BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
once saved v 'never saved to begin with' shows that a person can never know another's heart

My opponent has stated that we can "never" know another's heart. If I display one instance where someone was able to discover what was in someone's heart, or present a scenario where it is possible to know someone's heart, then I'll have won this debate. A person's "heart" (in figurative/symbolic language) is their motives for their actions. There have been instances where people have confessed their motives for their actions to others, proving that it is not in fact possible to know someone's heart if they be brutally honest and tell you. Also, what if somebody reads your mind with futuristic technology? Then they could definitely know your heart. If by "heart" you mean whether or not they are saved, that too can be determined by "looking at their fruits". If their fruit is anger, jealously, hatred, lust, immortality, and other evil stuff, then one may question whether or not they are saved, though they may want to escape the cycle of sin and live a Holy life and just can't by their own doing. However, if a person confesses themselves to be a Christian and their "fruit" matches up with what is called the "Fruits of The Spirit", then they are probably Christians who have a personal relationship with Christ. I await my opponent's response.
Minimum Wage

Allright. Rising the minimum wage to, say, 10 dollars, will obviously rise the price of the product. However, as this higher minimum wage is universal, it will also increase the demand of products as more wealth is allocated to those working on minimum wage. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2014 77.6 million workers (58% of workforce) were paid with hourly rates, of which a total of 3 million were paid the minimum wage of 7,25$ -or less. They make up for a total of 3,9 % of all hourly paid employees. Rising the minimum wage will rise the overall demand of products quite significantly. In the long run this will lead to inflation, but nevertheless it allocates more wealth to those who are "poor". In this sense it also lessens the gap between social classes. As overall product demand rises, the supply must increase as well. Companies must hire more employees and invest money in developement. All this serves to grow the economy.
Minimum Wage

Yes good, ok so my argument here is that the minimum wage causes unemployment for the low skilled because it forces a wage rate above that of labors marginal output. If a worker contributes, say 7 dollars to output, and the boss pays him 5 dollars, the boss obviously profits 2 dollars. But if a minimum wage is enforced, say 10 dollars, the boss is in the hole. The only solution is to lay off those employees and cut marginal costs elsewhere. Also, as a simple function of supply and demand, increasing the price for a factor like labor will decrease its demand, while increasing the supply, since it incentivizes more people to work because they can make more money. The increased supply will incentivize employers to only keep the more productive of their labor force, meaning more less skilled labor is left behind. This is called labor-labor substitution by economists, and a study by David Farris and Leon Fernandez from the university of claifornia found that "the intended wage gain for workers is dissipated by roughly 40% through labor-labor substitution." Employment data also points to disemployment effects. Nuermark found teen employment elasticities of -0.3%, which is quite significant. There exist several flaws in pro minimum wage studies but we can get to that in later rounds.
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a fraud

Being a fraud and being corrupt are to different things. The fact that their preceding organization may have been a fraud does not mean that they are a fraud. I believe the CCC is honest in the following ways: 1. They truly believe the public positions they have taken. [1] 2. They are honestly evil motherfvckers. [2] Sources 1. http://topconservativenews.com... 2.http://www.splcenter.org...
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a fraud

OK here's the thing, the White Citizen's Council, formed during the time of Jim Crow, did indeed use deceit to get their message across and gain converts. Many of the members of the WCC became politicians and many of them engaged in the deceitful Jim Crow laws. WCC was pretty much like the politicis, deceit could win them elections. They used lies, corrupt means to keep the law racist. The council of conservative citizens is the very WCC, only with a different name. So in a way they are corrupt, and many of the members are corrupt.
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a fraud

The definition of the word fraud is:[1] 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds. 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time. 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur. In what way does the CCC meet one of these definitions? Sources 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a fraud

I don't mean fraud in the sense of them stealing money, though I do think they may have corruption there. As power hungry racists do have a history of being (like Ben Tillman, Al Gore, Sr). So I do think this is from that line of bigots. But their views are debased and wicked. They are descended of the very evil men who ruled America at one time, and maybe amongst some today there are evil people of that type. It's a fraud in a spiritual sense.
The Council of Conservative Citizens is a fraud

It is, and it has nothing to do with them being a conservative, because a true conservative would never believe what they believe. They glorify the subjugation of blacks, and see them as a mockery, ridiculing them in their organization's pictures. It is also a form of English/Danish elitism. They want to make America an elitist country where subjugation is the key. They aren't even separatist. I can understand people wanting to be with their own kind and all, great. But that's not what they're about. They descend from the segregation days. For those who don't know. It's an offshoot of the White Citizen's Council, formed as resistance against desegregation of the schools.
reality is unbelieved

truth is a memory of the known, and belief is an acceptance of what one finds to be perceptively true. absolutes have nothing to do with belief, try Again Have said nothing about "absolute", try again... Words hold meaning so we may express ourselves more effectively to ourselves and others. Since we have a type of faith system based a multiple sources to conclude what reality consists of, we, as an gathered being, discern based on this belief and conclusion what we collectively consider reality. Yet no one by themselves or collectively will ever be able to discern what is truth, it is faith/belief of what we have gathered and what we as individuals conclude to through our unique thinking processes that we base our perception of reality.
reality is unbelieved

Your expressing the belief in not believing... Again reality does not need to be "shown", though there are visual evidence of such realities, reality due to being overall truth requires no such physical expression. For example your belief in that there is no belief is formed by a conclusion you came up with to discern your reality, yet that conclusion is indeed a belief of it requires a type of "faith" in your conclusion. Your placing your faith/belief in what your perceive as being reality to be truth, but humans are incapable to discern truth by themselves. so again belief = Unknown, False Reality is unbelieved, also False In truth reality is like Phi, you will never get to that golden ratio but forever move above and below that ratio. For humans cannot truly perceive reality. Yet they express a belief in reality for they know an ultimate truth does exist even if they themselves currently cannot perceive it.
reality is unbelieved

Your argument is reality is unbelieved, yet anyone is existing now acknowledges reality which is belief... Your acknowledging reality now for your engaged in this debate... Therefor your statement of reality is unbelieved is indeed untrue. Existence of a faith or belief does not need to be tangible. Existence: the fact or state of living or having objective reality. Reality itself cant really be considered to be bound to our physical outlook of reality...
reality is unbelieved

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Unbelieved: lack of religious belief; an absence of faith. Reality cannot be unbelieved for everyone acknowledges reality, therefor the absence of faith and/or religious belief in reality is untrue. As for god... How do we not know if the god imagined is indeed the true god? How to we not know the consciousness everyone has is actually part of a universal consciousness that is god, what if we are all god, who is attempting to become unlonely by dividing him/herself?
This House would send its children to boarding school

Rant IIMy opponent has clearly ignored my plea that he actually participate in this debate, and has simply chosen to forfeit again. This is why we can't have nice things, people. It is simply rude for someone to accept a debate and then forfeit on every round. I could have had a good debate with someone who actually cared in the last week, but unfortunately I've simply been waiting for responses which never arrived. WHY CAN'T WE ALL BE NICE, PEOPLE?! *facepalm*Now, in line with my previously indicated structure I shall move on to the summing up of my case. There are two key points of clash (PoCs) in this debate.PoC1: Are boarding schools better suited for dealing with youngsters?We have put forward an elaborate and convincing argument for why boarding schools are better suited for young people. We have pointed out their heightened ability to deal with pastoral issues, in comparison with day schools. Housemasters have a wealth of experience of dealing with young people as they go through puberty, and children do not come with a manual, so this experience is helpful. Opposition drops this point, so I win it.PoC2: Are they beneficial?Yes, we have demonstrated they are, as they prepare young people for later life. As with all my points, Opposition drops.So, I don't think there's much left to tell you. Opposition has not fulfilled their part of the burden of proof, or rebutted on any of my substantives, or indeed said anything since Round One. Vote Pro. It's literally your only choice.
This House would send its children to boarding school

I will be arguing in favour of sending one's child to boarding school and I seek an opponent to argue against. This is an actual debate so no trolls please! The format of the debate will be:First Round: Acceptance only. Second Round: Definitions and substantives. Third Round: Substantives and rebuttal. Final Round: Rebuttal and summing up. BOP is shared, each side should seek to make a convincing substantive case as opposed to merely picking holes in their opponent's case. Sources do not need to be cited in the first instance. They can, however, be cited when your opponent questions your reasoning in order to shore up your reasoning.
The purpose of a debate is to win, not to present the truth.

Your point, although correct, is irrelevant. That was a speech not a debate. And let's say for example that was a debate, MLK was trying to win civil rights for colored skin. Back to my last argument. The reason people are sometimes forced to be on a side of a debate they don't agree with at a competition is because the point of debating is to win. It is a competition thus a winner and loser emerges unless there is a tie.
The purpose of a debate is to win, not to present the truth.

To begin my argument I would like to present a few definitions Debate: a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. Contest: 1. a race, conflict, or other competition between rivals, as for a prize. 2. struggle for victory or superiority. Competition: the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc. : Competing: to strive to outdo another for acknowledgment, a prize,supremacy, profit, etc. ; engage in a contest All definitions were taken from dictionary. com A reoccurring definition here is that there is a "battle or struggle" if you will for a prize (in this case winning a debate). So to give a good wholesome definition of debate I would use this; a debate is a competition in which debaters argue contrasting points in order to have the views scored and a winner emerge. Since debating is a form of competition (from which the definition above says is a rivalry for supremacy) debating was obviously made for winning. To say debating is not made to win is much like saying a court case is not meant to have a winner. Lawyers argue with facts (regardless of whether their facts are absolutely, 100% true or not) not in order to present truth, but to do whatever it takes to make their client win. I leave with a final question for you to think about. That I will answer in the next round. If debates were not made to win then why is it in many debate competitions people often have to argue for a side they don't even believe is true themselves?
The purpose of a debate is to win, not to present the truth.

To get the ball rolling I would like to start off with a few words to state my position. My goal is not to put down my fellow contender nor his/her opinions, furthermore I neither wish to put down the con side of this debate all together. My purpose is to debate and convey my point in this debate. Also though I don't believe debating its self is supposed to present the truth, that doesn't mean I will lie nor will I stray from the truth. I will try to stray as far away from lying as humanly possible. On a final note my opinion is not based off of any opinion of another individual. The idea for this debate was, but my opinion remains mine. Any facts I use outside of that will be given credit where credit is do. Good luck to my fellow debater and excuse me if I make any mistakes as I am learning how to debate.
The purpose of a debate is to win, not to present the truth.

Sorry for missing the last debating period. I was attempting to survive AP world history. Back to the topic at hand Something that should be considered is can you win the debate if there really wasn't any proof or truthfulness to what is being presented. As for the earlier argument I meant that Martin Luther king Jr. was trying to get a point across rather trying win one tiny argument or debate he spread the word. Sometimes debates can be used to spread the to those who don't know about the way you see things. Thank you for debating with me and I hope that you prosper in future debates.
Since the US is a christian nation, christian morals should dictate the definition of marriage

My opponent tries to deflect the topic of the debate from marriage to polygamy, which he assumes is relevant just because it is dicussed in the same book as marriage? As far as my opponent is concerned, I could be a proponent of polygamy! My opinions on that topic are utterly irrelevant to the subject of marriage, his only purpose in bringing said topic up is to seemingly make a bash at traditional christianity. My opponent also manipulatively twisted my words in saying that my argument was justified based on the assertion that "most people were christian" - my argument was that American Society and culture came into existence based off of Christian Tradition and culture, and to suddenly neglect one element of that culture and retain all of the others is fallacious! All my opponent has done so far is make references to points outside the domain of debate, take jabs at christianity, and make random references to polygamy in a debate about marriage. This nation may not have been founded on explicitly christian principle, but that says nothing to how the nation actually managed to thrive and develop: under christian influence. This nation has managed to thrive and become the center of freedom and liberty in the world by following christian ideals. Other nations, like North Korea, that operate secularly are images of horror and destruction. Just because there is no explicit link from church to state in a christian nation filled with christian people, does not mean secularists get to claim the nation as their own "work". As of this point, I myself am no longer following the guidelines of the debate as my opponent seems to have thrown that out the window.
Since the US is a christian nation, christian morals should dictate the definition of marriage

1. As stated in round 1, I specifically said that this debate will function only from a moral, philosophical standpoint about what is right and what is wrong, not in the eyes of the law or any affiliated lawmaker, which the founding fathers of this nation indefinitely were (lawmakers). I view a violation of this contract as near forfeiture on my opponent's part. According to my terms, I would tend to disregard the majority of my opponent's first argument.2. The United States is in fact a Christian Nation. Perhaps not explicitly Christian, but still so. Insisting that the United States of America is not a Christian nation is akin to insisting that a middle eastern nation that does not function under Sharia Law particularly, but is still centralized around Islamic Culture, Ideas, and ways of thinking is thus not an Islamic nation. 3. The majority of people in the United States are Christians. Codes of conduct and morals in the United States are largely based off of old Quaker and Christian traditions, like the 10 commandments most notably. Christian Ideals dominate how people behave in the United States, whether all of said people proclaim themselves as Christians are not. And, so, since Christianity has impacted and thus determined how American Society has formed thus far, it would be cherry picking to change the definition of marriage and still yet retain all other Christian based aspects of American society.I await your rebuttal, hopefully this time abiding by the terms of the debate! Sources:http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.faithfacts.org...
Since the US is a christian nation, christian morals should dictate the definition of marriage

My argument, as pro, is that since the United States of America is a christian nation, Christian views and morals should dictate it's definition of marriage.Specifics regarding the law and what is actually legal in the eyes of the legislative system are rendered irrelevant in this debate.Accepted definitions:Christian - of, or pertaining to the belief in the Lord, Jesus Christ and his true teachings - true teachings being that expressed in the bible.Marriage - the definition that is being argued over. Please do not assert any other definition.I will assert that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman in the name of god, con will argue as pleased.Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - Argument by me, Rebuttal by con + argument by conRound 3 - Rebuttal by me, conclusion by me, conclusion by con.
A Supreme Being Can Rationally Exist

That is a rather Deistic argument. Yes, it is greatly possible that a force influenced evolution; yet, my argument is not against religion. My argument is against the existence of a sentient being, not a force, but a human-like creature. That is the basic difference between the Supreme Being and God. God can be conceived in a variety of ways, as an evolutionary force, or a particle. The Supreme Being is conceived as a human-like creature. It is highly implausible that a human-like being existed before the chemical reactions that took place before the Cambrian Explosion. The opposing argument for the "existence of a Supreme Being" has been conceived as "the existence of God is rationally possible", and hence invalid for this debate. I do not seek to find a rationale against the existence of God, I seek to find a rationale against the existence of a Supreme Being. In addition: A Supreme Being in existence is in violation of the laws of physics. One may argue that the laws of physics and science are at constant evolution in finding the truth, but the existence of such a sentient creature violates even Robert Lanza's theory of a biocentric universe. The Big Bang began in a singularity, a point with infinite density and zero volume; that can be the definition of God, but not a Supreme Being, for that point in spacetime was not a sentient creature. Such points that act as a focus in spacetime really do exist in the universe. In addition, by general definition, a Supreme Being is an omniscient/omnipotent being who acts as a life form and, in addition to creating the universe, watches over it. The metaphors in the Bible have been correctly pointed out in the second argument's first round, but I do not challenge the Bible. The Bible's metaphoric claims do not point to a Supreme Being, they point to God. The existence of a Supreme Being is therefore hardly acceptable by any branch of modern or future science. Ethical violation due to the nonexistence of a Supreme Being does not affect the cosmo-scientific balance of the universe; the universe does not exist because of human emotions and ethics, it exists because of a balance of energies. This balance of energies can be considered God, but not the Supreme Being. Conclusion: While the existence of a binding entanglement, or a focus of creation, can be considered God, a Supreme Being, in his/her form of a human-like intelligent life-form with omnipotent control over the creative powers of the universe, has no rationale for his/her existence.
A Supreme Being Can Rationally Exist

You have a valid argument, but just because it does not say in the Bible that the Earth was created by a big bang doesn't mean that it did not happen. There is no reason why science and religion can't agree. In the Bible, it says the Earth was created in 7 days. However, there is no time concept in heaven, which means that the earth could have been created in a millisecond, or 7 billion years. Also, if the big bang theory really did happen, why, and how did life come from it? Well, in the Bible, it says that Adam was created from the ground. Scientists believe that 4.3 billion years ago, chemicals had mixed in the ocean and created DNA that then (after millions of years) became something of an ape. This ape evolved into a cave man that evolved into a human. If there had been no supreme being, how could this happen? There had to have been some force that caused all of this to happen; something that caused the Mars sized planed to crash into the earth and create the Big Bang, something that caused gravity, chemicals, DNA, and even light. How can we exist without a cause? Did something just magically appear that created the universe? Without a supreme being, there is no reason to live. There isn't anything to look forward to after death. Why do you think Hitler killed 7 million Jews in one foul swoop? I believe it's because there was no reason not to do it; no consequence. (that consequence being God) Why would you and I live without a cause? If there was no God, all a human being would be is a large group of atoms coming together to create matter. If a human is just matter, why would we matter? That's like saying," a group of particles called Howard Hughes created an aircraft called The Hercules." That would make no sense. I'm just saying that if there is no God then there would be no reason to live.