that if we pick a random game from the schedule, the margin will most probably be that number. Since it does show how close the games were, my opponent's logic remains flawed. As can be seen from his second contention, what a team PLANS to work on will not always make it better. My opponent's third point is irrelevant given my rebuttal to his first. >I shall not specifically accept the burden of proof designated by my opponent, the CON burden of proof is simply to prove that PRO cannot fulfill his. So let's look at his: "my opponent has the burden of proof to prove that the New Orleans Saints will make the playoffs next year. " So has he proved this? We must first define will: Used to express futurity (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So will expresses what shall happen in the future. So has my opponent proved that the Saints WILL make the playoffs? I think not. CON has then filled his (my) burden.