BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the Christian God and his army of angels exists then we should follow the teaching of the bible.

This is where reading scriptures comes in handy... I can mute my opponent's whole argument by just proving that Jesus was not Satan. Proof in the bible which is now "true": Matthew 4:1-11 (New International Version) New International Version (NIV) Copyright ï¿½ 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society Matthew 4 The Temptation of Jesus 1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]" 5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]" 7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]" 8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]" 11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away

The process of actually donating food is easier said than done. The Donation of good that is past it"s exporan date as well as those that are almost expired requires a lot of logistical coordination. It also requires precise and through planning. While the idea sounds simple enough there"s a lot of coordination that stores and restaurants would have to go throughout in order to accomplish this grocery shops would need a lot of recourses and time . Elise Golan, the director for sustainable development at USDA. "The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," she said. "If you"re having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that"s not good for anybody." The process of donating expired or close to expiration date food sounds good on paper but the actual process is demanding and hard to accomplish. Sources: "Why the US May Never Pass a Food Waste Law Like France." Google, Google, www.google.com/amp/s/gizmodo.com/why-the-us-may-never-pass-a-food-waste-law-like-france-1757351244/amp. Why Grocery Stores Don't Donate All Of Their Surplus Food to Charity, www.flashfood.com/blog/why-grocery-stores-dont-donate.
Unused food not sold by supermarkets should be donated and/or recycled, not simply thrown away

Claim: A lot of food that we waste as a country goes unnoticed, but numbers do not lie. Warrant: In 2010, an estimated 133 billion pounds of food from U.S. retail food stores, restaurants, and homes"valued at approximately $161 billion"went uneaten. (a statistic provided by the USDA Office of the Chief Economist). Grounds: In addition, 7.4 percent (9.4 million) of U.S. households had low food security in 2016. What is low food security? "These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries (USDA Economic Research Service). Furthermore, 4.9 percent (6.1 million) of U.S. households had very low food security at some time during 2016. What is very low food security? "In these food-insecure households, normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year because they had insufficient money or other resources for food (USDA Economic Research Service). If we were to donate the food wasted in supermarkets to provide for these low food security families, we could lower these numbers and provide a system both beneficial to decreasing supermarket waste and increasing food security in the U.S.. 1. USDA | OCE | U.S. Food Waste Challenge | FAQ's | Information Sources, www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/sources.htm. 2. "Key Statistics & Graphics." USDA ERS - Key Statistics & Graphics, www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx.
Fast Food $15/hour Wages

>> where are [McDonald's] going to get the money to pay their employees.McDonald's is a multinational company with assets over 30 billion dollars [1]. The taxpayers shouldn't be paying these workers, McDonald's should. The savings in welfare spending could be spent elsewhere, including protecting other businesses.The worst thing a company could do to its business is to reduce its operation size. Particularly for companies that have assets of billions, a higher minimum wage does not reverse these companies' profitability. Only in a world where wages account for most of business expenses could this effect a company's profitability, a unprofitable businesses cannot adapt to changes, be they changes in wages, trends or resources.>> that $1 double cheeseburger will now be around $4-ish.This is not an economic scenario. Though I wouldn't mind unhealthy food costing more, prices are subject to their own market forces, which can be simplified into supply and demand. As long as customers want the food, and the company has the supply to source their ingredients from, the market can naturally adjust. >> They will either have to lay off some employeesIf these companies ay off workers, it won't be because of the minimum wage. If these businesses can't sustain a change to wages, in an economy where all expenses are ever-changing, they can't compete in a free market anyway. A minimum wage would not only incentivise automation, but also reward businesses who already pay a living wage to their workers by increasing their competitiveness. Market changes do not happen in a vacuum. It's crucial to note that workers are not only workers, they are also consumers. A minimum wage not only gives more money to my opponent's mother who works in a library, but also allows her to spend more money which further circulates in the economy, and motivates her working more. [1] https://www.aboutmcdonalds.com...'s%202014%20Annual%20Report.PDF
Fast Food $15/hour Wages

So, let's say McDonald's raises their minimum wage to $15. First of all where are they going to get the money to pay their employees. They will either have to lay off some employees, thus creating more unemployment or they will have to raise the cost of their food items. So that $1 double cheeseburger will know be around $4-ish. Or they will do both. Either way is horrible. Yes $15/hour would be nice for the people that they don' t lay off. If they do raise the prices of the food, I would definitely not go to that restaurant anymore. I am not paying that kind of money for a burger, and I know several people that won't either, thus creating less business for that fast food, thus creating less money for that chain of restaurants. The only positions that should get over minimum wage in the fast food business should be managers and higher employees. Not Sally McFlipaBurger.
Fast Food $15/hour Wages

I would've made longer responses, if not for the character limit. I thank my opponent for opening this debate, and for making most of my arguments for me. >> First of all you flip burgers and make fries for a living. A living? My opponent claims that fast food workers are performing their tasks "for a living", but my opponent is against a living wage for minimum wage workers. >> If you want something that pays higher, get your butt out there and find a job that does. These are people who are already working, so their "butt" is already out there. However, there is a thing called unemployment. There are not enough jobs for everyone who wants them, and many people who have jobs are unsatisfied with their job. More people are looking for a job than there are jobs out there. >> speaking as a 16-year old that is hopefully getting a job in the next few weeks (want McDonald's) I don't want a $15/hour job. I agree with Con that this minimum wage is not necessary for 16 years old. However, most minimum wage workers are not teenagers [1]. 89% of workers making less than $12 an hour are at least 20 years old, while many have children to look after. If you really do not think teenagers should be getting the new minimum wage, we can do what some other countries do and lower the minimum wage for younger ages. >> I would be making more than my mom does working at the public library. This only furthers my argument that this is a policy not only for young people, but my opponent does not seem to recognise that their mother would directly benefit from a minimum wage rise. >> I need to learn how to save the money that I get, and honestly that is hard for me. A minimum wage rise would give you more money to save. >> If I get more money that's just gonna make me want to spend it more, not save it. This is wonderful for the economy. Money should be spent so that it stimulates the economy. [1] http://www.epi.org...
Fast Food $15/hour Wages

So, lately fast food employees have been rioting for a $15/hour wage. I think this is ridiculous. First of all you flip burgers and make fries for a living. If you want something that pays higher, get your butt out there and find a job that does. Also, speaking as a 16-year old that is hopefully getting a job in the next few weeks (want McDonald's) I don't want a $15/hour job. If these wages are accepted, I would be making more than my mom does working at the public library. I'm a teenager in high school, which is honestly over half of fast food employees, I need to learn how to save the money that I get, and honestly that is hard for me. I get $15 dollars a week at home for doing chores. Most of the time within a week that money is blown (because I like food) If I get more money that's just gonna make me want to spend it more, not save it. (Next argument depending on opponents argument) (I know this wasn't a very good argument, but hey)
Paranormal Research and Cryptozoology should be taken more seriously in the Scientific Community

"http://www.angelsghosts.com...; Right, hear some wierd sounds, assume it must be a ghost. Great science... *looks at one of the youtubes (the rest I can't access at the moment), sees nothing but a door opening, not even far enough to see whether someone is behind it at an angle. right, great science, phenomenal even. Yes, there are search teams for the loch ness monster, bigfoot, etc.. But they've been looking for CENTURIES and come up with nothing. Can you name another bit of science that has so much investment, fails, and then asks for more? If we found the loch ness monster, would it have such value as to justify the degree of effort here? We're talking about a lot of money here, as well as many people dedicating their lives to this goose chase. So there's your evidence, the CZ researcher's failure provides me with it. The megamouth shark or colecanth successes you speak of? What do they achieve that justifies the investment in the fields? There's no fishing industry for them... :D " SO far you have given NO EVIDENCE why either field should not be taken into serious consideration by the scientific community, rather you've only made me back my arguments up." It's unnecessary for me to give evidence (other than the obvious rate of return issues above) until you come up with something that isn't full of problems. "You have not. I will remind the audience that the determination of voting is on who made the better argument, not which side you like." Can you provide the evidence for this? (:D) "As of yet, my opponent has FAILED to refute any of my evidence, and as his own request, I have only strengthened my point" You can't refute that which is not there. Evidence that is not evidence is not a strength, and a few easily manipulatable internet videos and sounds, unbacked by any organization I've ever heard of, that even if accepted at face value provide nothing to indicate they are what they claim to be, is not evidence even if you were speaking of a passing curiousity rather than a scientific endeavour expecting the full load of millions of dollars necessary (that's part of being "taken seriously" after all) to achieve (what exactly? A bigfoot or nesssie hunting industry? Or is there some value to finding ghosts 'm not aware of?) Last I checked I can open doors and make spooky noises without the help of ghosts, I don't know why people expect youtube and the rest of the internet to be otherwise. "He has only attempted to point on minor contradictions " There is no such thing as a "minor" contradiction. An argument that contradcts itself is ipso facto invalid. The scientific community should not deceive people into thinking these fields have anything to offer that is worth "taking seriously." The results would be a number of bad investments. There is no evidence that there would be any return on much of that investment, and for that which there is a bit (the megasharks and whatnot) it is not a return that matches the value of keeping the investment. If you do not hold that people should invest in these, "taken seriously" becomes meaningless.
Paranormal Research and Cryptozoology should be taken more seriously in the Scientific Community

" Let me be clear: My opponents stance has to be that "paranormal research and cryptozoology are not legitimate scientific fields and should not be taken seriously by the public" and have evidence to show that nothing positive has ever or will ever come out of either field. " That's known as the straw man fallacy. You do not get to dictate the stance of your opponents, only that your opponent has to oppose you. Your particular straw man attempts to shift the burden of proof. " Paranormal Research: investigation of anomalous phenomenon (unexplained events) including the study of spirits/ghosts/other. " This is a contradiction. A function of science is explaining. If you study an event scientifically, it is no longer fully unexplained. Also, anomalous: deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected. Science must necessarily come upon a "standard" definition of what a given event is, it must eventually come to be able to expect or predict it. Therefore paranormal research as you have defined cannot be a science. Plus, many supposedly " paranormal" events fall under present branches of science, different branches, requiring expertise in areas like physics or psychology. To call it a branch in itself, it would have to have nothing to do with any established scientific branch. This is not the case for any phenomena I know of. "Cryptozoology: Research on animals outside zoological catalogs. The study of "hidden animals"(wikipedia) " To study a thing successfully, you would have to make it "not hidden," (i.e. observable) and it would inevitably end up in a zoological catalog. Thus, contradiction. Also, wikipedia states for one of the branches "the search for animals that fall outside of taxonomic records due to a lack of empirical evidence, but for which anecdotal evidence exists in the form of myths, legends, or undocumented sightings," The trouble with this is, is that anecdotal evidence is not a part of the scientific method. Thus such a thing cannot be recognized as a legitimate scientific field.
Paranormal Research and Cryptozoology should be taken more seriously in the Scientific Community

First, the definitions from me: Paranormal Research: investigation of anomalous phenomenon (unexplained events) including the study of spirits/ghosts/other. Cryptozoology: Research on animals outside zoological catalogs. The study of "hidden animals"(wikipedia) My stance, as explained in the title, is that these two areas of study are legitimate and should be taken into better consideration by the general scientific community. At the moment, both fields have been restricted by skeptics, and bastardized by science fiction. The general public should make more of an effort into accepting the field of study, if not the materials they are studying. By this, I mean you don't have to think bigfoot and ghosts are real to support cryptozoology and paranormal research. This means that I am not arguing for or against the existence of the topics either fields study, only for an acceptance for the fields to be legitimate. Both fields of study are there to further human knowledge on events and beings which need explaining. They are only attempts at improvement. However the public criticizes them, saying only loonies believe such things. Such people also supported the claims that man will never fly, the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around Earth; accusing those who oppose the common view as crazies. Yet, those whom had to suffer criticism are now regarded as heroes and genius's. Is it then so impossible to think that maybe these fields of study could possibly have something to them? Let me be clear: My opponents stance has to be that "paranormal research and cryptozoology are not legitimate scientific fields and should not be taken seriously by the public" and have evidence to show that nothing positive has ever or will ever come out of either field.
I will not contradict myself.

ContradictionsIt is true that my answer to Question #6, Round 1 may imply that I beat my wife/girlfriend to some, but it is a false implication that draws from a misunderstanding of the question. I never stopped beating my wife/girlfriend because I never beat my wife/girlfriend, and an action must be started before it can be stopped; this was clarified in an answer to a previous question, which should disprove the false conclusion my opponent draws from my first answer.I never failed to answer Question #6, Round 2 as my opponent claims; I answered it, and he even quoted my answer.Questions1. No.2. No.3. No.4. I do not know; it is possible that I made a grammar or spelling error, but it is also possible that I did not.5. No.6. Yes.7. No.8. No.9. No.10. Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

ContradictionsTo respond to my last contradiction, my opponent said, "I have never stoppe beating my wife/girlfriend because I never started, and I have never had either a wife or a girlfriend, making the action impossible. I never started, I never stopped, I never did. This is logically consistant and consistant with all of the answers I have provided in this debate."You never stopped beating your wife/girlfriend because you never had. However, this further contradicts the "no" answer. "Have you stopped beating your wife/girlfriend?" "NO" implies that you still do because you have not stopped.Furthermore, my opponent fails to answer this question, "6. I do not know; I am unaware of anyone named Evlis Presley." Elvis Presley (http://en.wikipedia.org...) was a famous singer. Sorry for the typo. 1. Should gays die because they are gay?2. Is the Bible the inerrant word of God that should be followed without question?3. Should you, "love your neighbour as yourself" if that neighbour is Adolf Hitler?4. Have you made any mistakes this debate? (spelling, contradictions, etc).5. Is it possible nothing is true?6. Is this a debate?7. Is a direct democracy the best form of government?8. Are all people created equal with Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot?9. Is racism justified?10. 1. Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.2. God has contradictory attributes.Does God exist?
I will not contradict myself.

ContradictionsI have never stoppe beating my wife/girlfriend because I never started, and I have never had either a wife or a girlfriend, making the action impossible. I never started, I never stopped, I never did. This is logically consistant and consistant with all of the answers I have provided in this debate.Questions1. Yes.2. Yes.3. Yes.4. No.5. Yes.6. I do not know; I am unaware of anyone named Evlis Presley.7. Yes.8. No.9. No.10. No.
I will not contradict myself.

ContradictionsIn round 1, I asked my opponent, "Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend?" My opponent answered, "No." However, in this past round I asked, "Have you ever beat your wife/girlfriend?" To which he answered, "No." This is a contradiction as my opponent admited to beating his wife/girlfriend in round 1. "Did you stop beating your wife?" The answer, "No" Seems as if my opponent has beat his wife/girlfriend. Questons1. Do you enjoy betraying a friend?2. Are there such things as absolutes?3. Are you a Christian?4. Do you support slavery?5. Are libertarians ever wrong? 6. Is Evlis Presley alive?7. Can we know anything for certain?8. Is it fair for me to bring up a contradiction that you cannot respond to?9. Can God creat a rock so big even he cannot lift it?10. Does omnipotence mean that God can do anything?
I will not contradict myself.

1. No.2. No.3. That question cannot be answered adequately, because it is not a statement yet refers to itself as a statement. A question cannot be true or false.4. Yes, as I interpret them.5. It would depend on the scenario.6. Yes.7. Yes.8. Yes.9. This question cannot be answered adequately, because each time I conceive a new answer, the new answer is incorrect and the old answer is correct.10. I believe so.
I will not contradict myself.

Thank you.1. Have you ever beat your wife?2. Do you consider yourself to be a person to follow the Bible?3. Is this statement false?4. Do you agree with your current positions on your "BIG issues"?5. Are you the type of person to betray a friend?6. Have you ever betrayed a friend?7. Do you enjoy singing?8. Do you believe in life after death?9. Will you answer this question by saying, "No." 10. Are you going to heaven?
I will not contradict myself.

Do you believe in God?2. Have you ever mooted before?3. Do you like to sing?4. Have you ever sung?5. Are you positive we are having this debate?6. Did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend?7. Can we possibly know anything? 8. Do you use 100% of your brain?9. Is taking the life without consent of that person ever justified? 10. Have you ever mugged someone?
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses. Good luck.