BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God does not Exist

You are incorrect. That is my post. Look at the time the post was made on reddit and look at the time my argument was made on here. I copied and pasted the argument here in the form of a reddit post to see the argument's weaknesses. If absolutely necessary, I can post something specific from the reddit account that posted the argument on reddit to prove that this is my post. I am highly offended by this and appalled with my opponent.
God does not Exist

Does God exist? I, Socrates, will argue in the negative in regard to the statement "God does not exist", meaning I will be arguing for the existence of a non-specific deity, although I may choose to argue for the existence of more specific deities suited to specific religions, if it should benefit my argument. My opponent, whomsoever that shall be, will argue in the positive in regard to the aforementioned statement, meaning he will be arguing that our Universe exists without a deity. This opening statement and round will be used purely for pleasantries, with "round 2" being where the actual debate begins. I hope not that the superior rhetorician, but rather he that argues for the truth shall prevail.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.

Thanks for accepting. There are many reasons that the minimum wage should be raised to 15 dollars. 1. Raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy. http://www.cnbc.com... By raising the minimum wage to $15 dollars an hour the economy will raise with it. "The U.S. economy is constituted by 70 percent consumer spending. Raising the national minimum wage would inject as much as $450 billion in the U.S. economy each year, money that entrepreneurs would have the opportunity to chase after. A $15 minimum wage would also save taxpayers an estimated $153 billion a year, according to a study by the University of California, Berkeley. This is because companies that pay low wages force workers to get food stamps and other benefits to help offset their low wages." http://www.globalresearch.ca... 2. Benefit Americans, Americans are in favor of a $15 minimum wage. "No one deserves to live in poverty. The last 30 years have drastically skewed labor relations in favor of the employer, lowering workers wages, health care, pensions, and job protections in the process, creating massive poverty and economic uncertainty. This dynamic is now considered "normal," where 30 years ago it was considered a radical anti-worker ideology. A $15 minimum wage is the quickest, most direct route to empower working people, and directly intervene into the labor market on the side of the workers." http://www.globalresearch.ca... An employee working a 40-hour week at the federal minimum wage would earn $15,080 per year. This income would leave a two-person household -- say, a single parent with one child -- just below the federal poverty threshold of $15,130....... Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, has introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $9.80 -- about $20,400 for a year of full-time work -- within two years. In subsequent years, the required pay rate would be increased each year by the same percentage that the federal Consumer Price Index rises. http://www.salary.com... 3. Benefit the world. If the US economy stays on it's feet, it will benefit the world economy. Since we learned in point one that raising wages will help the economy, if the economy is benefited the dollar goes up helping much of the world. http://www.worldfinancialwatch.com... In closing. I wish to say more but my internet is going wacky on me. Again I would like to thank my opponent for accepting and I apologize for the time it took for me to get'er done. I personally believe I have stated how and why it is important to raise the minimum wage to $15. Happy AIDS day!
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should raise the minimum wage to $15.

This is a tournament debate.http://www.debate.org... Using 16kadams Rules: Rules: 1. First round is for acceptance only 2. Second round is for cases only 3. BOP is shared 4. No kritiks/semantics 5. Voting is on arguments only 6. Breaking rules = loss 7. Sources don't need to be in debate, but if you do that put them in an external link. 8. No NAP or annoying libertarian philosophy (counts as a K). Stats master race 9. You accept definitions 10. Don't troll me. Punishable by losing the debate and an capital punishment through Jaguars. Round Structure: R1: Acceptance. If Con needs clarification, ask for it here. Otherwise, no arguments. R2-4: Arguments/Rebuttals R5: Closing Remarks. You can address previous arguments, but don't offer new ones. Definitions: Minimum Wage:the lowest wage permitted by law or by a special agreement. Raise:increase the amount, level, or strength of. May this be a great debate!
Cannabis is only beginning to be understood as a plant with great potential to help many problems.

I think once cannabis is rescheduled as a type II drug, it would allow research. With many prominent successful doctors and scientists endorsing cannabis, it's really just a matter of time. But as we all know, congress is deadlocked on many issues. The democrats have a majority in the senate, and the republicans have a majority in the house. Neither one have the votes to overrule the other. So, we can't get any liberal agendas through, just as we cannot get any conservative agendas through. When it comes to creating strains, they will target chemicals that are found to be effective from the research (see paragraph 1). I'm reading that CBD, the non-psychoactive component showing effectiveness in epilepsy, is the one that has also shown effective for anxiety. Many of the more modern strains sold in medical dispensaries are low overall in this. I believe they will have to cultivate this strain and others to fully study it, from the neuron perspective.The understanding of cannabis will bring about I believe a whole array of pharmaceutical medications that will help humanity without the psychoactive components and the necessity to smoke it as a method of delivery. This is an exciting time and brings hope for many.
Cannabis is only beginning to be understood as a plant with great potential to help many problems.

Excellent rebuttal, I enjoy debates that I need to work for :) On the note I would like to say a cannabis derivative is not the same as cannabis and yes must be further research to produce but then you must think that to do this will take cancer research money and when people find out that their cancer research money is going into cannabis the vast majority of people who do not smoke and do not know its medical value will not be happy and either stop founding (thus making the money not available to study) or demand that the money go to use somewhere else. like you said cannabis has over 400 unique chemical compounds which means pinpointing 1 or 1 combinations of such chemicals for a derivative that may with no real evidence (that it cures), cure cancer will take a huge huge amount of time and a very large sum of money that all could be going towards any leads they have in cancer research at the moment not to mention doing that all over again to find more than possibly non existent cures for anxiety and everything else. As for the not Gods gift anymore, i meant it in a sense that how most of the food we have today is genetically modified and would not exist in nature without human interference well the same goes for much of what is pot in today's culture, with more strains than you can count all bred from crossing two strains that would never even be geographical possible to cross and using chemical nutrients in order to bring up to potency in amounts tat would never be natural on this earth. I would like to ask you a question. Say we researched into it and found a chemical in cannabis that that can not cure but helps greatly with depression except is not psychoactive, if offered between regular cannabis and this derivative which do you think someone who has used Cannabis before is going to choose? off my own experience I know I would choose the psychoactive regular cannabis because of the side effects that i desire my point being even if there was an Cannabis derived alternative available I believe many people would still want the original thing
Cannabis is only beginning to be understood as a plant with great potential to help many problems.

Let me start this off by saying I do smoke weed and I do believe it has medical values however what i do not believe is that weed is everything its cracked up to be by its users (1) its not the cure for cancer- many people with cancer smoke weed, and many people with cancer who smoke weed also die it very much s helps to eliviate pain however to say we have a miracle drug here that will get rid of your cancer is rediculous as there is simple no evidence to point towards that (2) its not gods gift to man any more- at this point man has altered and forced growing of cannabis that is essentialy a many made crop now (3)people abuse it- ever since its been known that cannabis is not addicting every stoner uses this in a pro-legalizing debate however it is just not physically addicting(no physical side effects from trying to quit) however it is mentally addicting and some people do feel they need to smoke to be alive. I have seen more than one people loose themselves to weed. (4) no need for hemp products- bamboo can do just about everything hemp can and has the same positive impact on the environment without being an illegal substance (5) before cannabis was illegal it was legal- along with cocaine heroine and many other dangerous drugs that people though were medicine and would cure them but in the end it was just that people liked getting high off of them I shall leave it at that for this round
Cannabis is only beginning to be understood as a plant with great potential to help many problems.

Since the implementation of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, cannabis has been classified as a schedule I substance [1] with no medical value, essentially a worser classification than cocaine and methamphetamine. America and the world has found it difficult to get adequate funding to scientifically study it effectively.Some prominent doctors and scientists in the U.S. and the world have recently taken the stance that we have been victims of misinformation and propaganda, and that there is unmistakable evidence that cannabis does indeed have medical potential to help those with diseases that no other drugs can. Even some states who do allow for the sale of medical marijuana for chronic conditions don't allow for the extract of certain properties such as CBD, or cannabidiol from certain strains of the plant proven to help with certain ailments and diseases. This has created "drug refugees", or those who must leave their homes to live in specific geographical areas that allow medical marijuana to be cultivated, processed, purified and sold in order to treat certain medical conditions such as some rare forms of epilipsy.Colorado has recently approved an initiative to spend 7 million dollars solely for the research of cannabis' potential. Cannabis is a complex plant with many properties we don't understand. Some think that if cannabis could be fully understood and cultivated for medical purposes, it could hold the cure for cancer, Alheimer's and other neurological disorders like anxiety. We already know that it can help many with chronic fatigue, inflammation, pain without the side effects that other pharmaceutical drugs have. Scientists have only begun to understand that all throughout our own bodies we have what are known as endocannabinoid receptors. And that cannabis has cannabinoids that are naturally in sync with these receptors. Why have we been kept from learning about this natural substance that God has provided for us? A plant that grows on the earth for thousands of years. Used for thousands of years for it's medical, spiritual and industrial properties? Even industrial hemp, a form of cannabis, has been a valued for centuries because of it's incredible fibrous content that regenerates so much incredibly faster than trees! Tree huggers can feel good about this. And it's resources create quality textiles, clothing and canvas and biofuel. The first cars used hemp-based fuel! This was before gasoline existed!This plant could be the answer to so many of our problems in health, economy and industry. We do we continue to demonize it? We all need to join together and say no to this direction we are currently going. Let's unite, write our congressman and let's give this movement a boost.Sources:[1] http://www.gpo.gov...;
White chocolate is better than milk chocolate.

I accept. Milk chocolate is better than white choloclate on the following grounds: 1. There are anti-oxidants in milk chocolate that white chocolate does not have. 2. White chocolate techincally does not have the qualifications to actually be considered "chocolate." 3. Accoring to a Gallup poll, 70% of Americans prefer milk chocolate over white chocolate. 4. By saying that white chocolate is better, my opponent is being a racist. Pro's argument only is based on his own opinion. VCon.
Law suit for unpaid bet

There is a situation where a person bet against another one $100. The reason was that if they took the highway on the way back home, the other person would've given him $100. At this point, the way back home was the highway so the losing person should've given the other one $100 being that he lost. This didn't happen, because it was debated that the other person didn't remember him that they entered the highway so he forgot and it is not fair for him to pay $100. What do you think?
should schools exist

school is important as it builds your life strategies and other important things for life.. without school or education life is nothing.. education or school gives us the necessary information and knowledge we need for the rest of our life wether short or long.. some people hate schools and hate going to it.. but they must ask themselves a question.. "from where did I learn everything I know now... from where did I know that there is earth, from where did I know that under the ground is water, from where did I know how we are born, from where did I know how clouds are formed, from where did I know what our body contains or has..... same to every one... as you can see education taught us everything we did not know existed or occurred.. so education and specially schools are very important for life as an individual or even a community...... -THE END-
should schools exist

It is true that we need to learn things at a young age as our brains take in more information but most of the curriculum can just be discarded as it is no longer applicable to the real world. We don"t need math as we have calculators. We don"t need physical ed cus it was never useful in the first place. I could go on, but I think the only parts of the curriculum that are still important is language and science as that is how our economy is thriving. Most small jobs like soldiers and builders will be replaced with robots we just need scientist and multicultural people now.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

By killing them, you are valuing your own life over theres. This is the basic human instinct of survival. Everyone values their own life above others. There is nothing wrong with that.To have proper morals, and then value your life over another is contradicting itself in it's own sense.It is not contradictory. Like I said, everyone values their own life above others. That is basic instinct. For example, if you were locked in a cell with no food with another weaker person, it is very likely that you would turn to eating that person just to survive yourself. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, It is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Killing someone who abused you can make you go to jail.That is not true. Using deadly force as deliberate response, can be justified as self defense. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)That is legal under the law. The fact that it is repeated domestic violence suggests that this has happened in the past, and either the police are not doing anything about it, or you cannot inform them for fear of your abuser. As a result, you must take matters into your own hands and respond.The one argument I have is that one always values their own safety above others. That is human nature. As a result, it is only natural and justified that one can use deadly force as a response to abuse. This is even justified by law, as it is self defense. As a result, it is morally permissible, as one always values their own life more, to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response

It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. That is the resolved. I will be supporting the con, or Negative side to this debate. To Use deadly force on an individual is to have the intention of of kill them, and to kill someone who has abused you, is only stooping to their level. By killing them, you are valuing your own life over theres. To have proper morals, and then value your life over another is contradicting itself in it's own sense. It is very dangerous as well, for it runs into the law. In many states, It is illegal to kill people even if they have abused you. Killing someone who abused you can make you go to jail.
The Cosmological Argument for God is a bad argument and people need to stop using it

I used to believe in God, and one of the last arguments that kept me in theism was the Cosmological Argument. There are a couple of versions of this argument, but the most popular one is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It goes as follows: Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: The Universe began to exist. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe had a cause. The argument is valid, but I now realize it is not sound. The first premise can be rejected because we can find evidence that contradicts it, most notably in quantum mechanics. The second premise can be rejected because we cannot say that the Universe had a beginning - theories like the Big Bang only explain the origin of the observable universe, not everything that exists. Furthermore, even if we grant the first two premises, the conclusion only gets you to a First Cause. There is no reason to think this First Cause is God - it only has to be "something" capable of creating a universe. The universe could be a part of a multiverse with an infinite stream of baby universes birthed out of each other. Who knows? For these reasons, the Cosmological Argument is a poor argument for the existence of God and should not be used by anyone wanting a rational debate. There are many mysteries surrounding the origins of the Universe, and many theists exploit our lack of understanding to smuggle in a god concept without demonstrating the existence of the god first. The Cosmological Argument is basically a giant Argument from Ignorance fallacy and needs to be discarded.
smoking should be illegal

===================================== ARGUMENT ===================================== You say that even though the USA is a free nation, the government should do what is best for its people. Who decides what is best? Like I said before, allowing the government to stop people from smoking is simply a-foot-in-the-door. It is called communism. You claim that chocolate cake has a just short term effect, this is wrong. People gain weight and have heart attacks, another huge killer in the USA, right next to cancer. People do indeed get addicted to chocolate cake. The point though is not about the cake; it is just an example of how the government should not have complete control. You say that we could simply build some other factories and make money from taxes. Okay, first of all factories are not the answer to solving the economy crises. If we could simply build factories and make money, then our nation would be rich! Secondly, what factories exactly? You have to be specific. You claim that cancer claims so many lives, yes it does. But people who start smoking already know the risks. They accept it, and deal with it. Second hand smoke is dangerous, but you would have to be around it constantly. A smoker can go through a pack a day and get cancer, but non smokers just get a small bit of it. What I do not get about this is that you say that there would only be a small amount criminals, why? What does your point have to do with my forth point? Again, the government can not simply make new jobs. They would have done so already if it were possible. The people who loose their tobacco jobs would simply join all the other unemployed. You say that the government could just get rid of the tobacco. This is very wrong to. Weed is illegal, but it is sold pretty much anywhere. Tobacco is much easier to grow. There would still be many criminals and job losses. Moving to your points, yes I agree that smoking causes cancer and is dangerous. I think I covered most of your points in my argument above. You would have to be around and constantly inhaling second hand smoke for it to be dangerous. I agree with you on some of your points, but while many of your points are strong, there would be more harm than good in the banning of tobacco. I look forward to your response, and again ask for your source.
smoking should be illegal

Everyone knows that smoking kills. That's not why it should be made illegal. Nicotine is very addictive. That is not why it should be illegal. I am not a smoker because I value my own life. However, I believe suicide, should someone want it, should be legal. I consider smoking "prolonged suicide." Honestly, that is why I don't smoke, but that is not why it should be illegal. Okay, I'm done with that weird repetitive schpiel. I'll get to the point ("Get on with it!"). Smokers inhale approximately 10% of the smoke from their smoking device of choice. Where does the other 90% go? Right into the air. Now, regarding the air, we're all communists. I'm sure someday someone will capitalize air ($10 to go to the breathing station. The air is more pure. guaranteed!), but for now, we're communist. It's everyone's air, so whatever a smoker puts in the air, everyone else gets to breathe it in. Generally, it's not that big of a deal, but if someone lights up right next to you and you would be inconvenienced to move, you get a good dose of nicotine, CO, and a bunch of other unthinkable chemicals. My objective in this debate is to: 1) Convince the voters that smoking should be outright illegal, for many reasons. 2) Do so in such a way as to even convince smokers that they are hurting more than themselves. 3) Spell out a reasonable method to outlaw smoking, because it is addictive, and it isn't easy to kick the habit.
debate on topic

A person with a 6 digit salary is no more important then me or you if I said that I am sorry I didn't mean to. Money does play a role in your campaigning but it all depends on how you spend you money many candidates have dropped out of the running's because of poor financial decisions the money the have is substantial and they have more than enough it depends on how you spend it. As far as bribing political members do not have the time to bribe, and you have no way of knowing if that certain person voted for you it is all confidential and can not be traced so you money would be thrown away because the people bribed could take the money and run. The government is not "helping the rich" the government is looking at what is best for the people and what the people want not just a set number of individuals in the nation.