BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Supreme Being Can Rationally Exist

A Supreme Being, by definition, is a sentient creature of high-level intelligence that exercises physical control over the universe. By the basic laws of Charles Darwin's evolutionary concept, the fact that a living being existed before the dawn of genetic evolution, in unfavorable conditions (according to quantum physics), is impossible. No creature could possibly have the genetic and evolutionary requirements for such metaphysical devices. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang theory, and it was confirmed to be possible by Edwin Hubble in 1929. The Big Bang theory, now the most scientifically accepted theory for the creation of the universe, proposes a singularity (a gravitational point in spacetime with infinite density and zero volume) acted as a focus for photonic energy that resulted in a de-annihilation that caused a split of particles of matter and antimatter. The formation of these substances could not be caused by a metaphysical sentient creature due to the genetic and biological impossibility of a creature, without usage of advanced technology, to have an ability to warp quantum spacetime itself. Therefore, any argument supporting the existence of a sapient deity is not justifiable by logical means.
Minimum wage should be increased in the US.

One must ask you to clarify what you mean by "basically stealing money", How would increasing public infrastructure not "basically steal money" either? In an earlier statement it asks, "Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage?" This then contradicts a later on statement that says that the US should use the money for something other than minimum wage. Would that not be within the same predicament? If the first statement declares the US can't afford minimum wage, what would change that would allow it to afford anything else? Towards the end of the last paragraph it is stated that there is no leeway for minimum wage to be increased, one must be asked to clarify what they mean by "leeway"? Does this apply to public infrastructure as well? Also, one must ask you to further to explain what one means by "no course of action should be taken"? For the entire last paragraph it talks about what to use the excess money on, but then the closing few sentences state that "no course of action should be taken." What does one want to see happen? Should minimum wage not be increased because the money could be used for better things? Or should minimum wage not be increased because the US needs to lower its debt?
Minimum wage should be increased in the US.

My opponent claims that those working on a minimum wage deserves an increased pay. But why so? What my opponent has failed to realize is that a simple increase of one dollar causes an increase of about 1.327 million dollars (per hour) for the US as a whole. Now let's be realistic. The US has a debt nearly the size of its GDP. The US is using basically stealing money from its citizens as it uses money from social security already piled up. Do you really and honestly think that we can afford increasing spending on minimum wage? Frankly, no. Even though it may be beneficial towards those working on minimum wage, as a whole, it would greatly impact the US. Furthermore, if so many people are working on minimum wage, the most effective way to better the income issue would be to increase the education of individuals, therefore increasing the amount of opportunities coming their way. Instead of using whatever insufficient, excess money that the US has on increasing minimum wage, why not better the public infrastructure? When increasing public infrastructure, it allows individuals to have better access to education (for example schools and libraries), ultimately increasing the capability of citizens in the US. Obviously, once public infrastructure is bettered and mean tested welfare programs are back and running, we cannot allow for there to be any leeway for the increasing of minimum wage. Maybe, when the US gets it debt substantially lower than its GDP, then there may be a chance for minimum wage to be increased. Even then, it would most likely be better not to increase minimum wage annually but maybe every couple of years. But until then, no course of action should be taken.
Global warmig facts, pro/for or con/against

The climate alarmists generally have a very poor understanding of the science of what they are talking about. For example - Carbon dioxide is not a poisonous substance which makes the environment dirty or unclean. It is an odourless and colourless gas which is mostly inert and combines with oxygen to form CO2. When the global warming alarmists show photos of CO2 emissions they usually show a picture of a power station which has steam outlets. Then, pointing towards the big plumes of steam they shout "Look, CO2 emissions, how terrible!" CO2 is what makes plants grow. They breath it in and breath out oxygen. Without CO2 plants wouldn't be able to grow. The more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster plants will grow. CO2 is in very small quantities in the atmosphere. CO2 doesn't increase its blocking qualities when more CO2 is added to the atmosphere. This is because CO2 has a infra-red blocking limit, which when reached, it doesn't cause any further increases in heat retention. The main greenhouse gas is water vapour. Water vapour accounts for 99 percent of all green house effects on climate. The climate alarmists never talk about water vapour heat retention, despite its thermostatic effects. Water vapour cools the Earth when it is too hot and the sun heats the Earth when it is too cold. Climate alarmists never talk about the sun. In thousands of pages of IPCC climate reports, there is no mention of the sun. The sun is considered irrelevant by climate alarmists. Note - The sun's intensity can vary according to sun spot activity. The climate graphs and temperature data are manipulated by the scientists. Scientists have been exposed in forging data and changing graphs by inverting them to suit their purposes. Scientists need to create impending disasters in order to get research grants and funding. Thus, they give the government what they want in return for more funding. Governments need climate change because it creates a political vehicle to change laws so that a communist style government can be introduced in the name of saving humanity from a perceived natural disaster. Thus, they can enforce emergency measures and create a police state in enforce order and control.
Global warmig facts, pro/for or con/against

Humanity has not lived very long in today's contemporary and global complexity. It is practically as new for all people. John Dewey wrote: "we think only when we are confronted with problems". That means problems can just as easily be translated to the new challenges that are looking for new solutions, because different life conditions change over time. The historical and evolutionary development has not suddenly stopped for the generation that today to take on the challenges of the time. This lead to the modern man need to acquire new knowledge, which not only gives priority to the short-term but also gives legitimacy to the long-term. The climate threat, and global warming is accelerated and accelerates due to new factors in a way that has never before been done through human evolution. Never has it been so large amounts of carbon dioxide as today Never have so many carbon particles spread into ice poles today and draw where the Sun's heat and helps to speed up the melting and heating of the snow Never have there been so many billions of cars and various freight vehicles today Never have there been so many industries in the world that emit heat Never have factories and industries kept running 24 hours a day like today Mankind has never spent so large amounts of energy today Never has the world been populated by 7 billion people consuming energy Never has the need for energy has been as large as in the 21st century Never has man had more energy-guzzling pastime today Never has mankind had so many electronic products today Never has the consumer society been so widespread that today requires more production Never before has humanity's population lived online, which constantly consumes electricity All fuel daily exploitation out of the Earth and may see the light of day is also the same fuel as in some sense is burned by engines and machines or fired up and consumed daily by 7 billion people. When the 7 billion people are in need of electricity and heat and consumes more power than ever to have conditions changed as unprecedented by all human history and evolution. As the Earth's common assets and resources consumed by a larger population and therefore decreases faster than ever before-how much of the Earth's natural resources exist for example, if 50 years or 100 years for future generations? While these resources are declining alarmingly fast, how will the future look like if 10 billion people in need of electricity and heat and natural resources during this time has been reduced drastically? "The ecological problem" is partly about the earth today is much more densely populated than it was in older times, and there are virtually no new areas to move to. Man extracting resources and natural resources of the Earth and spreads them as waste all over the globe. What do you think, good or bad facts? This text is a machine translated version from "Babel of Democracy" Chapter 9 http://peterhorttanainen.com... or http://demokratinsbabel.com... Link to machine translated version chapter 9 http://www.docdroid.net...
Coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones

I actually don't disregard your study, but I think, that we should consider success in all subjects, not only concentrate on physics. And moreover, the fact, that girls are more than twice as likely to take physics than girls nationally, doesn't prove to me that co-ed schools fail in providing a good quality of teaching this discipline. Speaking about socialization, you've said, that single-sex schools have chance for it. Okay. But in co-ed schools there are more possibilities for it. And it seems to be a huge advantage. Co-ed schools have this chance for socialization during educational process, what really matters. And I do not even mean friendship aspect, I speak about cooperation and competition, that stimulates students to work hard and do their best. About sexist behaviour. Co-ed schools promote the need to get along with each other which can avoid sexism and discrimination in the future. It teaches students that they are equal, have the same right and the opportunity to reach their potential. Studying in a single-sex school, child can start thinking that he/she is more successful, smart than members of the opposite sex, because he/she studies separately. So..In fact, this debate can last forever :) I just want to make it clear, that I actually don't see any harm in single-sex schools, but don't see any real overwhelming benefit either. I don't think that anything is to be gained by separating the genders. People in the world are male and female. School is a part of the world. It shouldn't be hiding real-life scenarios, schools should prepare them for these situations by having boys and girls work together in a constructive environment. I think that boys and girls should grow up, interact, and live through similar situations together should become before adulthood. And even though there are differences among the sexes, kid accustomed to those differences and learn to accept them, why should we try to persuade our youth that the sexes are so different that the can't learn together in the same environment? What better way to explain and introduce these real-life situations than to have kids learn in the same environment and learn the social traits needed to survive in such a competitive world?
Coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones

You may have been comfortable and had the confidence to study what you like despite gender norms, but this just isn't true for the rest of the population. You seem to disregard the study that I presented you when you say, 'If the child has motivation and desire, he will study what he likes.' I will repeat myself that at single-sex schools, girls are more than twice as likely to take physics than girls nationally. I agree that there is also a social aspect of school which I believe is very important, however, I have to disagree when you say that attending a single-sex school will somehow be detrimental to this. Single-sex schools allow the chance to make very strong friendships with people the same sex as you, which, on average, will last much longer than friendships with the other sex. I'm not saying the members of the opposite sex cannot be friends with each other but merely stating the fact that bonds with the same sex are usually stronger. There is, in fact, good evidence that single-sex schools also provide better results than mixed-sex schools. In the top 20 independent schools in the UK that achieved the best results at GCSE level, 18 of them are single-sex schools. This is clear evidence that single-sex schools do in fact improve the results that pupils achieve. You seem to make this broad claim that pupils in single-sex schools are for some reason more sexist that pupils at a mixed school. Do you have any evidence? Probably not. Because single-sex schools don't learn with the other sex, it doesn't mean that they disrespect them and are sexist towards them. As I said in my previous argument, single-sex students still get plenty of time to interact with the other sex, so this claim is not only backed up by no evidence whatsoever but just isn't true.
Coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones

Hello, thank you for your opinion. I am very glad that the single-sex school has given you a lot. Personally, I went to a mixed school, and I can also say, without a shadow of a doubt, that I benefited a lot from education there. I agree that boys and girls have different needs, but that does not mean that in a mixed school there is no possibility to study what you like or there is no attention to your needs. I could also study what I like. I did not feel uncomfortable or bad at math or physics. In mixed classes there is an individual approach to everyone, according to personal preferences and abilities. Still, I believe that children come to school not only for knowledge, they learn to live in a large team, to establish contact with adults and peers - both girls and boys. This is the social role of the school, which should expand the capabilities of the individual, but education in single-sex schools narrows and impoverishes them. It's just that when you interact with boys every day, you work in a team, then you get used to and get a good experience. Boys are always happy to help girls, and vice versa, and this brings up good qualities in a person. Co-ed schools can not prevent a student from choosing the subject he wants. If the child has motivation and desire, he will study what he likes. There are no worthy studies that would show that education in single-sex schools improves the results of schoolchildren, but there is evidence that gender division strengthens gender stereotypes and legitimizes sexism at the institutional level. When boys and girls study together, of course, they are faced with differences in characters, but, personally for me, this is not a flaw. Not all girls are careful and diligent, as well as not all boys are naturally flippant, hyperactive, slovenly and prone to rivalry. So children of both sexes just learn to co-exist together. I find coeducational schools a very happy, gentle, inclusive place, because I have only good memories about study there: the atmosphere on our lessons was respectful and friendly, I got a really well-rounded education, now I feel very confident working with boys, my school helped me to be very open and communicative person.
Coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones

Hello there, I believe single-sex schools are far more effective at providing education than mixed schools. Personally, I went to a single-sex school myself and benefitted enormously from it, but my experience is also backed up by lots of research suggesting that both genders simply have different needs in education. It's true that one day, both sexes will need to work and cooperate well together in life and the workplace, but attending a single-sex school doesn't mean you won't be able to do this. The main reason to attend school is for education, especially in subjects that you are passionate about. Half of all mixed schools have no girls doing A-level physics. This can't be because girls just do not like physics. Instead, it's that there is pressure to behave in a "Manly" or "feminine" way at mixed schools, resulting in pupils not taking subjects they want to do so that they conform to this social rule. At a group of single-sex schools, girls are more than twice as likely to take physics than girls nationally, surely you will agree that we can not stop young students from studying subjects they love? When I was at school, there was plenty of opportunities to socialise with the other sex. Whether it was in school plays, parties, or simply getting the buses and trains on the way home. Single-sex schools don't create a barrier between sexes socially; they just allow both sexes to learn separately as their learning needs are very different. On your last point, what evidence is there to suggest that mixed schools are more gentle, happy and inclusive? Personally, I think that in mixed schools, some boys behave obnoxiously in front of girls in an attempt to impress them, which certainly wouldn't create a more gentle place.
Coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones

I think, that coeducational schools are better than single-sex ones, because they provide more ideal "preparation for life". And to prove my point of view, I should say, that only few educators are formally trained to use gender-specific teaching techniques. Students in single-sex classrooms will one day live and work side-by-side with members of the opposite sex. Educating students in single-sex schools limits their opportunity to work cooperatively and co-exist successfully with members of the opposite sex. At least one study found that the higher the percentage of girls in a co-ed classroom, the better the academic performance for all students (both male and female). In high school, the classrooms with the best academic achievement were consistently those that had a higher percentage of girls. A higher percentage of girls lowers the amount of classroom disruption and fosters a better relationship between all students and the teacher. Modern parents see education as learning for life. That means teaching children of different genders to work together just as men and women must work together at university and in the workplace. Mixed schools are much gentler, happier and more inclusive places because they are much less intense emotionally.
Abortion

My position of "pro-choice" is based on the idea that it is the woman's choice, regardless of circumstance, trimester, etcetera, to choose whether or not to have an abortion, not the inherent goodness of badness of abortion. That being said, nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. During this stage, a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. In the cases that you mentioned, where the mother's financial means are not stable, it is definitely possible for the child to be born, then sent through a government-funded group home, and occasionally become adopted. Unfortunately, the amount of funding that group homes receive is often very little, providing almost the exact same environment that the child would have had staying with the mother. Neither situation is better or good for the child. I would like to ask, at what point do you consider it an "abortion"? At what point is it no longer a blob of tissue, but a child?
Abortion

When I say 100% pro life, I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the circumstance is. Many may ask about rape or incest, but should that child receive the death penalty because of the acts of his or her father? And when you say you are pro choice, do you believe that a woman should be able to choose even in the third trimester? I believe that even first trimester abortion are horrific. The heart is beating at 3 and 1/2 weeks. We need to realize that that is a baby inside the woman, not a blob of tissue. I believe that we should not have to kill our innocent children to achieve the dreams and careers we strive for. We should welcome these children into our world instead of seeing them as a threat. Of course there are going to be situations where the mother cannot take care of the child because of financial reasons or stability, but this is why we have many organizations like Live action, churches, mentors, and government agencies which can help these women. Not to mention adoption... there are many more options than just simply killing the child. Also, when women are asked why they received an abortion the number one response is, "I felt that I had no choice." How do you justify this when you seem so set on the fact that women should have this choice to kill their child or not, when in reality our abortion clinics and agencies are not really laying all the cards on the table?
Abortion

I will be taking the position of "pro-choice" in this debate. To start, I think it is important for me to point out that the position of "pro-choice", to me, means that any individual woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, and that choice can not be made for her by any government entity; to clarify, the position of "pro-choice" does not necessarily mean that abortion is inherently right or wrong. When you say that you are "100%" pro-life, what exactly do you mean?
Abortion

It is very important to the argument of abortion to define exactly when a human life begins. If human life begins at birth, then anything that happens to the child while still in the womb is not considered taking a life. On the other side of that, if human life begins at conception, then things like birth control and the "Plan B", that both prevent a conceived and fertilized egg from developing, are also considered taking a life. Now, as I have said, most abortions carried out are done so during the first trimester of a pregnancy, not the second or third, so defining whether or not a fetus, which at that point does not have a lot of recognizable features or much bodily function, is really human being is incredibly important. When you say, "it is no longer a woman's choice when another life's rights begin," do we not have to first define exactly when another life's rights do actually begin? I also don't believe that is our decision - that is actually my entire position on the subject. It is no one's right to decide what happens, besides the woman carrying the fetus. Furthermore, I also agree that no one should be able to decide whether or not someone dies, but again, we run into the conundrum of whether or not the fetus is alive to begin with. If life really does begin with conception, then are women who take birth control and/or "Plan B" committing acts of murder?