BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage and Labor Unions

Labor Unions do not need to support minimum wages. I do not believe in minimum wages because everyone should be able to work for the money that they earn and the raises that they get. If you want money hard enough you will work for it. No minimum wage should be instituted because of this example: If I worked at a fast food restaurant for 1 yearm and at the beginning of the year I earned 5 dollars an hour, which was minimum wage. After a year of working there, I get a dollar raise. This would mean by the end of the year I would be earning six dollars. Now, the minimum wage is increased to 6 dollars. Just before the increase my boss highers a lazy employee who does not do his work properly and just sits around and moans all day. After the increase, after all my hard work, the lazy employee gets tha same amount of money as I do. This is unfair. I believe Labor Unions should be something to fall back on when in trouble, not a necessary part of a job. "Its like saying the ball is blue and not blue simultaneously." Not really, it is more of saying the ball is part blue and part black, but moreso blue than black. And why do we need four rounds for this, especially when you are "just curious"?
Minimum Wage and Labor Unions

Why? Why have labor unions deal with every money matter other than wages. Surely wages are one of the most critical aspects of workers rights. How can you support workers rights on one hand and rebuke them on the other? Do you claim that they are mutually exclusive, because there isn't a way for them to be that you have made me aware of. I just don't see how the two positions are possible. Its like saying the ball is blue and not blue simultaneously.
The Bulls have the best chance to win the finals.

The Bulls will obviously win the finals.They have the league MVP Derrick Rose and they had the best regular season record with over 60 wins. Not only this, but they were battle tested in the first round, giving them key experience that will help them in later rounds. They are the best defensive team in the league and with Rose, anything is possible. The number one seed wasn't a fluke. Anyways, the resolution is "best chance," all I am saying is they have the best chance, which they obviously do.
God is Real

Pro began this debate with the assertion that "God is real. Science proves it." His argument seems to have been borrowed from this website:http://fernandoymas.blogspot.ca...My opponent began Round #2 with:German physicist Werner Heisenberg, a scientist by the way, concluded that quantum events cannot be predicted. He maintains that all freed electrons behave as if they are being influenced by an outside variable or force. This is the basis of his "Uncertainty Principle". I would like to ask you, what is that "force"?Malcolm W. Browne discovered that there was a force that connected to two freed electrons and since energy is eternal, this force had to be and that it was also present in our time yet not involved with the flow of our time. Again I ask you, "what is that force"?The website (see above) starts off like this:Werner Heisenberg came to the conclusion that quantum events can not be predicted. Uncertainty principlesstates all freed electrons behaves as if they are being influence by an outside variable of force.In signal travel and faster than light by Malcolm W. Browne, a force was found connecting two freed electrons was proved to be eternal--present within our time but not involve with the flow of our time.Thank you, Pro, for correcting the spelling mistakes. (Maybe you should have listed this website as a source.)Here's the problem: the arguments you found on this webpage are incoherent. The first argument is: "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Princple, therefore God is eternal!" Here's another one: "The 1st Law of Thermodynamics, therefore God is all-powerful!" Also: "Double-slit experiment, therefore God is omniscient!" These arguments don't make any sense.All in all, Pro's argument in favour of God can be summarized as: "Science has unanswered questions, therefore God." I have nothing more to say on this subject. Pro ended Round #5 with Pascal's Wager, which assumes that either "Christianity is true" or "no religions are true." That's a false dichotomy. Perhaps Islam is the one true religion. In that case, Christians will be punished in the afterlife.If you are somebody who chooses to have faith in God, to pray, to read the Bible, then I respect that and I am happy for you. Christianity is a healthy way to find spiritual fulfillment. That's what religious faith is all about. Religious faith is not about evidence, science, facts, proof, experiments, numbers, equations, laws, etc.Nobody listens to Jesus' Parable of the Sower and asks, "Who was this farmer sowing the seeds? What year was it when the seeds were sown?" These facts are not important. Jesus' underlying message is what counts. But we live in an age of science and reason. Too many Christians have become convinced that unless their religious faith passes the tests of science and reason, their faith is worthless. Religion and science have different roles. The rational, scientific answer to the question, "Does the Christian God exist?" is no.
God is Real

"Many theologians and theistic scientists claim that evidence has been found for the existence of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God or, at least, some being with supernatural powers. However, they cannot deny that their evidence is not sufficiently convicing to satisfy the majority of scientists." (1)"In 1997, the British science journal Nature published the results of a random sampling of 1,000 scientists...approximately 40 percent of scientists proclaimed a belief in a personal God." (2)"...in a follow-up study [Edward] Larson and [Larry] Witham controlled for "eminance," or what their predecessor James Leuba called the "greater" scientists -- those who held 'superior knowledge, understanding, and experience.'" (2)"...Larson and Witham found...that when eminance is controlled for, disbelief in God rose to 69 percent among biologists, and 79 percent for physicists. When "doubt" or "agnosticism" is factored in, actual belief in God among eminent scientists (averaged over all fields) drops to a paltry 7 percent." (2)"It should be emphasized that these figures are for Americans. The United Kingdom, Europe, and other developed nations of the world show lower levels of belief for both the general population and among scientists..." (2)MY COMMENTSScience does not prove that God is real. So, it's no surprise that the majority of scientists do not believe in God. I have no idea which "several experiments" you're talking about that apparently prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal force. I guess the majority of scientists haven't heard of these experiments either. Please elucidate.You argue that the law of conservation of energy is "reason enough to believe in an un-created, indescructible eternal force." I don't get it. To me, this argument seems irrational. Maybe I'm missing something. According to Wikipedia, the law of biogenesis "is the observation that living things come only from other living things, by reproduction. That is, life does not arise from non-living material, which was the position held by spontaneous generation." What does this have to do with God? God is not a living thing, made of living material, that reproduces. I can't imagine what you hope to prove about God with the first or second law of thermodynamics, or "the Law of Like Forces Repelling."SOURCES(1) Victor Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis(2) Michael Shermer, How We Believe
God is Real

God is real. Science proves it. There are several experiments that consist proving that there is an eternal force that is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Science also claims that "energy" can be neither created nor destroyed (reason enough to believe in an un-created, indestructible eternal force) while purporting other scientific "laws" like the Law of Bio-Genesis, The First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Like Forces Repelling. Please feel free to start the debate "against". I'll be waiting.
Santa Clause exists

*Note: Since the Con would not like to have a value debate, he has gone back on his rebuttals and nullified them by saying : "There was no need for me to refute the contender's claim, and I had made a terrible mistake." This means that there is no way I can win using only facts, therefore this round will be dedicated to pointing out flaws in conduct and other issues. Please vote accordingly. Since the Con now retracts all his previous rebuttals, all arguments from my first around carries over. With this, the Con has also failed to refute even my only factual contention, which was Contention 2. As the Pro has stated in Contention 2, the burden of proof rests on the Con. Con has not provided any actual evidence, and instead only given us definitions. All the definitions can be found in the original argument in round 1 but not here in round 5. This is a problem. The scope of his arguments should be limited to his sources, which he should have put into his "Sources:" section. This was not done, and is a great conduct mistake. Furthermore, the definition of Santa Claus that the Con puts forward has no source, which makes the entire contention moot as there is no warrant. To restate my Contentions: Contention 1: The subjective existence of Santa Claus is very much real, and the objective impact of Santa benefits society as a whole. (Refer back to round 1 for complete argument, value/value criterion, and sources.) Contention 2: As many people believe in Santa Claus, just like many people believe in religion, it is the job of the Con to prove that Santa Claus does not/can not exist.
Santa Clause exists

He is conventionally pictured as a jolly old man from the far north, with a long white beard and red garments trimmed with white fur. See also Nicholas, St. ImaginaryExisting only in the imagination:Therefore:Santa Claus does not exist because he is an imaginary figure, who only exists in the human imagination. Therefore, he is not a being that can be found in any place or situation, much less be living in the physical world through deductive reasoning*. *Deductive ReasoningThe logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true. There was no need for me to refute the contender's claim, and I had made a terrible mistake. I will spend the rest of the day eating ice cream in the corner. I thank the contender for participating in this debate. Sources:. http://whatis.techtarget.com......http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......http://www.oxforddictionaries.com......;
Santa Clause exists

I affirm the resolution, resolved: Saint Nicholas, commonly known as Santa Claus exists.Preliminary Matters: I argue that this debate be a value debate, as a factual debate will lead to one outcome, Santa Claus not existing. The very nature of this debate gives itself to the subjective being of Santa Claus and not the true existence of Santa Claus. Therefore, I argue that the event of [Santa Claus'] social presence is enough to count as existance. Definitions: Santa Claus: a portly, white-bearded man that gives gifts to all the good children, and coal to the bad. Exist: Subjective reality or being. (I have explained above why I opted to change to this arbitrary definition, as it is incorrect, but fits in the context of this debate.) Value: I, as Pro in this case, value Societal Good, with my value criterion as retaining holiday spirit. I argue that retaining the holiday spirit to be one of great benefit to society as the holiday spirit is about selfless giving, and other kind things, which are categorically good for all. Contention 1: Even though Santa Claus as a physical being does not exist, the idea/societal existance does. The societal existance of Sinterklaas dates back far beyond Santa Claus, but since the scope of this debate is limited to the Americanized Santa Claus, I will omit any information regarding the Dutch copy. Santa Claus dates back to early 19th century America, and became popularised in 1934 by the song "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town", a song which is still sung today. The song and many of the other holiday rituals associated with Santa Claus reminds us all that this is a time for giving, which in turn benefits society in a way both emotionally ( as it is a time for family) and in terms of economy, as Christmas is a big boom in terms of sales. In conclusion: the very idea of Santa Claus is a huge benefit to our society, which is why Santa needs to continue "exist"(ing). Contention 2:This debate can also be taken a different way, the same way a religious debate can be taken. Does God exist? It is the same way with Santa Claus. In a poll taken by AP-AOL, 86% of children in America believe/used to believe that Santa Claus existed. This number is shocking as only 74% of Americans believe in God. When the number of so called "believers" say that something exists, it is hard to argue otherwise. take for example the now famous : John Cleese v Church debates, which was akin to watching Tantalus push his rock; it never went anywhere. In this contention, the BOP is completely on Con. This contention also ties in nicely with Societal Good, as this is a way for children to experience a more mild version of religion, and go through the various phases of disbelief, denial... etc. Which makes for great experience, something that we as humans all need in order to better ourselves in the long run. In conclusion: Because so many people believe in Santa Claus, BOP is put onto Con to disprove the existance of Santa Claus. Sources: ;(John Cleese Debate) http://www.washingtonpost.com...;(AP-AOL poll) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;(definition of objective) http://www.merriam-webster.com...;(definition of exist)
Santa Clause exists

DefinitionsAll definitions taken from Oxford Dictionaries.Santa Claus:An imaginary figure said to bring presents for children on Christmas. He is conventionally pictured as a jolly old man from the far north, with a long white beard and red garments trimmed with white fur. See also Nicholas, St.ImaginaryExisting only in the imagination:Exist1: Have objective reality or being2: Be found, especially in a particular place or situation:3: Live, especially under adverse conditions:Therefore:Santa Claus does not exist because he is an imaginary figure, who only exists in the human imagination. Therefore, he is not a being that can be found in any place or situation, much less be living in the physical world through deductive reasoning*. *Deductive Reasoning The logical process in which a conclusion is based on the concordance of multiple premises that are generally assumed to be true.Sources:http://whatis.techtarget.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;
Should Physician assisted suicide be legal

In 1997 Oregon passed the death with dignity act. Since then around 750 have taken their lives from perceptions written by doctors. Oregon has safeguards in place to prevent abuse of this law by people who may be suicidal or unable to make this very important decision competently. The physician has to educate the patient on all their possible options including pain management and hospice care. The person must be a resident and deemed mentally competent. The patient must make several requests over a period of time giving them adequate time to consider the decision. Since the law was enacted Washington and Vermont have followed suit alone with British Columbia and Quebec. According to a public health publication the majority of patients who took their lives with the DWDA had baccalaureate degrees or higher and were enrolled in hospice care prior to dying. This means that the patient is educated and has tried other options. The majority of patients concerns with their terminal illness were loss of autonomy. It stands to reason that these patients did not want to be a burden to others or lose the dignity of taking care of themselves. This is a reasonable and sane argument for wanting to take ones own life. http://www.nytimes.com... https://public.health.oregon.gov...
Should Physician assisted suicide be legal

Physician Assisted Suicide or PAS is defined by Merriam Webster as "suicide by a patient facilitated by means or information (as a drug prescription or indication of the lethal dosage) provided by a physician who is aware of how the patient intends to use such means or information" Two states, Oregon and Washington have already made this legal. I believe that a terminally ill patient who has undergone psychiatric evaluation and been deemed sane and competent to make their own decisions should legally be able to do so. I would like to debate someone who has an opposing opinion.
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

my argument involves whether or not the catholic church teaches the things i've mentioned. con merely argues about whether the pope is who is says he is, and about whether the bible says what God would probably do or not do concerning the teachings involved. con doesn't even address the actual issues presented. he missed the point entirely. on a side note, there is decent evidence for the pope. peter was given the power of binding and loosing, only he was given the 'keys', he took a primary leadership role. the apostles laid hands and had successors in the bible. he was referred to as the rock on which the church was built. to name just some of the points. catholics also dont make the pope out to be a deity. (neither with mary)
official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

To be clear ,the Bible is the only credible source to be used, as tradition morphs to suit the era's distinctive character, events needed for a public acceptance. The Pope is not Jesus on Earth- nowhere in either the Old Testament or the New Testament does the Bible even make a VAGUE MENTIONING of anything even resembling a representation of Jesus, or even Peter. Peter was the rock of the early church, but just like Mary, mother of Jesus, he deserves respect, admiration even, but not an evolution to a near full-blown deity. The Pope is an elevated man who is ELECTED. The representation of Jesus, to Catholics, is ELECTED. This should pretty much just discredit this teaching almost entirely, as nowhere in the Bible does it say non-Catholics and unbaptized infants go to Hell.
Annihilatioinism vs. Eternal Suffering

I accept this challenge. I will show beyond doubt that the Bible teaches eternal, conscious torment awaits the unsaved when they die. If my opponent wants to introduce others books besides the Bible as sources, he has to show why these are credible sources of information on the teachings of Jesus and his earliest disciples. I believe we both agree that the Bible is authoritative in this debate. If Pro questions anything the Bible says as being accurate, he needs to bring evidence for why we should reject that portion. I look forward to a great debate.
Annihilatioinism vs. Eternal Suffering

Definitions: Annihilationism- The belief that apart from salvation, the final punishment of human beings results in their total destruction. Eternal suffering- The belief that apart from salvation, the final punishment of human beings results in concious,everlasting torture. I would prefer to argue against someone from the Christian religion. I (Pro) will be arguing for Annihilationism, Con will be arguing for eternal suffering. Absolutely no semantics please. Your argument must be backed up by scripture from the Christian Bible. Round 1 is for Acceptance only. Thank you and good luck!
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

My opponent appears to neglect the fact that I never stated that LD arguments were used to see which statistics provided better evidence or the fact that I never mentioned that one should rely on statistics. I ask my opponent to re-read my statement, "LD cases are said to be less evidence-extensive than other debates, such as policy debate. " The key words in said statement are "less evidence-extensive than others". If my opponent would like to post a comment as to show where in my last argument I said that one should rely on statistics to see which provided better evidence, I will gladly stand corrected. I agree with my opponent's idea that LD cases should be based upon Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophical beliefs. In a presented LD case, though, one should use very minimal to almost no statistics. Modern society and government rely mostly on statistics and evidence, so it would be fairly hypocritical and unrealistic to say that statistics and fact should not be used in a certain case. On a side note, one or 2 statistics used within 10-30 beliefs does not suggest that the LD case is "based on statistics".
LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point of LD is to judge which case makes more logical sense, not to see which statistics provide better evidence. Going back to round 1,LD debates were made to resolve moral/ethical issues that we face. So, the proper response would be a Moral/Ethical response, not a statistical one. Further more, arguments based on morals/ethics/logic/philosophy are left open for opponents to build on them. The deciding vote goes to the person who presented a better case and affirmed their case with morals/ethics better. The purpose of an LD argument is not to say that a moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beleif is correct because statistics prove it to be. It is to say that one's moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beleifs are more sensible than the other's. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moving to my opponents case, the statement that to appropriately deliver an LD case, one needs statistics to thoroughly back up one's argument is false on the premise that this leaves LD cases to become to factual rather than moral. It also gives the impression that Morals and ethics can not be properly upheld without statistics. Leading back to the recap of my case above, LD arguments should not have to be based on statistics. They should present which logic seems to be more sensible. By adding statistics, one would have a never ending argument by trying to further uphold their statistics with more statistics, causing the case to become more statistical. To sum my argument up, one should not rely on statistics to back up moral and ethics. Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophal beleifs should be able to be supported by other Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophical beleifs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To conclude i affirm the topic and presented reasons as to why i affirm.