BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Musical Creativity (Composing) comes from God.

Definitions: God -- a Judeo Christian god Rebuttals: My opponent offers no logic. He just merely states that who else would this power come from. Science may be able to hold the answer. Many people learn skills by doing. Experiences. This is known as learning by doing, experimentation. All experiences leads to some type of learning (1). Many studies indicate that music skill is built in our DNA (2). DNA is not always set, and can evolve. Evolution is proven as over millions of years small amid its of DNA change (3). Evolution of skills through DNA does not require god, neither does learning theory from experiences. My opponent has the bop in this debate. ==>Case<== C1: God can't be the reason if he is powerless "God allows himself to be edged out of the world and onto the cross. God is weak and powerless in the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us." – Dietrich Bonhoeffer (4) C2: God can't play a role if he does not exist POE: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus (5) Conclusion: I am on my phone and don't have the BOP so I was brief. Vote CON 1. http://channelcontent.dal.ca... 2. http://geniusblog.davidshenk.com... 3. http://discovermagazine.com... 4. http://theprogressiveprophet.wordpress.com... 5. http://www.debate.org...
There should be no minimum wage.

No, I did not miss your points. Your argument is basically that lowering the minimum wage decreases unemployment. However, it is truly based on an assumption that a business will create new jobs or more jobs all becasue they can pay employees less and their profits will remain the same. History demonstrates just the opposite. Go back to the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980's. U.S. Steel received relief on corporate tax on profits only to not reinvest in their core business that produced the profits, steelmaking, but to buy marathon Oil. The tax cut savings went to buy a more profitable company for the shareholders, but saw increased layoffs and plant closings for the core business of US Steel.So, trusting a business to protect a workers capability to earn is not the American way. There has to be a set minimum wage to ensure an employee has liveable income. Decreasing it will push individuals off the non farm payroll numbers, and decreases tax collection capability of local, state and federal income tax revenue. As for your theory on competition, that is product focused, not employee focused. Yes, competion is good for producing quality items and encouraging investment in innovation, technology and the advancenent of goods and services. It is good for providing consumers alternatives to monopolistic practices and effects. It has nothing to do with whether a liveable wage should be set at at minimum level to ensure non exploitation of workers.Let's address some of your other points:"wages continue to go down even as unemployment improves:. Not true, let's look at recent trends. The spike in unemployment since 2008 has not seen a decline in wages even as more people do not get back on the employmnet rolls. That is all I am going to say for this round. I only had 10 minutes to respond, so I am sorry that I didn't answer everything. Thanks!
There should be no minimum wage.

I will begin by responding to your points: 1. I am not quite following your logic here. Unemployment does not result in downward pressure on wages. Wages decline when the economy suffers as a whole. In fact, wages continue to go down even as the unemployment improves, meaning unemployed people are taking lower-paying jobs. 2. The minimum wage in those countries is two dollars because businesses there are so poor, they cannot afford higher pay. Imagine if the minimum wage there was like it was here. The businesses would not be able to afford to hire anyone, resulting in soaring unemployment and incredible poverty. 3. I think your missing the point. Raising the minimum wage: A. Fails to solve unemployment, therefore poverty. If you can't buy an apartment with 15 grand a year, imagine what it's like with no income B. Kills jobs. Remember, pay of employees is based of how much money they make for the business. If they have to be payed more than the wealth they are producing, the business is losing money, and they will be fired. Here's an interesting question to think on: If nine dollars an hour is good, isn't ninety dollars an hour better? I will number the quotes of mine you chose to respond to, for simplicities sake: 1. Here you start off on my point about the unemployed getting jobs by saying, "if you are getting payed a lot less you couldn't pay for needs". Well obviously it's better than not making any money. The point is it solves poverty. Also, you say, "If the employer wasn't making much money because people couldn't make much money, the employer would have to lower its prices". That is what would happen if you raised minimum wage. The business would start losing money, because the employees cost more than the wealth they produce for the company. 2. The concept behind eliminating the minimum wage is that it lowers unemployment by offering new jobs that might not have been available before due to the pay barrier. The unemployed would start with low paying jobs, helping them to scrape by, benefiting the business, and ending poverty in this country, while competition stops all pay from dropping. You, and others, seem fearful that employers will just drop their prices because they can. But again, less than one percent of the country is on minimum wage. Employers clearly do not pay the bare minimum they can get away with. Competition, and the refusal of Americans to work for little money, keeps pay up so high, and nothing changes just because the minimum wage they already don't pay their employees goes away. Please make sure you read the whole thing, I think you missed some of my points last time. Thank you!
There should be no minimum wage.

1.Right now because of the high unemployment rate there has been downward pressure on wages and reducing the minimum wage would result in an instant decline in hourly pay for many Americans. There would be an immediate impact on consumer spending and the NYSE would start trending lower.If a decline in wages results in a decline in consumer spending you get a decline in jobs.2.The minimum wage in countries that rank within the lowest 20% of the pay scale is less than $2 per day, or about $57 per month. If the US lowered its pay scale, do you think you could survive with the $57 a month??? Also, if the change really happened, then the US would have to lower its prices. We would have a greater debt! 3.A full-time worker who earns the current minimum wage makes only $15,080 a year. According to "Out of Reach," a report sponsored by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, in no state can an individual working full time at the minimum wage afford an apartment for his or her family. Walmart, the nation's largest private employer, whose pay levels are so low that many employees are eligible for food stamps! That's because the minimum wage needs to be raised. If the employees are eligible for food stamps, then if you LOWERED the wage, that means there would be an even greater number of people needing one, but also starving!According to Doug Hall of the Economic Policy Institute, a minimum wage hike to $9 would pump $21 billion into the economy."But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less."That is not necessarily true! If you are getting payed a lot less you couldn't pay for needs, unless you were the upper class, so it wouldn't matter if there would be more jobs since the employer and worker would both be making little money at that rate. How? If the employer wasn't making much money because people couldn't make much money, the employer would have to lower its prices, or it would go out of business. If so, then the employer and workers would have to find a new paying job. Also, if they don't go out of business, the employer would make so little money based on sales, that the employer would be losing money IF he/she had more employees, like you claimed, to pay. "Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward."Yes, but name a few places that compete that way. Many Americans are unemployed right now, so they will take any job they will get. If a citizen wants to work for a higher paying job, but doesn't get it (which happens in a lot of cases), than they will have to stick with the lower paying job. If businesses were thrown an opportunity to pay less, they would. That means they wouln't lose as much money, and make even more. If their wasn't a minimum wage, there wouldn't be much competition left. http://www.investopedia.com...Thank You!
There should be no minimum wage.

Since this is topic 3 of my points your responding to, I will use that number to represent it. 3. Con's theory here is that if businesses can pay less, they will. I'm sure they'd like to, but that is not the way it works. As I said in the first round, about 2 million people in the United States are on minimum wage, less than one percent of the population. The reason there aren't more is competition. Businesses want employees, namely the best employees, to come to work at their place instead of a competitor, and they will attempt to do this by raising the pay. Competition drives prices upward. The limit to how much an employee can be paid is how much wealth they produce. If a grape-picker is making their manager 8.00 and hour, but they cost 9.00, then your losing money, and it's not economical to keep that job. But if you eliminated the minimum wage, new jobs could open up for the unemployed, even if they payed a lot less. For the next round, were posting our questions, and then in round four we answer them. Thanks!
There should be no minimum wage.

Thanks! Firstly, eliminating minimum wage creates more jobs with a lower pay. If there wasn't a minimum wage, business owners could pay as much money as they want. They could pay them $1.00 an hour so they wouldn't have to pay much money, but the workers wouldn't make enough money to pay for all of their needs. The reason minimum wage was made according to http://letjusticeroll.org...;, was to ensure workers received a fair rate of pay for their labor. The reason there is a minimum wage is because the governments of nations that have them calculate the minimum income required to live a life that is just above what would be considered impoverished.The minimum wage of a country is for human beings to ensure that the human being who is getting paid is not living in absolute poverty.If you make $1 an hour you would nearly starve yourself, and not pay for rent. You wouldn't be able to pay for sports, clothing, taxes, shopping, and other activities that require more money.The minimum wage that we have now would allow us to have enough money to pay for those needs.
There should be no minimum wage.

Thank you for accepting my challenge, and I look forward to a fun and informative debate. One fact I will be using a lot that everyone should agree with: Pay of an employee is not based on the difficulty of their job, but on how much wealth they produce for the company. 1. Eliminating minimum wage reduces poverty by creating new jobs However much politicians drone on about the lower classes and low income citizens, the real problem with poverty in this country is the unemployed. While the lower class, averaging around 18000 dollars of income, have problems paying bills and may not have the best homes, they are a heck of a lot better off than those who bring in absolutely nothing. When their is a minimum wage, people who own companies can only hire employees who make more wealth then they cost. If they took away that limitation, then many more job opportunities could be opened. For example, the reason that they don't have someone standing at the door to greet you in fast food restaurants is that that person generates very little money for the company, but still costs 7.25 an hour. However, if you eliminated the minimum wage, you could pay that person very little, generating much needed income for a poor and probably uneducated person, while making the business a little money. 2. Having or raising a minimum wage kills off jobs Right now, Obama is advocating for raising the minimum wage to about nine dollars. This would kill off many jobs and force businesses to make other cuts in vital areas. Say your average officer clerk generates 8.50$ in wealth in an hour. You, the business owner, of course have to pay the clerk at least 7.25$. So your making a buck off of them. But if you raise the minimum wage to 9.00$ an hour, you are now losing money on this employee. The reasonable thing to do if to fire them, which will hurt you in other areas, and will lead to the closing of businesses. Currently, about 2 million people in the US are payed exactly minimum wage, because they only generate so much wealth for the company. If the wage was raised, many of those would be fired, increasing poverty, and job opportunities would be lost, because the companies could not afford them at the new rate. 3. If there was no minimum wage, employers would not drop their pay. Why not? Competition. The 2 million people on minimum in this country make up less than one percent of the population. The reason everyone isn't on minimum wage is because companies want the best employees, and will outbid another company for the person, driving the pay up. It shows in the fact that there are so few on minimum wage. The great fear is that employees will be payed a buck each an hour if there was no minimum wage, but that is just not the case.
Transhumanism is immoral!

Thr Pro's arguments against transhumanism are 1) It might lead us to be immortal (unlikely) 2) It might lead us to be racist (already happens) Transhumanism is the advancement of the capacities of humans through the use of advanced technology (nanochips for example) These human capacities that transhumanism intends to improve is basic health, brain functions like memory or thought processing, boosting our immune system, improving eye sight, etc. Theres nothing immoral with just improving ones health through a means that is available to everybody.... Brushing ones teeth falls just short of being transhuman since a tooth brush isnt really "advanced" technology, but is brushing ones teeth immoral since it helps prolong human life? Of course not. The other argument is that transhumanism is immoral is because it promotes racism since it might make one race feel superior to another.... Just about anything can potentially promote racism but we cant ban or avoid doing anything just because it MIGHT be immoral..... Transhumanism increases human capacities through technological means that would be available to everyone (by definition), not any one particular race..... The last reason why transhumanism isnt immoral is because transhumanism does have its limitations.... Transhumanism is limited by itself actually since the only way it works is through really advanced technology, therefore it is only as modern as the best technology on the market meant to improve people. WHat is the biggest device that supports transhumanism? Hearing aids (Hearing Aids arent immoral either) The dream gadgets of transhumanism, nanobots that no how to repair the human body, is still decades away from becoming a reality, and decades more before they become available to the public. Even with these dream gadgets humans will not live forever, and they currently dont live forever right now despite some advanced technologies, so in the rare chance that a technology does unlock immortality its perhaps centuries away and until then we shouldnt abandon hearing aids, knee replacements, any kind of artificial limbs, any kind of vaccine, even false teeth just because there is an off chance they may contribute to humans becoming immortal.....
Transhumanism is immoral!

Transhumanism is immoral because It could eventually lead to immortality, something that makes everyone human is the fact that we are the only species with morality. For humans to become immortal is both selfish and immoral because eventually it will lead to mass fertilization of mankind. Also I believe transhumanism would promote racism between the posthumans who can afford the technological upgrades and human. This Racism would be scientifically supported although wrong, for example blacks were once thought to be inferior genetically although it was proved to be false. Eventually the people who couldn't afford to become posthumans would either be driven to slavery, or segregation. [1] In the movie Blade runner you can see examples of this taking place when we got to a point where we could clone a humans claiming them not to be human and forcing them as slaves the same could happen with those left behind. Eventually transhumanism would make life pay to win, for example an athlete who would get upgrades would likely run better than natural runners causing an unfair gap between the higher and lower classes making transhumanism and continuation of mankind a dream. I'll keep it short so we can finish the debate before time expires. Sources: . http://reason.com...
Transhumanism is immoral!

I am here to argue that transhumanism is immoral.I created my account 2 days ago so I am very new to this site and still learning the proper debate structure.StructureRound 1: acceptanceRound 2:Arguments statedRound 3 refutation Round 4: Closing arguments/refutationDefinitions:im·mor·al   [ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor- adjective 1.violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. 2.licentious or lascivious.Transhumanism is an international intellectual and cultural movement supporting the use of science and technology to improve human mental and physical characteristics and capacities.
Ron Paul is a better nominee than John McCain

Well for starters I would like to point out that I am not a supporter of either candidate, but I firmly believe that Ron Paul is the worst presidential candidate in the Republican Party for numerous reasons. However, I will try and narrow them down to some of the more condemnable ones. Ron Paul is a turncoat Republican at best. He has betrayed his party and embraced ideas and positions ranging from liberal to radical. He ran against his own party in 1988 when he became the Libertarian presidential candidate while remaining a registered Republican. More recently he has gained support from both radical conservatives and mainstream Democrats for his opposition to the war on terror and the war in Iraq as well as his continued opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. In national debates he blames the U.S. for instigating acts of terror by its presence in the Middle East and basically calls terrorists freedom fighters in one debate. He also supports radical Isolationism and wants to abandon all U.S. bases around the world as well as severing all "entangling alliances." Something this man needs to realize is that trying to pacify terrorists is the last thing that will keep this country safe, and that withdrawing from the rest of the world will leave us more vulnerable than ever to terrorist attacks. Here at home he has attempted to legalize hemp production and decriminalize drug use as well as abolishing the Federal Reserve and reinstating the use of the gold standard claiming that it represents stability for the economy when historically gold values have been anything but stable and although inflation is a serious problem gold is not the answer. To see for yourself I recommend looking at the gold values chart provided by Global Financial Data. There you will see that although gold has indeed gone through very short periods of level value it remains one of the most unstable sources of investment. John McCain brings strong leadership qualities to the table with his strong stands on national security and foreign policy. I believe he has the determination and the experience needed to keep this country safe from our enemies. However, his main problem area rests in his rather weak position on immigration which has been a problem for Republicans for decades and for that reason I have decided I cannot support him. But let us not forget that one of the greatest Republican presidents of all time, Ronald Reagan, made that same mistake. I will be looking forward to reading your response.
Ron Paul is a better nominee than John McCain

Well, I guess you just weren't able to get back with me. However, if you wish to continue this debate where we left off I am more than willing to take it up again. If not then I hope you will reconsider your position on Ron Paul. He is a man that endangers this country by embracing ideas that - while possibly beneficial for this country in 1789 - are radically incompatible with 2008. GOD BLESS
The age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.

Evidence has convinced scientists that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (plus or minus about 1%) . This value is derived from several different lines of evidence however i do not have to prove that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old i simply must prove that the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.P1. Radiometric age dating The oldest rocks which have been found date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several radiometric dating methods. Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. These values alone do not excatly indicate an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age P2. The realiability of radiometric dating The atoms of radioactive isotopes are unstable have a fixed decay over time by dischargeing particles at a fixed rate, transforming the material into a stable substance. For example, half the mass of carbon-14,(the hardest substance known to mankind)Is an unstable isotope of carbon, and decays into nitrogen-14 over a fixed time period.The regularity of this decay allows scientists to determine the age of extremely old organic materials.With a high degree of precision. The decay of uranium-238, has a half-life of nearly 4.5 billion years, enabled geologists to determine the age of the Earth. Many scientists, including Marie and Pierre Curie, Ernest Rutherford and George de Hevesy, have tried to influence the rate of radioactive decay to try and test the true accuracy of dateing by radically changing the pressure, temperature, magnetic field, acceleration, or radiation environment of the source. No experiment to date has detected any change in rates of decay. Therefore we can all come to the conclusion that since P1 and P2 are valid and backed by evidence and science the age of the earth is over 10,000 years old.Sources. http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://tinyurl.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Should studens in the united states be forced to stand up and say the pledge of allegiance

What exactly do you mean they are "taking away our rights"? The nation will always be divided, blacks vs. whites, men vs. women, gay vs. straight...etc. We will never be able to make EVERYONE happy or EVERYONE agree. There will always be a problem, and you cant fix everything. If we let kids stop saying the pledge, what else will we stop doing? Stop celebrating Independence day? We should keep the Pledge Of Allegiance in schools because if you take it out, you honestly think it will make America a no longer divided country? Thank you, it was a good debate!