BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Yeah, right, getting angry at your dodging of the debate and using the tactic of claiming you don't clearly understand the meaning of simple words like "won" and "atheist" and "such" is because of my faith and not because of the frustration of having to run around in circles with you as you cry about your inability to clearly understand the meaning of "won". Atheist has always meant "a person who says there is no God" and always will. If you think you show how smart you are by obscuring the meaning so that an atheist is an agnostic and the definition for agnostic is the same as the definition of atheist unless you add prefixes or suffixes to make clear distinctions, do it in debates with people other than me, please. An atheist says there is no God, therefore it is not possible for an atheist to win Pascal's Wager because Pascal's Wager implies that God may there and it is the safest bet to live your life in respect of the possibility that God cares about what you do with your time on earth. Atheism is an assertion that God is not there, therefore it is impossible for an atheist to believe they could win anything by ordering their life according to Pascal's Wager. I agree with atheists that it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, but I agree on this point for different reasons that the atheist. My reasons for agreeing with them are not the subject of this debate. Because of my opponents manner of denying clear understanding of definitions of words, I have lost interest in even reading his arguments. It seems like a waste of time arguing with a guy who is going to ask me to read his requests for a dictionary definition of words like "won" and "such". I don't even want to take the time to do spell check for this, but I guess it is a courtesy to the readers. My opponent can make up his own definitions of words no matter how they are spelled, and probably find some modern dictionaries that say the meanings of words have changed.
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Dear Pro You have no made an argument; you have presented several statements and a single claim. You abdicated round 2 on the presumption I wasn't serious and stupid, when I was serious and actually being quite intelligent in nailing down terms and definitions. Now you have called me ignorant. However, even as an athiest, I understand your anger and accept it as a by product of your faith. As to the debate I am in the position of Con. I am here to refute your argument. You have not presented one. You state - "For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible." This is not an argument, it’s a statement. That is true. If A then b You State - "If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager," This is not an argument, it’s a statement. That is true. If no A then no B. you state - "in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager." Weird request, as it could argue a afterlife without a god, but I agree to your request. You state - I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager. This is not a statement, but a claim. What is your argument to support it? As this is round 4, can you please get to it soon, so I can provide a rebuttal to your argument, so you can rebut my but. Besides repitition, praying, calling me names. I would love to hear it so we can actually start the debate. Love Nathan Ps, thank you for praying for me. However I would appreciate you not casting spells on me, or presuming that you know better than god what my best interest are.
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

For my opponent to argue that it is possible to win Pascal's Wager, he or she must agree that God is there to make it possible. If God is not there, it is not possible to win Pascal's Wager, and in this debate my opponent is excluded from saying God is not there in order to argue it is possible to win Pascal's wager. I say it is not possible to win in Pascal's Wager. If you are not going to put up an argument, why did you take the debate? Do I need to give you a dictionary link for "put up"? Did you decice you understand the word "won" well enough so I don't have to give you a dictionary link for that word?
Atheists say Pascal's Wager cannot be won and I agree.

Dear Pro The reason I wanted a dictionary are many. I learnt very quickly as I read your debates and have debated you before, you mix terms and play with words extremely well. So rather than needling words or allowing wrongly defined terms, I wanted a neutral 3rd party as an impartial arbitrator. The appeal to an outside dictionary was not just for ‘won’ but specifically for ‘won‘ and such. After researching several arguments of yours, the best tactic in an argument against you is to define terms, words and where the BOP lay. Several people would have easily won had they defined the terms first. As we only have a few rounds, and you have not bothered to present an argument I will treat your original address as the first round. Your first statement, from which your entire argument is derived, is completely and utterly false. You stated - ‘since an atheist asserts there is no god’ why a dictionary is essential . . . . Your stated definition of an atheist is completely incorrect – An atheist asserts you have not met the burden of proof to make a god claim with any certainty ‘yet’, or a specific god claim 'yet'. An Anti-theist is someone who asserts there is not a god. They are vastly different. Clarification of Claim. . . Pascal’s wager is not a claim as you’re presenting it. It’s a response to a very specific theist question on shifting the BOP. If the theists asks the question ‘what if your wrong?’ the response of ‘Pascal’s wager’ is putting the BOP back on the person asserting the claim. At no point has an atheist denied a god exists with Pascal's Wager, or the wager cannot be won, there asking how is it that a theist can have sure hope he has purchased the correct ticket, when every other ticket own claims the same, using the same types of arguments. If you use the correct definition of atheist your argument and claim falls apart, completely.
Federal Reserve

No, the dot-com bubble was not just one business, neither was the oil crisis. I'm starting to wonder whether you're trolling me. Two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is a recession, so there have been many, many more recessions than you claim. I'm fairly certain the vast majority of my argument was coherent, so I don't understand why you won't attempt to refute it. Regardless, it seems you've watched one too many conspiracy theory documentaries and haven't done your research. The Fed is a positive force that maintains American economic integrity and there seems to be no relevant counter-argument to.
Federal Reserve

That was a small financial problem in a business, not a nation, hence not sure recession, and yes loose economic policy did, I explained how earlier, you're not dumb go re-read it, and no I did not say low interest rates lower house prices, I said it enticed more loans, as you can see, I only reply to the statements that remotely make sence, the more we talk about your side of the debate the less it makes sense, the less prices are worth my time to answer, the shorter the argument.
Federal Reserve

"We had six recessions in our history" - that's just not simply true. Recessions are a natural part of the business cycle, and there's been more than 6 in the history of the United States. The dot-com bubble and the early 70's oil crisis are a couple just off the top of my head that you've missed out. Without getting into the issue of the Great Recession too much, it was essentially caused by a plummeting of confidence from investors that burst the stock bubble. The Fed should have loosened monetary policy to stimulate demand, but failed to do so until 1930. This potentially exacerbated the problem but by no means caused the recession. Further, you claim that low interest rates caused the 2008 recession because it allowed cheap housing. This is so false it makes me wonder if you have any basic understanding of economics at all. Firstly, the financial crisis was caused by an array of factors. The most notable of these would be (in my eyes at least) the reckless lending and lack of regulation. To say however that the Fed caused the recession due to a loose monetary policy is ridiculous and I would find it interesting to read your explanation as to why you believe this. Finally, the Federal Reserve is not "owned" by the board of Governors in any sense of the word. The board is selected and approved by the President and Congress, and they make key decisions regarding monetary policy based on their own expertise, not for political gain. They also report to the White House on the situation of the US economy. The Fed is also audited by Congress and, practically all profit made by the Fed is funneled straight back into the US treasury so I therefore not, in any practical sense, a private company. Though, you may be concerned that the Fed's stockholders are all privately-run banks. Understandable, but the 'stocks' that the banks hold cannot be traded, and the banks' only power is to appoint 6 of 9 of the regional board of Governors which run the day-to-day running of the local Fed (so in no way can influence monetary policy, which is entirely controlled by the national, Government appointed, Board of Governors). The Fed is an invaluable, independent body and secures the legitimacy of American economic policy.
Federal Reserve

I want to make this very clear, we had six recessions in our history (1807,1837,1873,1893,1929,2008) 4 of 6 happened under the supervision of a central bank, 1807- First Bank of the United States, 1837- Second Bank of the United States, 1929, and 2008- The Federal Reserve. 1929 was a result of the federal reserve issuing a surplus of money, causing inflation, stock prices inflated, people bought stock thinking it would increase in value, causing a bubble, low interest rates allowed for loaning to buy stock, bubble pops, depression, same with 2008, just replace 1929 with 2008 and stock with houses. The federal reserve is owned by the federal reserve board of governors, don't tell me you think unelected politicians are better than elected politicians.
Federal Reserve

I'll assume this debate is focused around the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Federal Reserve as a monetary regulator, seeing as the motion is unclear. In response to your argument, I think it's foolish and inappropriate to consider anything as misfit for purpose purely because of the US Constitution. The Constitution is open to potential amendments and should not be treated as above criticism, therefore an idea should not be considered null purely because it violates the current version of the Constitution. I also find it hard to understand why you believe the Federal Reserve has "caused many recessions". Seeing as you fail to substantiate that claim, I cannot adequately attempt to refute it. Finally, you attempt to condemn the Federal Reserve for inflation despite presenting any evidence to support your claim. The Federal Reserve plays a vital role in preserving the stability of the money supply by protecting monetary stimulus from being used politically (and therefore inappropriately). Essentially, if the Federal Reserve was run by Government there would be an opportunity for politicians to manipulate interest rates in order to prompt further growth before an election to therefore boost public sentiment towards the Government. However, this expansionary monetary policy will promote inflation in certain circumstances, which of course is hurtful to the consumer. Maintaining an independent body to decide on monetary policy is therefore vital in preserving stable prices. Apologies for the brief introduction.
Federal Reserve

First is that the federal reserve violates article 1 section 8 sentence 5 of the constitution which states that congress should manage the money, don't even try to say that congress controls the federal reserve because their own board of governors does, Next is that the federal reserve caused many recessions, in fact, only 2 recessions happened not under the surveillance of a central bank, 4 others happened under the federal reserve, the second bank of the United states, or the first bank of the United States. Third is that the federal reserve causes inflation, 100$ in 1832 equals 120$ in 1872, 100$ in 1940 equals 588$ in 1980, same time of inflation, but with the Fed we lose 5/6 our dollars value, without it we loose 1/6 our dollars value.
Shrek is a stupid meme

Shrek is a dumb meme because:1. Most memes of him are bad CGI and CDI animations .2. Shrek is Love, Shrek is Life is really disturbing and creepy.3. Shrek is often shown as a child molester.4. The Shrek movies were bad.5. He has a lack of use in the meme world.6. He is a dead meme.7. Shrek memes were so 2016.8. I'm tired of seeing Shrek memes.9. Dirty jokes in the Shrek movies.10. Just because.
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

You obviously have no idea of what you're discussing.Who cares about peoples' emotions?How could companies exist if they didn't pay fair wages to their workers?How could you try to force employers to pay their employees supposedly fair wages?If you did try, what would happen?China is apparently a Communist country.Communism doesn't work.You shouldn't automatically believe anything the Communists put out.Are they still pouring $ that they can't afford into such things as their controversial 3 Gorges Dam project?
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

We have the power to help those countries rise up. We don't have to jump to 15.00 an hour warehouse jobs for china and mexico. But we could raise the payment which would make us even more competitive for laborers in other countries. Regardless of if said country excepts it or not. We would not except China making factories here and paying our children 2.00 a day. But that's because we have a choice , often times they have Zero choice except to work under those conditions. I am sorry but we should strive for the common good not the common Deal. The best way to exploit a people in order to maintain a specifically western style of living. 53% of mexicans live in poverty, what would be the harm in making american companies strive to higher standards outside of our borders? What about decency and respect? Business Ethics? CEO of Japan Airlines cut his own pay, and takes the bus to work everyday. His pilots make less than he does. I am not saying all of our CEO's need to go to that extreme of a level but we have Power and we should not just be on the hunt for the best deal. Dollar a day jobs aren't except able practice here in the United States, why should we act in such a way outside of our borders?
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

In the United States, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which translates to approximately $1160 per month (assuming 40 hour days on all weekdays). In addition to the wages offered to employees, businesses are mandated to contribute money to workers’ Social Security and provide basic healthcare packages. Federal labor laws and workers unions (where applicable) prevent corporations from forcing workers to work excessive hours or in dangerous conditions. While many workers rights groups say that American labor laws are antiquated and need to be improved, it remains true that they are more stringent than those of many other countries. China has no centralized minimum wage, and leaves its provinces to decide upon their minimum wages. The province with the highest minimum wage is the Shenzhan province, which has a minimum monthly wage of 1,500 yuan (In USD, this translates to $240.55 a month for full time workers). The Jiangxi province is the province with the lowest minimum wage, weighing in at a terrible monthly wage of 870 yuan (USD equivalent of $139.52). In addition to the low wages, China has no requirements that employers provide benefits to their workers, and there are few labor laws that protect workers from abuses. The wide disparity in labor costs between China and the United States illustrates just why it can be extremely profitable for a corporation to outsource labor. Rather than pay Americans to produce goods, many corporations find it more profitable to produce goods in countries where labor is cheap and then transport the goods back to the USA for sale—the increased profitability that comes with outsourcing labor more than makes up for the increased transportation costs that stem from getting outsourced products back to the states. While outsourcing is not viable for some goods (ex. goods which require specialized skills to produce), it has been prevalent in the low-skilled labor sectors of textiles, customer service, and industrial fabrication.
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

Of course right now they are allowed to pay anything they'd like but we are significantly more powerful than Mexico and many larger companies could afford to pay more. Yes American wages, as in the range of wages. If they pay more in mex ico, it could prompt mexican companies to pay more, as well as prompt american companies to refrain from outsourcing as many jobs as they do. I understand, economically you couldnt jump mexican wages to drastically but a small increase over time, may have the ability not only to raise the stabdard of living but may also reduce the number of people coming the us illegally. A family may be able to rely more on a good factory job than say a farm or the cartel. Eventually as wages go up, as well as in investment , mexican work force could be diversified. If we focused some type of our litigation just to target a few larger companies by making them to pay more it would also better our reputation. To me its not only a political issue,, but ethical practice. By targetting larger, stronger companies who wont go broke over this , small businesses on both sides of our divide would see some lucrative windows pop up.
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

What is the american wage? is the american wage $30 per hour or is it $7.25 per hour. whatever it is, american companies have any right to pay whatever they want in foreign countries. if the minimum wage happens to be $1.00 an hour in a country, then the us companies can pay $1.00 an hour in that country. It is humanly right for foreign country workers to get the same pay as Americans, but politically, the companies don't have to.
American Companies should be made to pay outsourced workers in foreign countries American wages

There are many problems occurring around the world, people are starving, families are being torn apart, and almost entire nations socially and economically imprisoned. Many factors cause this to exist, I will reference specifically Mexico and south America. We will begin from a somewhat recent event, which is NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) this was an economic policy originally thought up by Reagan. It was not signed into law until 1992 under President Clinton. It was said to help American business by increasing foreign investment, while also allowing large companies to 'take advantage of' (Exploit**) the low wages and easier regulations. It was also written to help local investment in Mexico as well as higher standards of living due to increase in GDP and, wage growth. You may think at first, that this was a success. Especially if you look at some numbers, such as, Increase in Mexican production rates, as well as decreased price in products sold in the United States. This was purely an Economic law, it had no regard for normal people or small business. Small business is a vital part to any economy, this law solely benefited the top of the top. Although Mexican production rates went up, there was no guarantee of local Mexican investment, partly due to no promise of Increased Wages for Mexican workers. Exportation of Mexican beef, poultry and agricultural export increased approximately 9.4% from 1994-2001. All of this seems well until you either venture to Mexico yourself or look at Mexico's standard of living and wages. Mexican meat consumption per capita increased which is of major benefit, although this did nothing to increase the common Dollar a Day wage for the majority of Mexican workers. It did however increase Mexican export numbers, ever so slightly increased Mexican import numbers. This is only one of the many biased, unfair , and colonial actions committed by the United States. In the next round I will go into the effect caused by the destruction of revolutions, democratically elected governments, assassination of officials and drug wars carried out by the United states against South America.
SC2 Terran are too overpowered against Protoss

Hoh? A fellow sc2 player. 1. MMM MM(M) is easily countered by a strong zealot/stalker mix backed by either HT's or Colossi- A few good storms will obliterate a ground force, especially if he's teched to Medivacs rather than ghosts, and colossi guarantee that even if he attempts to kite your zealots he'll get melted. Earlier pushes can be easily defended by a sentry or two at the ramp, with a few Immortals to eat the Marauders if you please. I assure you, zealot + stalker are no match for MM(M) even without Medivac. Also, teching for HT or Colossi immediately is a guaranteed loss. First of all, HT are useless on their own, they have to research first for the storm and with so many requirements just to get a Templar Archive, by the time you begin researching, your terran opponent is already at your front door. Colossus are the same, with such a high cost and many requirements. Even if you get 1 or 2 of them out, your opponent still wrecks your army. Immortals are good against armored, but does only 20 damage against marines compared to the 50 damage against armored types. And since terran always have a reactor running up, you always face more marines then marauders. You also mention that an early push is immediately stopped by a sentry but i disagree. First of all, marines have guns. They shoot you, they dont even have to reach you. Secondly, the force field isnt permanent, it disappears after a while. 2. The Marauder is a ground to ground anti armor unit and the stalker is a ground armored unit- the stalker is meant to be countered by the marauder. Furthermore, the Stalker is meant to be warped in- if he'd getting marauder's faster than you're getting Stalkers it means you haven't gotten warpgates which means you deserve to loose. Then you have proven my point because sentries sucks because of its high gas cost and its weak, stalkers gets owned by marauders and marines and zealots gets shot to death before they can reach your opponent army. I have proven that Terran is overpowered. 3. Terran is free to mass marines and marauders only, but he will be obliterated by either HTs or Colossi. Vikings are eaten alive by blink stalkers. You forget something. Colossi and HT are in higher tech tier where upon marine and marauders are avaible right in the beginning. Protoss players doesnt have the time to mass Colossi or HT to counter the MMM (or just MM) army. And I mention that vikings are to destroy protoss air,what kind of an idiot sends vikings against stalkers? (Unless he has an army prepared to take on stalkers.) 4. I'd claim the ramp layout benefits Toss quite significantly as well- you often see players like HuK using a FF at the ramp to keep stuck in his main as his expos are obliterated, or vice-versa. Defensively, a single sentry stops all early aggression. Uhh i cant make much of it, i see 2 times his and both are referring to something else... Cmon make this clearer...