BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
minimum wage should exist

THE MINIMUM WAGE IS INEFECTIVE In order to know if we should keep the minimum wage or not, the first thing we need to ask is; Is it effective? In order to know what problem it's intended to solve. For that we can go back to what we found the original problem to be. The problem is poor people don't have enough money. The minimum wage if effective should decrease poverty levels. However this has been shown to have a negative effect on poverty levels. According to The Emloyment Policies Institute; "This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty."[1] On top of not doing anything for poverty it actually increases the unemployment rate. The Congressional Budget Office a non partisan government organization released a study showing that an increase in a minimum wage would result in at least half a million less jobs. [2] We're not helping poor people. We're eliminating their jobs and creating more of them. On top of that, the policy is pretty racist it's self. Raising the minimum wage will affect blacks in a disproportionate way while having almost no effect on the white unemployment rate.[3] Do politicians know it's going to hurt black people? Well, yes they do. They just don't care. These guys are smart enough to realize the negative affects of their policies and yet still pass them, because it helps them get reelected. CONCLUSION I'd like to ask my opponent this question. Since having a minimum wage causes higher unemployment, and does nothing to combat poverty, why do you want one? Why would you want government to have a policy that hurts minorities? Shouldn't we have policies that actually help the poor get jobs instead of losing them? Shouldn't we have policies that help black people, instead of being racist and trying to hurt them? Shouldn't we have policies that decrease unemployment, instead of increasing it? sources [1] http://www.epionline.org... [2] http://cbo.gov... [3] http://www.prnation.org...
Samurai champloo vs. Cowboy bebop

There are many other shows that are just as good as Bebop or Samurai. Ultimately I don't think there can be any one greatest anemia but I do think there are many that are just as good a Beebop, like One Punch Man, Attack on Titan, or, to some extent, Death Note. All of the above shows have great characters, interesting themes, excellent directing, and great music. All of them have great story's they wish to tell. All of them do this just as well as Champloo or Bebop
Human Modification

Human modification isn't ethical. Lot's of people believe that you should be happy with the way you were born and that God doesn't make mistakes. To urge human modification would conflict with these believers. Also, let's address the risks. "The use of genetics to prevent illness may be a good idea in theory, but in experiments people have suffered side effects as severe as leukemia."(http://www.geneticengineeringinhumans.com...) If a side effect as severe as leukemia can occur, the risks may outweigh the benefits. And while you may be trying to choose the right traits for your child, you may ruin the child's genes. Maybe it isn't right at all.
Human Modification

It is very apparent in life, that some persons are born in better situations than others. Either due to region, or family, or just circumstances. "Life's not fair" is something we all know too well to be true. So, with this understanding and the understanding from Thomas Jefferson "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." So if everyone has certain, unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; why are we all not equal? Because of the limitations of society. Culture has bred people to have superiority in one aspect or another. The poor must work ten fold to be rich, the weak must work ten fold to match the strong. That is not equal, as Humans we are all born equal in terms of right's but not physically or otherwise. The only equality we have, is the right to live. With Human Modification, we can undue the limitations life has placed on us. Instead of a debilitating disease preventing someone from every walking, or stepping out into the sun, or having a rational uninhibited thought; technology could modify us to reach a level we desire. On a physical level, a slow, weak individual could be just as strong as anyone. A person with mental deficiencies could think on a level of the brightest minds. Someone who was born without an immune system could walk through the rain-forest. Someone who doesn't like their eyes, or their body proportions can modify them to be how they picture themselves to be. These are just some of the ways we could modify ourselves to be better. Reducing the limitations of evolution, and truly making all of mankind equal. Furthermore, why just level ourselves with modifications to these attributes. Through Human Modification we can break down the social barriers which restrict us from understanding. Allowing us to know any language and communicate on the same platform as everyone else; being able to see what others have seen in life so we can truly know the extent of their pain and empathize. Technology can truly make all of man equal, and allowing the modification of ourselves will brig about a better outlook than if we allow evolution, a process which takes millions of years to overcome our current problems. Let technology and Human modification be the forefront of research and let's all upgrade ourselves to be who we want to be without fear of being anything less.
Human Modification

With the rapidly growing pace of technology in Bio-engineering and Robotics, scientists are finding new ways to overcome disabilities that in years prior would have been permanent. The debate I want to hold is the implications and ethics of human modification, not the current results. So I listed it under philosophy. Again, this is not an argument of the results, just the ethical implications it poses on a broader/future spectrum. IE: Making everyone the same in terms of physical and mental capabilities. A good example of this is Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron. Since it is philosophy ANY reference material can be used to support arguments (only in context of said reference) and references to support arguments is encouraged. The voting will be based on who thinks which side has more validity to their statements. So a level skill is measured in here, as well as content. Since there is no right answer, hopefully it will be an enlightening debate.
Science is just as provable as Religon.

This debate is easily summerized into why the CON wins. I will first refute my opponents round 3 arguments, then summerize why science is more provable than religion. First, my opponent talks about how newton proved plato wrong and other things. There are a few answers to this. First of all, laws of science, which are proved facts, are not proven wrong; theories of science are proven incorrect or clarified into laws. My opponent then says that just because you place green liquid on a t-shirt doesn't mean that aliens didn't beam it on. The difference is, you didn't contend that somehow the green liquid changed it. Although the majority, actually all, of rational beings would agree that it is a chemical reaction, it is completely agreed on the beginning and the outcome, making something proven. My opponent then says that nothing is provable. Ironically, by contending this, he cant prove that statement. So it is false under his premise. My premise is that things can be proven. By my analysis, I can actually prove a point, but under his, he proves something, but says it can't be proven. His argument is illogical, circular and self-contradictory. Finally, he says there are no absolutes in science. I really don't have to say much to this, since he simply asserts this. I have provided examples, and shown that if you know something you have to simply know it. This debate comes down to three simple things. First, science has actually proven things, religion has not. Secondly, my opponents attempts at reducto ad absurdum continually engage in logically fallacious statements. Finally, his idea that you can't prove anything goes against his own statements, and the resolution. If you can't prove anything, then you can't say that something is equal to another, since you don't believe it is able to know or prove anything.
Science is just as provable as Religon.

I must refute your arguemnt that i am forgeting the basic nature of science. is not the basic nature of science is that it is allways changing and evolving in acordance with the newest deiscoveries? newton proved plato wrong and einsetin proved newton wrong and now they think they might to proven eintsein wrong. this "proving" one thing right then to be wrong will never end. that is the nature of science. just because you dump a green liquid on a tshirt that then turns green means that the liquid turned the color. it could of been aliens that beamed down and swapped tshirts with you or anything. of coarse that is perposterous but it has never been proven wrong. nothing is provable. meaning that provable or knowable for shure without a shadow of a doubt. that uncertenty is built in out brains so when we say provable that means 99.99999999999999999999999% sure. but that still gives .0000000000000000000000001 chance of being wrong. the science absolutes are made up absolutes that are used to "prove" right or wrong. Like in math, proofs are used using math. You say that he scientific community's word is law. they have been wrong. the scientific community once said that the sun revolved around the earth and that bleeding sick people made them better. they have been proven wrong by your own definition. You state that science is based on the premise. the i quote the thesaurus. premise- hypothesis, proposition. all ofthese words are uncertnecies. guesses that are offten proven wrong. there are no absolutes in science. science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provable.
Science is just as provable as Religon.

sorry about that then. i will agree with your definitions of science and religion. i will use the same method you did, or respond to your points directy you say. .. "i. Laws of nature and other scientific laws exist, and are accepted on a massive scale. (Beyond 99.99% of the population) ii. No God has been proven, or accepted on a massive scale. iii. Science is proven, religion is unproven. iv. Science is more provable than religion. " i say. .. i. just becasue somthing is accepted does not make it absolutely ture and therfore proven. ii. no god has been proven or accepted but is science so different. are there not opposing ideas and theorys that everyone arugues about? iii. science is unproven, religion is unproven. iv. science is jst as provable as religion. you say. .. "i. Science relies upon methodology and strong evidence physically ii. Religion relies upon faith iii. Methodology and evidence are better sources of explanation than faith iv. Science is more provable than religion. " i say. .. i. science revolves on the belief that methodology and evidence proves points. ii. religion is the beleif in God. iii. methodology and evidence is a form of faith. of beliveing sothing is true. iv. science is just is provable as religion. i will draw and analogy. .. suppose that there is a beauty contest but the judges are the contestents. they would all just pick themselvs right? science is proven using the laws and sciece and religion the laws of religion, neither is absolute. therefor science is just as provable as religion in that neither are provabe.
Science is just as provable as Religon.

Please keep your arguments short and concise please. science is just as provable as religion. all science is the belief that data proves something. if one does not believe that data provides a fact than science is wrong. just as a person believes in a religion can believe that another is incorrect despite no data. one may say 1+1=2 well another can argue that that is incorrect and there is no way to prove which is right. off coarse most everyone believes the religion that says 1+1=2 religion is just as provable as science in that neither can be proved. science cannot be proved with religion and religion cannot be proved with science. i know my argument is extreme but it is just taking what we all know and making a new conclusion.
Exotheology

"The Bible, the revealed written Word of God, teaches that life is only possible through a process of creation. Even if there were other galaxies with planets very similar to earth, life could only be there if the Creator had fashioned it." I agree. "If God had done that, and if these beings were going to visit us one day, then He would surely not have left us unenlightened about this." There's plenty of things not mentioned in the Bible, such as the existence of Native Americans. Yet we encountered them, and they're equally human as everybody else. Also, perhaps the existence of aliens may be something that we'd only find out about in Heaven. "God has given us rather specific details of the future"for example, the return of Jesus, and some details about the end of the world. The universe will, at some future point, be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14). If God had created living beings elsewhere, this would automatically destroy their dwelling place as well. Adam"s sin caused all of creation to be affected by the curse, so why would a race of beings, not of Adam"s (sinful) seed, have their part of creation affected by the Curse, and then be part of the restoration brought about by Christ, the last Adam? All of this would seem exceedingly strange." Perhaps aliens also sinned. Or perhaps they were affected unfairly by Adam's (and Eve's) sin and they became corrupted by it. I mean, we didn't eat the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, yet we're affected by the curse. Why would aliens be different in this respect? The good news is, if aliens exist and have souls, they too can be saved from their sins by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. "The reasons stars were made are given to us in several places in the Bible, not only in the well-known Psalm 19 but especially in the Creation account. In Genesis 1:14 we read: 'And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.' " Flowers have a specific purpose (the production of oxygen) and yet they provide beauty to our world. Stars also could provide a dual purpose: to provide life for aliens and to give us starlight. Also, if the only purpose of stars were to provide light, why not just put a lot of shiny things in orbit of Earth? And there are also many stars which we cannot see with the naked eye. What are their purpose then? As for the Earth, don't forget that the Bible said "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Notice how it said "Heavens" first. This could refer to the sky, the literal Heaven...or the Universe. Also, when God first created the Earth it was an empty void. Perhaps during this time God was creating all the other parts of the Universe. My opponent has struck out. I'd advise him to pick another major world religion which he thinks would be proven false by the confirmed existence of alien life.
Exotheology

The Bible, the revealed written Word of God, teaches that life is only possible through a process of creation. Even if there were other galaxies with planets very similar to earth, life could only be there if the Creator had fashioned it. If God had done that, and if these beings were going to visit us one day, then He would surely not have left us unenlightened about this. God has given us rather specific details of the future"for example, the return of Jesus, and some details about the end of the world. The universe will, at some future point, be rolled up like a scroll (Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14). If God had created living beings elsewhere, this would automatically destroy their dwelling place as well. Adam"s sin caused all of creation to be affected by the curse, so why would a race of beings, not of Adam"s (sinful) seed, have their part of creation affected by the Curse, and then be part of the restoration brought about by Christ, the last Adam? All of this would seem exceedingly strange. The purpose of the stars. The reasons stars were made are given to us in several places in the Bible, not only in the well-known Psalm 19 but especially in the Creation account. In Genesis 1:14 we read: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." We see from this that stars are there for mankind on earth. Add to this the sequence of creation (on the first day the earth, and only on the fourth day all of the stars), and it is easy to see the thrust of the biblical testimony, that the purpose of creation is uniquely centred on this earth.
God's incompetence - 2nd try

I am personally an atheist, but this question seems intriguing so I decided to accept the challenge.Unfortunately, this might turn out to be a waste of both our times. As an atheist, you are not constrained by requirement for God's actions to be true and your arguments are not really consistent with Christian beliefs.Adam and Eve: Christianity's goal is not to be more powerful than God - it is literally not possible.Flood: God isn't vain either.Babel: How does Noah seeing a rainbow prevent him from killing everyone all over again. My summary may be overly simplified, and a bit of a parody, but God doesn't demonstrate stupidity, just a bit of lack of power to control free will (Which you falsely stated he misunderstood, and by definition he couldn't control) I didn't say God was stupid - I said he was incompetent. And being killed is not really a punishment! 2. You said it yourself, humans have free-will. There are many ways to control free-will. We humans have been much more effective at it than God has been able to demonstrate. In choosing death over control he shows his incompetence.3. God only cast miracles on those he likes, I don't think that's how miracles have worked out!
God's incompetence - 2nd try

Note: This is a second attempt at this debate - the first doesn't appear to be fruitful. Please directly address whether the actions of God show his incompetence._______________________________________________________________________________________________Believers like to claim that God is perfect and all powerful but his actions belie that claim:1. He is constantly getting humanity wrong. Adam & Eve, The Flood, Babel all show that he clearly has little understanding of what free will means and is constantly having to have do overs.2. The three religions that he created clearly shows that he is poor at communicating his aims properly. From the 10 commandments onwards, he appears to not have his own rules about how he should be worshipped down pat. Even worse, his lack of clarity and his ambiguity has opened the doors to tens of thousands of denominations.3. He also can't even keep his physical creations consistent, having to work around its limitations with special miracles and one-off events that cannot be explained and indeed are contradictory to known science. Surely better planning and more flexible specifications for the universe would have avoided these cheats.In summary, God is incompetent in creating a universe that he doesn't have to bang into place and cheat, mis-managing his creation of humans from free-will to how we're supposed to appropriately worship him.Thoughts?
The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors

Thanks BlackVoid. This shouldn't be an important point in the debate, but no one in the literature refers to private military contractors (PMC's) as mercenaries. They are used, as my opponent points out, to supplement, not replace, our own military. The United Nation's "Mercenary Convention" bans the use of mercenaries, but PMC's do not fall into this category. I look forward to a great debate.
The US should discontinue its use of private military contractors

Thanks to bluesteel for agreeing to debate this topic. Rules1. Both sides are required to give arguments to support their position, not just refute the other's claims.2. No semantics3. Round 1 is for intro, acceptance, etc. I dont feel definitions are necessary as we should both know what the topic is about. Many reading this may not know exactly what private military contractors (PMC's) are. Here is a brief intro. The slang term is mercenaries. Typically, retired military personell or other people who have combat experience come together and form a coporation that sells their military skills. The US will pay these firms a lot of money to go overseas and help the regular military perform its duties. Think of them as kind of a second army. Supporters of them generally refer to how the US depends a lot on these contractors to succeed, as our normal military isn't as big as people think. But they have come under fire because they are unregulated by US law like the military is, have a history of human rights abuses, and other such things that my case will explain. If my opponent has any questions or objections it would be best to mention them before accepting. Good luck to both of us. Lets have a good round.
the art and music classes should be compulsory in schools

It's not true that Maths,Physics,Chemistry are difficult to learn as the same for music! The moment you think it's difficult it becomes certainly difficult for you. On the other hand, addiction to music may make one completely isolated from the society. Dedication to a single subject may result in phenomenal success in many cases but struggling with many may result in nothing. To become a polymath with arts and music after heavy stress in other subjects may prove disastrous for many. Much of the music produced by the leading pop-stars are not fit for children of age below 14 years. As for arts, it is impossible to learn many different languages like-French,German,Spanish,Russian or Chinese and so on and as well World History for every child and memorise them.As for "Knowledge about BEAUTY" from music or arts I know not if that's possible!BEAUTY LIES IN THE EYES OF THE BEHOLDER. Again, as a profession music may be intimately connected to drug addiction which is strongly repulsive.For the above reasons, arts and music may be optional to those strongly interested but not compulsory for all school student.