BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All people should receive the same income

Debate accepted. Now, as Pro has left his opening argument rather short I will likewise do the same with mine (assuming that this round is *not* for acceptance, as Pro hasn't specified the terms.) -->>ArgumentOne major reason why everyone should not receive equal pay is because of the *very* prevalent difference(s) in what people's jobs actually are~~and the amount of experience and educational credit that they require. For example, to become a doctor in most countries, you have to complete at least seven years of studying and an additional three years is often required. However, taking the example of someone who may want to become a beauty therapist~~it will take no longer than two years for them to become fully qualified, and if they exclusively want to work as a manicurist, that can take as little as six months, and no university education is required. A doctor, however, will have a hugely significant sum for their degree(s) and training, and can have debts up to 60,000 in places such as the U.K. once they've completed their education and become qualified. [1.] http://www.theguardian.com...Moreover, they are providing a *vital* service to people. Those in other job sectors (such as the example of a beautician) are technically not. They may be providing a desirable service, but it is not one of demand and necessity. To use Pros example, obviously a doctor should not receive the same as plumber as again, the plumber has not had to attend university for several to ten years and spend such vast sums of money. In addition, they certainly do not have to retain the same kind of information as a doctor. In fact, the two jobs are entirely different. This brings one to main point which is that people should be paid according to skill/education and based on what the job IS. I would agree with Pro in that there is inequality relating to pay and that those in certain jobs should receive more, however, it's senseless to presume that everyone regardless of what the work is should receive exactly the same. For Pro to make a case, he/she will have to answer these following questions: -How would this fixed sum be defined? -Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or a lawyer? -Wouldn't this actually be damaging to the economy in the long-term? Possibly Pro could argue that more people would be inclined to work (but this is assuming the sum is reasonable/decent.), would it not be detrimental if so much was being spent on equal pay for each working individual? -Would this not create a more financially destitute society? I.E~~most governments would not be prepared to give everyone large equal pay, and if so: they would make it a small sum, so wouldn't those who become doctors, politicians, etc. not be able to pay for their university fees? Exactly how would they pay off their debts? Technically, both #3 and #4 (the questions) would ultimately damage the economy and society. But I will leave it to Pro to provide an answer for each one.
All people should receive the same income

Alright, I shall respond to the questions as a refutation. "How would this fixed sum be defined?' It should be defined by the government in accordance with the pricing of economic output. For example, if all employed citizens got an income of $25 an hour, which would mean $4000 a month on average over the course of a year which would be $48,000 a year would be effectively eliminated because everyone who has a job will be able to pay their bills and satisfy their needs and, to a degree, their desires including savings in which people can become successful by merely saving such income. Thus, employed people would no longer live in poverty. " Is it really justified for someone who say is, a waitress/waiter to get paid the same amount as a doctor or lawyer?" That is subjective, however both individuals are contributing to satisfying the desires and needs of the population and thus should get paid the same amount an hour. And you might think this would be a disincentive, however this is not the case. For one, you would still have to work to earn a wage and a lot of people, and if not they took an oath to do it until they die, enjoy their work. As a result, not many doctors would leave because they still get paid and still work more hours thus they would make more than the McDonalds employee. A doctor who works 12 hours a day will earn 300 more dollars than the McDonalds employee. Not to mention, this actually would expand job growth to some level because if you're going to quit your job because you aren't getting paid a certein amount, you must hate it in the first place and thus you probably are terrible at it. This actually opens up more people to work in other vital industries such as agriculture and food distribution, and other jobs for people who want that particular one. A lot of people would happily work for a hospital for FREE, and many people would also work as a lawyer for next to no pay. People do things and like to do things, and open access to higher education free of tuition would make this a lot better and expand economic growth overall. So not only would this resolve many of the pyschologically destructive nature of economic inequality, this would also bring us closer to a moneyless society. Not to mention, ceterin economic preconditions such as establishing democratic workers self-management in industries would create a bigger incentive to work. Your third question, I baisclaly anwsered this. However, my official position is there should be a minimum and maximum ratio of pay (a universal minimum and maximum wage if you will) in regards to the difficulty and time put into a job but if should slowly move into equal pay for all. In regards to your last question, I believe fees for human rights such as education should be paid by taxes. Also, we speant trillions on nonsense like increasing military speanding. We have the money for this, we just don't use it wisely.
Minors should need parental consent for abortions

All forms of birth control are available to all women in America at least the age of 18. The procedure of having an abortion is another form of an option for birth control for women. Abortions are now very safe and low risk procedures. Patients are able to go home the same day after an abortion and do not require much to recover. I believe even for a high risk surgery, women no matter the age should have the final say on what is to be done to their own bodies. Women should not have to wait till they are legal enough to drink to have access to this alternative option to birth control, especially when most teens as young as 14 can get birth control pills without parental consent. Why do we allow women this young to have access to these things if they are not capable of making consequential decisions? Even a preteen knows that she should be on some sort of birth control if they are having sex. Otherwise it wouldn't be available to them. Women that age do not always make the best decision to get on birth control before the event of pregnancy, but they are capable of connecting the dots.
Minors should need parental consent for abortions

I do not believe the age group matters when it comes to a life changing and life taking decision. I believe that the decision of abortion is equal to the right to drink. Also in many states in able to you to be seen alone at a clinic or an appt the child has to be at least 18 years of age. Therefore if states do not allow for teenagers to be seen at an appointment without a parent or guardian present, it is illogical for someone to allow the decision of an appointment for an abortion for a child to be there by themselves or make the decision by themselves. You stated "The parent should be aware of any procedure that their child is having done..." which means that you are partially agreeing that the parent or guardian should be involved which would mean that the child either way is bringing an adult into the decision of the birth of a child's life. I am making clear that you are stating that the inclusion of a parent has to be a part of the abortion process. Consent of the parent is being taken to a certain extent. You also state "if the person does not want it performed on their body they should be forced to." this statement does not have anything to do with the consent of a parent throughout the abortion process. I do not believe that teenagers are capable of making responsible consequential decisions. If a teenager would be irresponsible enough to ignore the possible outcomes of having sexual intercourse, they are not capable of making a big decision of taking away someone else's life. I believe that teenagers are not able to process what comes emotionally and or socially after they make the decision of having unprotected sex due to various cases of pregnant teenage girls that go to the school counselor just to speak of bullying or other critics that they may receive once made that decision. Many parents would agree that a majority of teenagers are incapable to make decisions that affect another individual's life.
Minors should need parental consent for abortions

During this argument we are talking about minors. I will personally focus more on the teenage age group (ages 15 - 17) for the sake of my argument. Now I do believe that teenagers should have the ability to have an abortion without parental consent. The parent should be aware of any procedure that their child is having done but the child herself should be able to make final decisions about her own body. Any surgical process that a person may need or want, even if it means life or death, if the person does not want it performed on their body they should be forced to. They same should apply with abortions. Teenagers are at a age where they are capable to make informed and consequential decisions. They know that if they have unprotected sex, this can lead to pregnancy. Teens are able to process what is to come emotionally and socially after they make the decision to have sex unprotected.
Minors should need parental consent for abortions

I do believe that a minor should need consent for an abortion. Although it is the child's body, I believe that support from a parent is needed. Some children, young adults, and teenagers tend to be immature when they are pregnant and tend to make immature and irresponsible decisions. With a consent of a parent or consent from a guardian the child is being advice from an adult before they continue with taking someone's life. Some people may not understand what an abortion is until it is done. The fact to have someone tell you what you would be doing can make a life changing decision.
There Is No Academic Support for the Claim that Christianity Is Purely Emotional, Not Intellectual

I actually started this debate because in a poll a member stated that faith in Christianity was founded only in emotions and was not intellectually supported. However, I will continue this debate as I do not completely agree with your point (although some of your arguments I do.) I unfortunately do not have time for a proper response right now, which I apologize for, but I do not believe that belief in Christianity should be based in emotion. While positive emotions may of course come from one's faith, our faith convicts as well as rewards us. Hebrews 11:1 states, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Faith is belief, confidence in the unseen, not a vague positive feeling. Also, when it comes to our emotions, Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Although of course we find comfort and relief in our belief, this comfort is not the root of our faith. (Once again, I apologize for my brevity.)
There Is No Academic Support for the Claim that Christianity Is Purely Emotional, Not Intellectual

To begin with, I'm not certain exactly who is claiming that Christianity is purely emotional. In your arguement that Christianity is not emotionally based you state what Christianity is: "Christianity is based on an understanding of one's sinful state, of God's enduring love for all humanity, and of Christ Jesus' sacrifice to pay for that sin." It was this statement that got me to accept the debate challenge, because that statement is not a fact, although it is what Christianity seems to have become. The only argument that I can come up with for Christianity (as I personally understand it) being an emotionally based religion - is my own experience within it, in comparison with how believers in Christ's era received his Gospel message. Since this is a debate based on "scholarly" relevance, I'll reserve expressing my personal experience, unless the instigator chooses to allow me to explain why my own experience is relevant, and my focus will begin with how Christ both healed and taught individuals that he came into contact with during his ministry. My argument is essentially that; Christianity is SUPPOSED to be an emotional experience, and that the purpose of Christ's message itself is to redeem us by restoring us to our intended purpose, which IS ultimately to feel good about being alive. I would also argue that disciples and devotees willingness to withstand the kinds of persecution they endured during the early centuries AD, were because the power of redemption (emotional liberation) that they experienced through living according to Christ's message, gave them the endurance they needed to withstand that persecution, not for Christ's sake, (he needs not glory of men) but for the value that they themselves placed on that redemption (emotional liberation) The instigator has laid the foundation of his position, with very little supporting evidence, as I have also done. During our next round, I will cite sources, as I would expect him to as well.
There Is No Academic Support for the Claim that Christianity Is Purely Emotional, Not Intellectual

(This argument will focusing solely on Christianity, not religion in general.)First off, it must be stated that there are some who call themselves Christians, although in reality they are "Christian" only for the positive emotions it gives them to feel "religious." However, this is not true Christianity; true Christianity is based on an understanding of one's sinful state, of God's enduring love for all humanity, and of Christ Jesus' sacrifice to pay for that sin. It is then the duty of the true Christian, having experienced total redemption from his sin nature through Christ's sacrifice, to desire first and foremost to share the Truth of God's forgiveness with the rest of mankind. This is no easy task, and the strongest and most devoted Christians willingly were persecuted, suffered and even died to share the Gospel of sacrifice and redemption with the world. Examples of such selfless love and devotion include the early apostles and saints, as well as numerous missionaries and pastors throughout time and across the world.If these Christians held to their beliefs purely for the "good feelings" it gave them, why would they have continued to hold them when those beliefs became the cause of persecution and, at times, certain death? Consider particularly the situation of the first apostles; if they knew that their religion was not actually true--for example, if they had, as the Pharisees claimed, merely stolen Christ's body and claimed He had risen--why on earth would they have been willing to suffer such horrible and painful deaths for His sake?Despite many attempts to discredit Christianity, no academic source has ever been able to present solid evidence attributing the Gospel merely to emotions and positive feelings.
The responsible thing for the US to do is increase taxes

con doesn't say what he would cut to make the deficit gone or pay the debt. he just says it's possible. okay, but at what expense? cutting social security and medicare? con says it wouldn't be a problem if the government was small enough. does that include social security and such? does he ignore that general governance is only like a fifth of hte budget, and going so far to cut that in half is only a fraction of our budget?he points out an excess of twenty five million to iraq. that is a drop in the bucket to what the budget it. i dont deny that lots of small things can add up, but i dont see it being enough to balance the budget or get rid of the debt. we have a budget problem that is more structurally impossible to just do away with... it's structural and bigger than ocn says. con doesn't have any solutions. he just offers empty rhetoric about "keeping the govenrment smaller"
The responsible thing for the US to do is increase taxes

The government hardly even thinks about the national debt. When Isis first emerged in the Iraq region we gave them 25 million dollars no questions asked. It's irresponsible things like that that make the government irresponsible when it comes to managing the budget. We wouldn't even have to raise taxes to maintain our deficit if our budget was small enough to not even have a deficit. Our government also continues to tax people without representing the people's best interest in what they want their tax dollars to go to. A good example of this is planned parenthood. Some people support it, some people don't. Even though some are against funding this, the government completely overlooked them, and continues to fund planned parenthood without consent of the taxpayers. So therefore before we make rash decisions like raise taxes lets make sure the government knows what to do with it's own money.
The responsible thing for the US to do is increase taxes

we spend 3.5 trillion a year. our deficit is like half a trillion. we can only find insufficient things to cut. you can rail against things like the department of education or depart of housing etc, but you will find you are talking about small fries. we spend about a fifth on healthcare, a fifth on defense, another on social security, another on interest, and the rest on general governance. to oversimplify s the proportions aren't quite that and mroe could be added to say healthcare. that means cutting those departments is cutting a fraction of the budget. you could cut general governance in half, and it'd only be like ten percent of our budget. paying for the poor as the major problem is a myth as hte feds only spend not much beyond ten percent on them. reputable sources say our debt is manageable.... but it won't be forever. we need to balance the budget. cutting entitlements ain't gonna work politically. cutting general governance will only take you so far. the poor as the problem is a myth. we've been borrowinng against our future so long that it's starting to catch up with us. it isn't all that politically feasible, but increasing taxes is the most politically feasible thing to do. and it's not like this is without precedent. our tax rates have been much hghe on a regular basis in the past.
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

In response to your arguement, I have done my own research and found that the younger the person the more proned they are to being tempted to drink ,because of peer pressure. This is statistical research. Due to that fact I think that 21 should be the legal drinking age . We should not lower the drinking age to 18 because teenagers say we should . This would be an abomination ! by that I mean that we should as people know that drinking under age is far more dangerous than not drinking. If you are going to drink , it should be where you can not drive because you are drunk. That being said, I still feel that 21 should be the legal drinking age, due to being responsible or lack there of.
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

This debate is simple. There should be no discrimination between different ages of legal adults on any freedom. If a person is old enough to vote, work, and die for his country, his rights and freedoms should be uniform with the rest of his fellow citizens. It is immoral and unconstitutional to let one majority or group of citizens to vote away the rights of someone else. It is the role of government to protect the liberties of its citizens, not control their lifestyles to what one group deems more healthy. Right now in america, the overwhelming majority (people above the age of 21) are voting away the rights of a minority (people under the age of 21) for several various reasons: studies show that people under the age of 21 are far more likely to become alcoholics than people who start drinking after the age of 21, also it is a practice that is perceived in general as a bad and unhealthy habit. However, while these studies may be true, the only person that has the right, the reason, and the virtue is the individual who is consuming these beverages. Government may however protect certain individuals from harming each other through means of punishment for the accosting of another person's rights, they do not however have the authority to protect one individual from themselves, as that would be violating one individuals right to property, assuming ones body is ones own property. Furthermore, to give example, the american people would be outraged if one racial majority raised the drinking age to 25 of a minority race due to a study that said that particular minority was more prone to alcohol addiction than the majority race. It is a preposterous notion to think that it is governments job to regulate the habits of its citizens when those particular habits have no direct detrimental effect on anyone but themselves.
Lower the Drinking Age from 21 to 18

So what you are saying is that teenagers should be able to drink? Hopefully not. Surely you jest. What I mean by what I said in previous rounds of this debate is that I don't think that teenagers are as responsible as people over 21years old. What I meant by peer pressure is that when people put pressure on others they tend to drink or do what they are dared to do, because they want to fit in with the crowd. Statistically speaking the younger you start drinking the more proned you are to get into an accident than when you are in your 20s. The brain gets impaired when alcohol is introduced to it. This slows down you thinking,and response time to driving and other activities. If we lowewr the drinking age we should legalize drugs which will never happen. In conclusion I still think that the legal drinking age should stay at 21 not 18.