BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Society's Constant

Societies not only within the United States but all over the world as well, follow a pattern directly affected by education, communication, and economics. This pattern has been repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times throughout history and will continue for the foreseeable future. To explain this I will look at the three levels of citizens based upon finances in the United States; upper class, middle class, and lower class. The upper class is the smallest, having ample amounts of free time after vigorous amounts work throughout their lifetimes. They are the CEOs of corporations. Those that are parents will push their children to work hard in school to become as they are. The middle class continues to work, but only the normal 40-hours a week. They won't push their kids as hard as the upper class, but they will still push them towards education so they don't become poor. These kids will become the Supervisors within the corporations. The lower class is the largest class, which focuses mainly on work. They will push their kids towards earning money for the family and less on a quality education. This in turn will create more workers, which is needed in order for a society to grow. Without a sufficient amount of workers, there will be no one to fill the jobs needed in order to make a business grow and not enough people who can afford to purchase its product. Currently in the United States, there are business that have been switching from human workers to robotic workers. It makes more money for the rich, but less for the poor. The supervisors will still be needed to check quality of the products, so they won't be affected as much. The job market is shrinking for the lower class, because they don't have the education for a job and they don't have the money for the education. They are then forced to resort to crime in order to put food on the table. If they didn't, they would die. The other classes may or may not see this, or may or may not care about the outcome. But, whatever help or lack help there is to the lower class will either lead to its end or the prolonging of its end. When the lower class is finally "gone", the new standards for the poor will shift to the middle class. Then when they are gone, it will shift to the upper class and so on. This pattern has happened and will continue. My question is, "Is this a problem?"
Mario is Superior to Luigi

Rebuttals: /// Luigi is a wannabe Mario. /// "On the contrary, Luigi is Mario's brother, and until you show that Luigi wants to be Mario this assertion holds no weight." Well obviously since they are video game characters we shall never know. But, the evidence is that Luigi looks almost identical to Mario except that he is green and has an L on his hat and is slightly skinnier, has most of the same powers and moves in most games, and we also know that Mario came first. If Mario already established these things as being signature to him, it would seem that Luigi is imitating and is therefore trying to be like Mario. /// Let's face it, Mario is the stronger, more handsome brother. /// "It is true that Mario is typically stronger than Mario, although in many games they are identical. However, being stronger does not mean one is superior in anything but strength. Also, "handsome" is a subjective matter; one that holds little weight in debate." First of all, you have conceded the point that Mario is stronger than Luigi. In their video games, it is vital to have the strongest character possible, making Mario superior to Luigi. Also, it is shown that Mario is more handsome by the fact that Princess Peach falls in love with him instead of Luigi. They look similar but apparently the differences have made a difference to Princess Peach. /// Does the lovely Princess Peach want to be with Luigi? No! Of course not! She wants to be with the original not the imitator. /// "The reason for this is that Princess Peach is in love with Mario, not Luigi. This doesn't really say anything about Luigi as love is a concept that goes beyond simple admiration of ability to connect individuals on seep levels. Not only that, but while Princess Peach may not love Luigi; Princess Daisy does." Well, obviously Luigi was not good enough to get Princess Peach to fall in love with him where as Mario was. I would say that Daisy, like Luigi, is an imitator. But, Daisy wants to be Princess Peach. She again, is almost identical to Princess Peach except in color and is not as powerful. So, to be like Princess Peach, I believe that Daisy chose the other Mario brother.
Mario is Superior to Luigi

. . . ~~~~~~~~~ Definitions: ~~~~~~~~~ Mario – . http://www.mariowiki.com... Luigi – . http://www.mariowiki.com... Superior – of high or superior quality or performance; . http://www.google.com... ~~~~~~~~ Rebuttals: ~~~~~~~~ /// Luigi is a wannabe Mario. /// On the contrary, Luigi is Mario's brother, and until you show that Luigi wants to be Mario this assertion holds no weight. ~~~ /// Let's face it, Mario is the stronger, more handsome brother. /// It is true that Mario is typically stronger than Mario, although in many games they are identical. However, being stronger does not mean one is superior in anything but strength. Also, "handsome" is a subjective matter; one that holds little weight in debate. ~~~ /// Does the lovely Princess Peach want to be with Luigi? No! Of course not! She wants to be with the original not the imitator. /// The reason for this is that Princess Peach is in love with Mario, not Luigi. This doesn't really say anything about Luigi as love is a concept that goes beyond simple admiration of ability to connect individuals on seep levels. Not only that, but while Princess Peach may not love Luigi; Princess Daisy does. ~~~ I await my opponent's rebuttals.
Mario is Superior to Luigi

. . . . ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ /// Well in most games the original and main character is intended by the game developers to be superior to a side character like Luigi. /// This is conjecture, nothing more. It holds no weight in a formal debate. ~~~ /// Normal family members don't usually dress almost exactly like another. /// Neither do Mario and Luigi. Their dress is similar only in style. It is not difficult at all to tell them apart. A perfectly reasonable explanation for this is that they're PLUMBERS. Their attire is that which is stereotypically worn by their profession. ~~~ /// evidence please? At least in the Super Smash Bros. series, what I said is true. /// Evidence is given in earlier rounds, meaning that what you're saying is actually blatantly false. ~~~ /// Well, we don't actually know what their feeling truly are or why because they are video game characters, but were they in the real world, it would seem both Luigi and Daisy are trying to be like their counterparts Mario and Daisy. /// Actually, their in-game feelings are completely apparent. Mario loves Peach and vice versa. Luigi loves Daisy and vice versa. ~~~ Pro has failed to meet her burden of proof. I have shown not only that is Luigi isn't inferior to Mario, but that he is actually superior to his brother. This debate goes to Con.
Mario is Superior to Luigi

Original = Superior; is a non-sequitur." Well in most games the original and main character is intended by the game developers to be superior to a side character like Luigi. "They're brothers. Family members are typically similar to each other." Normal family members don't usually dress almost exactly like another. "[1] No, in most games their strengths and abilities are nigh identical, with the only differences being those I mentioned. [2] Luigi can also use those items. [3] Untrue, and in certain games listed such as Super Mario 64 DS Luigi is the only character capable of beating certain areas." evidence please? At least in the Super Smash Bros. series, what I said is true. "There's also the fact that Mario loves Peach back while Luigi has no such feelings for Peach and instead loves Daisy. I do not know why you are still clinging to this absurd contention. One person loving another says nothing explicit about a different person." Well, we don't actually know what their feeling truly are or why because they are video game characters, but were they in the real world, it would seem both Luigi and Daisy are trying to be like their counterparts Mario and Daisy. I'm not clinging to a contention. I'm going on with it because it amuses me. If my opponent hasn't realized already, I'm not taking this debate very seriously, I'm doing it for fun.
Mario is Superior to Luigi

. . . . ~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ /// There is no in-game canon to suggest Luigi isn't inferior to Mario. Well, If so, I say that in making Mario the original character and hero, that the game developers intended Mario to be superior. /// Original = Superior; is a non-sequitur. ~~~ /// …then if Mario was the original person with all the characteristics that Luigi shares, then what other reason would there be for Luigi to be so like Mario other than imitation? /// They're brothers. Family members are typically similar to each other. ~~~ /// [1] This is true that Luigi can often jump higher and run faster, but he also in most games has less-powerful attacks. [2] Mario gets by without jumping higher and running faster because there are items to help him with those drawbacks. [3] However, when it comes to defeating the bosses, you need a powerful character like Mario to defeat them. /// [1] No, in most games their strengths and abilities are nigh identical, with the only differences being those I mentioned. [2] Luigi can also use those items. [3] Untrue, and in certain games listed such as Super Mario 64 DS Luigi is the only character capable of beating certain areas. ~~~ /// For one I would say that it is because they are so similar. Well it is not just that she is blindly in love with Mario. Mario rescued her from Bowser and defeated many fearsome and dangerous enemies and tasks to do so. Luigi did not accomplish this. Peach admires Mario for his accomplishments. He could not have achieved so much and Luigi not without Mario have some kind of superior character to Luigi. /// There's also the fact that Mario loves Peach back while Luigi has no such feelings for Peach and instead loves Daisy. I do not know why you are still clinging to this absurd contention. One person loving another says nothing explicit about a different person. ~~~ I await my opponent's response.
if you drop an ant off a ten story building will it die? No way Jose

Ok, i see your argue meant, it probably would live mainly because of it's light body. As it were falling, it would be carried off by the wind and would be placed lightly on the ground with out a scratch and go about it's buisiness. Or its compadres would have its back till the death and carry it out to thier medical facilities where it'll be under critical condition and come out paralized from the abdomin down, but it'll live.
if you drop an ant off a ten story building will it die? No way Jose

Ha, i accept your challenge. I say it'll die maybe not instantly, but slow and painfully. It'll drag it's broken legs screeming for help and because none of its compadres will hear it, it'll die of agony and lose its will to live screeming, "Porque Dios, Porque!!!" Poor littl;e bugga, wait, what are we debating on? oh yeah. It will die maybe soon after. Even though it has an exoskeletal system, it won't matter at ten stories. Ten stories is high for us, so ten stories to an ant is like 10000 stories for us. the end
Minimum Wage

C1: I would say a logical argument is better than an historical argument because of all the factors not taken into account by the historical argument. And, yes, this may be the case about my graph just as it may be the case about my opponent's sources. As for my opponent's critique of my graph, he seems to understand what it says, but yet tries to make it seem as though the correlation is not there, or is at least irrelevant. While the correlation may or may not be direct, it is undeniably there. C2: My opponent uses an either/or fallacy in describing competition. Competition is not an end in and of itself, but it also wasn't created to serve the people. Competition is a natural phenomenon, and trying to mitigate it will prevent innovation, economic growth, employment, etc... My opponent has also not shown why competition causes companies to put rat feces in peanut butter, and yet insists there is a correlation. The kind of regulation my opponent describes will have unforeseen consequences. In our world of increasing economic regulation, children regularly have their lemonade stands shut down (1). My opponent and others will probably claim there is a difference, and while there is, where would the line be drawn? What factors would be taken into account? And then there will of course be loopholes, which would be 'fixed' by more regulation, creating more loopholes, and so on. It is a slippery slope, and definitely undesirable. P1: I have included a video in which economist Milton Friedman shows logically how minimum wage causes unemployment. It is not current, but he discusses trends throughout history up to when the video was made. For the most part, I can't rebut the studies as they are not in my possession. For one I can (Princeton), it says that to compensate for increased minimum wage, employers will have to cut benefits for employees, or cut hours. This will make the company less productive, and decrease its profit, which will likely cause layoffs in the long run. Obviously the study cited does not come out and say that the unemployed would have it worse. First, off that claim doesn't even make sense. My argument is that unemployment would increase, not that the already unemployed people would be worse off, save for the fact that it would be harder for them to get a new job. The article says that full-time employees would be benefited. I said that this ignores the full-time employees that would become unemployed. Sources: 1. http://www.forbes.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Minimum Wage

C1: Given the choice between two options, one rooted in logic and the other rooted in what actually happens, we would be well advised to choose the latter. Human behavior doesn’t always follow logic or be what we would expect. While logic and principle can be useful, when it contradicts objective reality we should pay more attention to objective reality than logic and principle. To be sure, when this happens we look for factors that might explain why the result did not agree with our expectations, but we still pay more attention to what actually happened.As for my opponent’s graph, I must note that during that much of the spike took place during or immediately preceding the Great Recession. It seems reasonable unemployment would go up regardless of minimum wage during a recession, especially one as great as the Great Recession.C2: And yet, during the Gilded Age, companies that cut corners such as allowing rats to run around in sausage and get ground into it did quite well for a long period of time [1]. My point is that not all competition is good; we would be ill-advised to dispense with food and safety guidelines, OSHA requirements, et cetera. But those things limit competition. The key here is what is more important. Is competition good in and of itself, or is it supposed to serve the people? If it is supposed to serve the people, and is not an end in and of itself, then why can’t there be circumstances where competition would not be desirable? If it is an end in and of itself, why?I do indeed believe that if the government were to regularly inspect the places where peanut butter was made and shut down any that failed inspections, there would be less peanut butter with rat feces inside of it than otherwise. I think this a fairly reasonable assertion.P1: If my opponent has a more recent survey of economists, I would invite him to show it. I would also say that I am unaware of any serious economist who says that the collapse of the economy was due to an increase in the minimum wage.My opponent’s rebuttal of my own point in favor of the minimum wage assumes that the minimum wage, and/or increases in the minimum wage, cause unemployment. I have shown that the academic literature shows little to no support in favor of this hypothesis, that the most recent survey of economists that deals directly with the question shows that there is no consensus that the minimum wage causes unemployment, and that there is some evidence to suggest that the minimum wage actually increases unemployment. My opponent has failed to rebut these studies.Furthermore, the study I cited does not show that the unemployed would have it any worse if the minium wage increased.1. the Jungle
Minimum Wage

Defense: C1: To show that minimum wage does have a correlation with unemployment, I have included a graph (1). But this aside, my opponent has failed to address my claim on principle or logic. I have shown that it is logical that minimum wage causes unemployment. It is up to my opponent to logically prove the opposite. C2: My opponent's example of the peanut butter with rat feces proves why competition is in fact a good thing. In a system based on competition, the peanut butter without rat feces would quickly put the one with rat feces off the market. My opponent believes that without competition, somehow only peanut butter without rat feces would be made, but it is just as likely that the situation would be reversed. And with no competition, nobody would be able to buy good quality peanut butter. Rebuttal: P1: My opponent's first source does not say that minimum wage is predicted to decrease premature death. Rather, it says it is predicted to decrease premature death for those working full-time. This completely ignores the unemployed, and the consequences they will face. As for my opponent's second source, he claims that it is current. It is not. It was written in 2006, when the minimum wage was still $5.15. In the years since, minimum wage has gone up to $7.25 and the economy has collapsed. Also, the notion of a living wage ignores the fact that different people require different levels of income to survive. Somebody who works 8 hours at $4 an hour will live at the same level as somebody working 4 hours at $8 an hour. My opponent will likely want to point out that one has a higher quality of life because he works fewer hours, but this is irrelevant. That four hour difference has no bearing on the purchase of clothing, shelter, food, etc... Sources: 1. http://politicalderby.com...
Minimum Wage

Hopefully it is as interesting as our previous debate on science. Contentions: 1. Minimum wage causes unemployment Having the minimum wage set at a certain level does not mean an employer is required to pay everyone that amount. The employer is only required to pay that amount to the employees he chooses to keep. If the work of an employee is at a lower value than minimum wage, keeping the employee will end up ultimately causing the employer a loss. Thus, he will remove the employee. Since this will happen to many, unemployment will rise. 2. Large companies use minimum wage to stop competition While one may logically think that regulations such as minimum wage put a check on the most powerful corporations, this is not the case. Walmart, for example, discovered that it could use minimum wage to its advantage, and lobbied for its increase in 2005 (1). Since then, minimum wage has gone up from 5.15 to 7.25 (2). Walmart's executives did not do this because they wanted to help their employees. If that were the case, they would have just given raises. But by lobbying for an increased minimum wage, they force regulations on their competitors. They can pay it because they are rich enough, but their competitors don't have that ability, and suffer the consequences. While I don't know if there was a correlation, it is interesting that the raises in minimum wage took place during the time of the recent recession. I await my opponent's contentions and rebuttal. Sources: 1. . http://www.heritage.org... 2. . http://www.infoplease.com...
Atheism is a religion

This debate is turning into an interesting one, as I do agree with my opponent on many points. It seems that the debate mainly comes down to atheism non belief been classified as a supreme value. If non belief is a tenant, what does that actually mean? it seems that when we make this central tenant argument that we are trying to shift atheism from one non religious (an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group) definition to another religious (an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods) definition. This is a problem as atheism would not exist without religion, so how can it be a religion. However, It could be said that without religion atheism would still fall into a group defined as "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group. " But would it really? This definition would no longer be applicable as it would be a non necessary activity. Again I reiterate atheism would not exist without religion, so there would be no point to hold this interest/belief/activity if there was no religion. I also disagree that an atheist can hold the non belief view without a degree of rationality. If we look at an analogy to a mainstream religion it can be viewed in this way: Christianity has the bible, Islam has the Koran, Mormons have the Book of Mormon, while atheist have nothing. So to be a Christian or Muslim,you need to rationalize your faith with reference to a holy text. Atheism does not have a holy text, so in effect to hold the atheistic viewpoint you need to have some information on which it is based. This information, comes from sound rational ideas and is different for every atheist. If we insist that atheism is a religion in the interest/belief/activity sense of the word, then I suppose we should also add hockey fans, book readers, dog lovers, etc. to the group. After all It is true that they all have an interest/belief/activity which is very important to them. In closing religion is a highly emotionally charged word,which most people associate with a god. This god is normally defined as a being beyond our comprehension and as such to define atheism as a religion is in effect creating an incorrect association in the minds of most people.