BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The effects of a minimum wage on an economy are bad

By rebutting your points individually I seem to have distracted you to what I labled my main argument. Let me restate it now. All that you have argued only amounts to make the case to not raise the minimum wage, or even keep it the same. This does not mean get rid of it all together. You gave stats for what has happened when it goes up. I did not contest that. Why would I? I’m not arguing to have us raise it and I don’t want us to raise it. But there has to be one of some kind. Your assumption is flawed to label yourself ‘worth 5 dollars’. You work is not ‘worth 5 dollars’ if the minimum wage is set at 7. The minimum wage sets the market supply for help at a minimum of 7.25. if there is higher demand than it can go up for what they offer to pay to get you working but there offer cant go below that. You cant count on employers to think of you or me the worker first, or to even give you what you are ‘bare minimum worth’. Here are some numbers for you that matter to me, a southerner who actually knows what it means to be called a ‘redneck’. 10,000 10,000 coal miners in west virgina risked there lives and some of them giving them even on Blair Mountain, to ensure the corrupt mine company owners did not walk all over them. From these coal miners was the term ‘redneck’ born for the bandanas they whore around there necks. http://www.glendale.edu... Youve used math examples based on us being worth just 5 dollars, but you have not done anything to make me think anything defines us as so. as far as I'm concerned my boss gets 7.25 an hour out of me everytime I come to work and if the minimum wage changed and so did my pay then she would get that much work out of me though the work would still be the same. the market for employes would have gone up and thus my times worth. You have made compelling cases to not raise it, fine dont. lower it even if its apparent its worth any low skilled workers time to come out work for that much. but there is a minimum needed to make it worth any workers time no matter the job. "well they just have to suck it up its a job...." NO. same logic but reversed "well they just have to suck it up, its a worker...." (said toward the employers). there is no reason to give employers consideration before employes espically when it was seen how bad that could get in west virgina before the Union fought back. There is a minimum that any laborer's time should cost at. Is it nessesary 7.25? To prove the resolution I dont need to prove that specific, and the mimum is subject to change with economic changes. Though I dont want this to destract you from that main argument, I do want to a quickly address one very insulting thing you said that has really, really, really set me off, as this kind of attitude has always angered me all my life. "Kids are dumb" No adults are dumb. dumb, stubborn, and senile.
Turning John Cena heel would be a good idea

Additionally, WWE teased a possible John Cena heel turn, during his feud with Kane a while ago, and when they brought his old gimmick back for one day and the fans were excited about it. Cena has all the tools, all the charisma to be a great heel. A simple feud with someone like Daniel Bryan can be a way to pass the title of "the name and face".
Turning John Cena heel would be a good idea

That's loosely based on the fact that Cena is the "name and face" of the company. This doesn't mean that a face cannot be changed. In fact, it might be beneficial for WWE to try something new, instead of Cena burying new talent each and every week. WWE can easily build up a new face just like they did with Cena. Also, a heel turn coming from someone like Cena is not expected and might potentially be the biggest shocker of the year, which means better ratings.
Turning John Cena heel would be a good idea

I disagree. While his status has changed, he is still the face of the company. The face of any company should always be seen as positive. Until his status falls down below another superstar, there is no reason to change his status without having anothef established face for the company. Let's get in to the faces of organizations: Tiger Woods was the face of PGA until his controversial issues rose to the public. This caused a major drop in viewers of the tournaments. Derek Jeter is the face of MLB. That may seem biased, but I will bet anything that more non baseball fans know the name and face of Derek Jeter than anyone else. He also does not have controversial issues surrounding him. The face of an organization is who or what bests fits the mould that the organization has set up. Notice all faces of organizations: they interact with fans, provide advice for others in their fields or people wanting to be in that field, and they have the rewards and trophies to go along as well. If WWE makes their face guy heel, they will have no face of the company. John Cena has the awards, championships and relationships with fans and coworkers that best suits WWE's mould of company's face
Humans taste great

A brief recap: As I have stated before, my opponent's burden is not simply to show that some humans taste great. When my opponent states "humans taste great", he is making an encompassing statement. If the resolution were "dogs are blue", then the resolution could be negated by finding one non-blue dog. Since old humans count as humans, and since my opponent has admitted that old humans taste disgusting in round 2 "However, I must agree with the fact that old people taste disgusting" Then my opponent has effectively conceded the debate. Thank you to the audience, and to my opponent.
Humans taste great

My opponent has actually made the resolution of this debate "humans taste great", not "some humans taste great". Had my opponent made the resolution "dogs are blue", which is a general statement encompassing all things we classify as "dogs". He would have the burden of proving that all dogs are in fact, blue. The resolution can be falsified by the discovery of one non-blue dog. Thus, since my opponent has made the resolution "humans taste great" his burden is, indeed, to show that all humans taste great, and the resolution can be falsified by the discovery of one human that does not taste great. I accept my opponent's counterargument that the method of cooking is irrelevant. In such case, I submit the exception of old people (who are still humans) who do not taste great. My opponent himself has admitted that old people taste disgusting, thus, it negates the resolution that "humans taste great".
Humans taste great

As someone who has also been eating humans for quite some time, I must disagree with my opponent on some points. Humans don't always taste great. Some humans taste absolutely disgusting and no amount of seasoning or marinade helps a tiny bit. In addition, it takes a skill in cooking to get the meat as tender and juicy as my opponent states, doing it slightly wrong will yield terrible results. The meat tends to be dry and gamey with little to no flavor. Sometimes the meat is far too salty. Othertimes, it can just get stringy because human meat just goes down in quality with age . http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com... Thus I disagree with my opponent because it is clear that there are many, many instances in which human meat is just disgusting.
God does not exist (probably)

Firstly, I'd disagree with your burden of proof assessment. I intentionally made the name of the debate 'God probably does not exist', and said "pro (me) has to prove that God does not exist (probably)" with the intent of keeping burden of proof shared. The way I see it, my goal is to make the reader believe that there is a probability of greater than 50% that god does not exist and my opponent's goal is to do the opposite. This does not matter greatly, the reader may decide what they will. We have no evidence for the existence of god:We have no evidence for the existence of god, making assuming god's existence an inherently anti-scientific claim. It is never a good idea to postulate the existence of something for which you have no evidence especially when the theorized thing offers little to no explanatory value and creates as many problems as it gives answers. This is the position of religion. No evidence, no explanatory value, no answers; only questions. You can use your overly specific view of the universe to paint any picture you want but in the end there is no evidence for the god of Christianity, Islam, or any other religion that has ever existed. The Universe does not need god to exist:There is a massive amount of evidence which at this point suggests that the universe is able to create itself. This is true for several reasons. Firstly, the amount of energy needed to create a universe is actually not that great. Due to the curvature of spacetime at and around the Planck epoch it only requires probably a couple of grams of matter to make a universe like the one we live in today (it's a little like making a big snowball by rolling a little snowball down a big hill). If you want to know more about this I would recommend researching Chaotic Inflation Theory. Secondly, a small set of physical laws (like quantum fluctuations for example) would allow the spark to start the Big Bang and create all other physical laws. (http://www.space.com...)Thirdly, there has now also been a mathematical proof that the universe could have spontaneously existed based upon solutions to the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation. See the paper below for more details: https://arxiv.org....In other words we have no reason to assume that a god exists. Every argument which assumes that a god must exist, the Cosmological argument for example, can be better applied to the physical laws which can allow this universe. In conclusion, the idea of a god is both unnecessary and illogical. We have no evidence of a god and considerable evidence that the universe can be created without a god.
God does not exist (probably)

Batman has put the Burden of Proof on his own shoulders, and has not said that I have to prove that God exists. I will try my best to do so, however. Still, if I can't, I do not automatically lose. Batman HAS to prove he does not exist, though. I hope it'll be a great debate, too. Plus, I agree with your definition if by supreme you mean God is Omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.
God does not exist (probably)

This is a debate in which pro (me) has to prove that God does not exist (probably) where God is defined as God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. The god does not necessarily have to be the Judeo-Christian god but must give some sort of moral direction (ie cannot be a god who has not seen or done anything since the beginning of time). Thanks, I hope this will be a great debate.
Reincarnation is highly likely to be true

"In every case the researchers were able to take all those off the table."Except thats bullsh*t.... In EVERY case of reincarnation the possibilities of fraud, coincidence, etc are not all eliminated as possibilities, youre literally just saying that without any proof to cover your own a**. "it can't be nowhere near a coincidence that a child talks with many details about their past lives and have the injuries in very EXACT places using measurements that the previous personality had."Except IT KIND OF IS. I broke my thumb three times, my great grandfather broke his thumb three times too, and it was the same thumb. That doesnt mean Im his reincarnation, it just means that COINCIDENCES CAN BE WEIRD. "It just happens."Thats literally called a coincidence!How can you deny that coincidences arent a factor and then immediately concede an argument on the grounds that sometime they simply are just coincidences???"No, not at all. Knowing these details cannot be a coincidence:Previous personality's(PP) full namePPs date of deathPPs mode of deathPP's friends and families by name and lookPP's homePP's information only known to PP and PP's family and friends" You can literally find half of those with a quick internet search and BS the other half enough so that it fits the profile of what happened to the past person. "No, I meant the child thinks it's that person."Kids also think that Santa is real, and when you get a kid to believe in something he will cling to his belief no matter how unscientific their logic behind their beliefs may be, like believing they were reincarnated. Just because a chlid thinks it is someone's reincarnation and can find maybe three things they have in common with their alleged past life, it doesnt mean that reincarnation is real.... It means kids will believe everything with barely a shred of evidence to reinforce their beliefs..... Like Scientologists. "No having specific features of the PP carry on to this personality come out noticeable."It seriously doesnt because again, there have been tens of billions to exist on earth when there arent that many personalities to go around, its feasible for billions of people to have the same kind of personality, and that does not prove reincarnation. "He (Carl Sagan) said it (Reincarnation) might be true."I literally posted his exact words and linked where he said that some of the arguments behind reincarnation are worth studying, but that reincarnation itself is a retarded idea. ================================================================================================Rather then continue on with Pro's half-a**ed "arguments" ill cut to the chase and save everyone some timePro either uses his own opinions or ridiculously unsubstantiated claims as his rebuttals while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that many aspects of reincarnation cases can be debunked simply as coincidences. He also flat out denies that things like coincidences and fraud are possibilities at all by retardedly claiming that they've been disproven 'in every case'.....Reincarnation is most certainly not 'highly likely' to be true, nor is it even remotely likely to be true.
Reincarnation is highly likely to be true

These cannot be coincidences because the child knows very intimate details including their past life's full name, date of death, mode of death, their intimate information, place of death and more. And if it were just coincidences, why hasn't after 3000 cases of such things has there not been ONE case where a child got something wrong or the person they describe was alive after the child was born? Not ONCE has this happened! And there were studies where a child made someone up and then they looked up that person. Some minor details were matched up but significant details were not such as age, date of death etc. .. ------ 1) Con doesn't know what he's talking about and thinks its mere coincidences that children can knows. Lot about another person. I claim it isn't because of what I've written about as it couldn't. possibly be a coincidence. 2) Coincidence, vivid imaginations and fraud were disproven or made highly unlikely. 3) Science was not in its infancy at the time the cases were when they were studied. All these cases happened in 20th century and above. 4) Peer-reviewed books, journals and articles as well as Carl Sagan's quote say there is something interesting happenings here and deserve serious study.
The earth is not flat.

Rebuttle "It seems as though we have 2 completely different ways to evaluate what is true and what is not. I tend to follow science and let it determine what has the most evidence. You will side with the Quran over anything in science. I'm afraid though that this perspective of the world is wrong unless there is substantial evidence proving that the Quran is true. Your reasoning that the Quran was the Word of God was that "no one can produce a chapter like it." I'm afraid that more evidence will be needed, if that is even counted as any. If you choose to believe in the Quran, that's fine. This doesn't automatically make science wrong and the Quran true though." Science is full of lies, scientists work for the government, and the government has lied to us repeatedly, my government has lied to me about the gulf of tonkin incident, 911, ufos, area 51, the second death of Osama Binladen, the JFK Assassination, Elchupacabra, Mothman, and many many other things, the last thing science wants is for us to find the truth, since it is under the control of the illuminati ameen The Quran however is proof, No one can make a chapter like it, proving it cannot be written by humans, it can only be the world of God ameen, "As for the logical reasons why the earth is flat, here is my explanation. #1, this is because of a phenomena known as "gravity" which is defined as the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. What exactly causes gravity is still up for debate but one theory is gravitons. #2 is exactly the same reason as #1. Thank you and good luck." What is gravity though, have you ever seen a graviton? your science hasn't even discovered it yet or seen it or proven it exists ameen, I believe an angel pulls us down to the earth, my theory is as good as Albert Einstein, Also if gravity pulls us down, how does it pull the people on the bottom of the earth up? "1. Photos from space" Complete hoax there is no such thing as outerspace there are only 7 heavens ameen "2. The shadow on the moon" I never seen it how do you know it is there, I believe if it is there it is a 250 mile long crow instead ameen "3. Circumnavigation" what the heck is that? "4. Ships sailing off into the distance, their sails will "fall into the water" No one has tried sailing to the edge of the earth, Christopher Columbus never existed, we live in a matrix built by the Jews, Arabia is the only country that exists in the real world ameen "5. The night and day cycle can be easily explained with a solar system that has a spherical earth" The Sun goes in murkey water at night ameen, America isn't real, we live in a Zionist matrix or virtual reality ameen "A continuation from #6: Where is the edge? Why haven't we found it yet? If we have, please provide a picture." No one has tried to find the edge, because the devil lives in the ocean, and there are also sea monsters, people in the real world are too scared to venture into the ocean, because the sea monsters will get them inshallah ameen
The earth is not flat.

It seems as though we have 2 completely different ways to evaluate what is true and what is not. I tend to follow science and let it determine what has the most evidence. You will side with the Quran over anything in science. I'm afraid though that this perspective of the world is wrong unless there is substantial evidence proving that the Quran is true. Your reasoning that the Quran was the Word of God was that "no one can produce a chapter like it." I'm afraid that more evidence will be needed, if that is even counted as any. If you choose to believe in the Quran, that's fine. This doesn't automatically make science wrong and the Quran true though.As for the logical reasons why the earth is flat, here is my explanation. #1, this is because of a phenomena known as "gravity" which is defined as the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. What exactly causes gravity is still up for debate but one theory is gravitons. #2 is exactly the same reason as #1. Thank you and good luck.
The earth is not flat.

Thankyou for the debate Pro, I see you posted some good reasons, Here are my reasons why I believe the earth is flat, 1st off I don't believe in what science says, I only believe what God says, and God says in the Quran the earth is flat ameen, I only believe in the Quran and Hadith and not science ameen, How do I know the Quran is the Word of God, because no one can produce a chapter like it ameen, to this day, no one has produced a surah like the Quran ameen, so what does the Word of God tell us? "And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance. " Quran 15:19 "He Who has, made for you the earth like a carpet spread out; has enabled you to go about therein by roads (and channels); and has sent down water from the sky." With it have We produced diverse pairs of plants each separate from the others. " Quran 20:53 and so on, Also the great Islamic Scholar Ibn Abbas proved the earth is flat, He knew the Prophet saw so, if the Prophet said the earth is flat, then it is flat and there is no question about it, ameen, http://altafsir.com... Finally I will give you some logical reasons why the earth is flat, 1. if I put a ball on the ground, it will stay steady and won't hurdle into space ameen, 2. If the earth was round, people on the bottom would fall off ameen, Those are my reasons why I believe the earth is flat, Inshallah in the Rebuttal rounds I will debunk Pro's arguments ameen JazakAllah Khair ameen
The earth is not flat.

Thank you for accepting the challenge. My list of evidence for the earth being not flat: 1. Photos from space 2. The shadow on the moon 3. Circumnavigation 4. Ships sailing off into the distance, their sails will "fall into the water" 5. The night and day cycle can be easily explained with a solar system that has a spherical earth. A continuation from #6: Where is the edge? Why haven't we found it yet? If we have, please provide a picture.
It's okay for non-blacks to say 'nigger'.

My apologies for missing the acceptance round. Since my arguments don't contradict the arguments you've brought forth I extend my arguments. Context: A white prosecutor can read the "N" word from a manuscript of a racist person commiting a hate crime against a black person. By not softening the "N" word and actually saying it, the jury can be more appalled and the judge can sentence the offender for a longer sentence. In this context, it is okay for a non-black person (the prosecutor) to say the "N" word because it's for the greater good. Definitional: When defining what not to say, it is okay to say the word. In this debate you've used the "N" word to define the word you were talking about. The same could apply to a live debate in which a non-black person would have to use the full "N" word to define the word that we shouldn't use.
It's okay for non-blacks to say 'nigger'.

[1] The word 'nigger' is a racial slur, and in no given environment should it ever be used. Not even blacks should be using the word. The word 'nigger' is not really even (according to the original word) a race-based word. The word should actually just mean people of inferiority or "lesser" humans. The blacks were kept as slaves with this hard ball slur as well as the Irish slaves of Europe. [2] In any professional environment, slurs should never be used, as they convey unprofessionalism and also convey little compassion or care for other humans. When you seek employment, no one will hire you if you use such words. If the usage of the word is frequent, that becomes a bit of a problem. A big issue is also when people tend to use the word as a term of endearment. The word is a vulgar, obscene and oppressive term, not a kid-friendly term for 'friend' or 'acquaintance'. The term is defined as such: "ger G2;nigər/ nounoffensive a contemptuous term for a black or dark-skinned person. [3] When a non-black person uses the word, it implies that they are putting themselves above the person they are speaking too; if the person is black, this makes things much worse! When blacks are called 'niggers' it is commonly another way for the user of the word to call them: worthless, trashy, inferior or disgraceful, all of which are insulting or derogatory (just as the word itself). Conclusion of First Argument To conclude, 'nigger' is not an okay word to use for anyone, but non-blacks saying it implies supremacy and puts the person above them.