BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An open discussion about religion in general

Above, the con point of view was argued, therefore i will now argue the pro point of view more in depth. Religion is something that gives people hope. It provides answers to questions. It does charitable things. Most importantly it unites people. Below I will go into more detail on those 4 points. Religion gives people hope. The concept of heaven makes death a less scary to people. It is a place where people go after they have passed. That helps people know that even though their loved ones are gone, they are still there in spirit. Science could never make you feel that same way about death that religion does. Religion also answers questions. In the Bible, everything is explained. If a child wants to know where people go after they die, then heaven is a great answer. People look to the Lord in times of need and pray to him. God is not a wish granting factory, he simply answers questions and provides support. Many churches do very charitable things. They do things from collecting clothes for needy children, to raising money for certain foundations, to making food for the homeless. Religion encourages giving back to the community. Finally, religion unites people. It gives everyone a sense of family and community. Your church can and will support you when times get tough. The Bible says that all are God's children. Religion is one thing thay two very different people can agree upon.
An open discussion about religion in general

I am not pro-religion or anti-religion necessarily. I do believe that religion is a good thing for some people. It helps answer their questions. It gives them something/someone to look to in times of need. It gives them hope. In a perfect world, religion sounds great. However, we don't live in a perfect world. In the modern imperfect world, religion is a controversial issue. Terrorism is the result of different religious beliefs. The Catholic church shuns gay people just because of their sexual orientation, which they cant control by the way. Religion has its ups and downs. Im just curious to hear other people's opinions on the topic.
Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy

Salutations. Today I will debate ResponsiblyIrresponsible on the issue of the minimum wage. I thank him for inviting me to this discussion. I will be making the case that the minimum wage, will in fact, be a detriment to the US economy. To begin with, I will discuss the pros and cons of a minimum wage. Some notable benefits of this are of course higher wages for some workers. These people spend their money into the economy, growing it. However, their are some cons as well. A minimum wage, in essence, is a price control. It artificially boosts the cost of labour which in return diminishes demand for workers. Companies will hire fewer employees. This also is detrimental to interns, who often work for free. Another problem with the minimum wage system is inflation. If, say, a minimum wage increase occurred, a company may have to make up for the raised cost of employment by pushing up consumer prices, thus creating inflation. The net effect would just be higher prices for everyone, rendering wage increases fruitless. Now I shall discuss a scenario in which there is no minimum wage in the US economy. This setting can actually be attributed to a period in US history, before 1938 (establishment of the minimum wage). During this time period, employers and employees were free to negotiate wages amongst each other. A company could not simply set a low wage and expect workers to accept the job, since competition between other employers would prevent this. For example, take the Ford Motor Company. In 1914, Ford payed his assembly line workers $5 a day, which adjusts to around $116 today. This was the result of advancing technology and competition amongst companies, or capitalism. So we see here that a decent income average can be achieved without a minimum wage law. I apologize if I made any formatting mistakes as I am new to this website. And I once again thank my opponent for challenging me. Sources: Minimum wage- http://www.dol.gov... Henry Ford- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Raising the federal minimum wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy

Thank you to BobtheCanOpener for agreeing to this debate.Resolved: Raising the Federal Minimum Wage would be a net detriment to the U.S. economy Definitions and ParticularsFederal Minimum Wage -"The minimum hourly rate of compensation for labor, as established by federal statute and required of employers engaged in businessesthat affect interstate commerce. Most states also have similar statutes governing minimum wages" (1).Raising - We'll be using the most recent proposal being debated by Congress, which is increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Detriment - "a cause of loss or damage" (2). Net - "remaining after deductions, as for charges or expenses (opposed to gross) (3). As is probably self-explanatory, we're dealing with whether the net effects of raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour would be positive or negative. PRO will argue that raising the minimum wage will be, on balance, harmful to the U.S. economy, whilst CON will argue that raising the minimum wage would be, on balance, beneficial to the U.S. economy. The burden of proof will be equally split for both debaters.StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is shared. Sources (1) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...;(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...;(3) http://dictionary.reference.com...;Thank you again to BobtheCanOpener. I look forward to a productive discussion.
The walls of DDO should be smeared with the blood of trolls, spammers, and the opinions section

Pro fails to provide sufficient sources to backup his arguments. Anyway, I will refute his arguments. "Its the spammers, trolls, and the opinions section which are the reason why its so sh*tty in the first place" Just like its the fact that nobody wants to show me any respect that makes this world so sh*tty. [1] "It would be fun to watch all of them be banned/ceremoniously killed" [2] Wouldn't be fun for the spammers and trolls. [3] "It would be cool to see DDO with splattered blood all over the walls and give it a nice change from all the white that you see"[4] Wouldn't be cool for trolls and spammers and the opinion section. And besides, you might not have enough people left to debate with if you kill so many. "It would look decorative" [5] The only way to find that out would be to conduct a survey and ask people what they consider "decorative". "It would be a nice team-building exercise" You never defined the team.[6] "If Stalin says it is ok to trust someone, then usually the exact opposite must true." You may be right there...however I never said its ok to trust spammers, trolls, and I most definitely would never trust a person with an opinion. I ONLY TRUST PEOPLE WHO DO WHAT I TELL THEM TO DO!!!!!!!!! Source: http://www.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.wired.com... http://www.wired.com...
The walls of DDO should be smeared with the blood of trolls, spammers, and the opinions section

Reasons why smearing blood is NOT GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ARGUMENT 1: All successful people spam and troll Lets face it, Hitler spammed and trolled. He ended up conquering all of Europe. I mean he trolled Poland, Russia, France, you name it. Only problem is that then he lost but he blamed that on the Jews and on his generals. He also spammed like ****. Here is a video to prove this. http://www.youtube.com... Even Jack Sparrow trolled all the time. He ended up being the winner at the end of each movie. ARGUMENT 2: Good exercise Spamming is good exercise for your fingers. I mean you press those keys again and again and again. http://en.wikipedia.org...(electronic) ARGUMENT 3: Spamming and trolling is fun We are all here in DDO to have fun right? Well just because your racist to minority groups, it doesn't mean that those groups do not deserve to have fun. ARGUMENT 4: Its DDO's fault that spamming messes up the website. I mean I play that game StarCraft 1 and I spam all the time. The game doesn't break or anything. The idea of DDO is to have fun:D:D:D:D:D:D ARGUMENT 5: ITS NOT NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I mean common, really? This is DDO, not vampire land. Smearing the blood of DDO trolls, hackers, and spammers is just not cool. Hitler blamed the Jews for his problems, so he killed millions of them. If we start blaming hackers and spammers and start killing them then that means we did not learn from history. Conclusion: The problem isn't that Pro hates trolls, its just that hes scared of them even though as somebody pointed out in the comments section, Pro is a troll. Spammers may be annoying, but some people find them somewhat "funny". The opinion section is all about having fun, just like the entire DDO website is supposed to be all about. Additional Sources: http://www.wired.com...
The walls of DDO should be smeared with the blood of trolls, spammers, and the opinions section

I find it ironic that Stalin would be AGAINST smearing the blood of people on walls to serve as a warning..... But whatevs.Reasons why the walls of DDO should be smeared with the blood of trolls, spammers, and the opinions section:1) Trolls, Spammers, and the Opinions Section are the three bane's of DDOIf you ask anybody what they dont like the most about the site, trolls, spammers, and the opinions section are on everyone's shortlist.... Trolls derail intelligent conversations and most of them are hated, spammers spam polls and forums just for attention which is annoying and detrimental to the site, and the opinions section is like the hideous creature that never should have been made in the first place. If all three of these things were to be killed off, then almost everyone would agree that the site would vastly be improved and be a more likable place to spend one's time on2) The blood of these three things can be used as a warning to future trolls and spammersRule number 43 of the internet is that if you get rid of one troll, 4 more will appear...... Actually rule 43 is something way worse than that but im sure that one of the rules of the internet is that if you get rid of one idiot, 4 more will be born. By smearing the blood of past trolls, spammers, and the opinions section on the walls of DDO though, it could serve as a warning to future trolls and spammers who make their way to the site, and warn them that they are not welcome here and that they will end up as a bloodied corpse on the site with his/her brethren...... 3) 'You cant smear the walls of DDO with yatta yatta yatta because DDO doesnt have any walls'The walls I'm referring to are all the white spaces you see on DDO. You can find them on the left and right of your screen and a small sliver on the bottom of the page too, those are the spaces im referring to when I say 'the walls of DDO'4) 'you cant get blood from trolls, spammers, and the opinions section since they technically dont have blood'Then we'll put some blood on the walls and claim that its that of the trolls, spammers, and the opinions section once we get rid of all of em..... Im sure that future trolls and spammers will elieve it since come on, trolls and spammers are idiots who can believe anything5) It will look nice for DDOI mean have you seen DDO on your phone? Its all white, and could certainly use some color. Some nice crimson red splattered around DDO would give it a nice hue and perception that people on here know how to kick a** and take names.....
The walls of DDO should be smeared with the blood of trolls, spammers, and the opinions section

Some of you saw yesterday or a few days ago that DDO could not be accessed because according to the error message some people received, there was no more memory space in the servers to access DDO. The issue has been resolved now, but this near brush with death by DDO demonstrates how frail DDO really is as a site and how all that we know and love can be taken away from us because retarded monkey fetuses spammed the site with too much irrelevant sh** for the servers to support. Therefore I am arguing that DDO should kill off the entire opinions section, and ban all the trolls and spammers of DDO since apparently their actions have caused DDO to almost shut down to to all the sh** is has to remember.
The Iraq War

//1) No matter what, war only leads to future depressions in civilizations, by means of violence and killing. War should not be used to resolve problems of people which we hate due to personal reasons. Problems should be handled with peace, by the means of creating a better world for the future.// Some wars are necessary. WWII was the result of WWI - but has Germany done anything since then? No! If we had stood passively, more would have died and we may be dealing with the NAZIs today. We TRIED diplomacy with Saddam Hussein. Saddam was such an idiot and arrogant fool, he didn't listen. It isn't like we declared an invasion 5 minutes after 9/11. //2) War with Iraq means we have less access to the supplies we need for our daily life. Iraq's main supply is oil, which most nations need in order to keep their their economy at bay. If we fight, the Iraqians will cut off the access which we are lucky to have now and our supply of goods will decrease, meaning harder lives for people.// According to the CIA factbook, Iraq EXPORTS (mostly to us) 1.83 million bbl/day of oil. This is very high, especially for a country of their stature. Iraq hasn't cut our access as much as you say it has. Around 40.5% of the oil exported goes the US and Canada. Either way, we are in it for the people -- not the money or oil. //3) Using means of war will create more war. Iraq will only want to use war until we give up, bringing back to my point that more innocent people will be hurt as long as the war continues. Not only people, but the American and othe National troops will get hurt or even killed. They could possibly have families they need to support but with them gone their families could have a much harder life, creating depression bringing back to my first point.// Has another war started because of the Iraq War? We are hardly at war. We are at war all ground the world with many countries as our allies, but that is against terrorism. We aren't fighting Iraqis, and the only thing that dares to attack is a suicide bomber. Coalition forces are only there to assist Iraqis in monitoring internal and cross-border security! We have killed 60,000+ terrorists for the death of 4,000 Americans, who KNEW that they could die, KNEW what could happen when they signed up, and did NOT die in vain. I would say that is a fair swap (60,000 to 4,000).
The Iraq War

My opponent showed good information but here are some reasons of why Iraq shouldn't be delt with using war. 1) No matter what, war only leads to future depressions in civilizations, by means of violence and killing. War should not be used to resolve problems of people which we hate due to personal reasons. Problems should be handled with peace, by the means of creating a better world for the future. 2) War with Iraq means we have less access to the supplies we need for our daily life. Iraq's main supply is oil, which most nations need in order to keep their their economy at bay. If we fight, the Iraqians will cut off the access which we are lucky to have now and our supply of goods will decrease, meaning harder lives for people. 3) Using means of war will create more war. Iraq will only want to use war until we give up, bringing back to my point that more innocent people will be hurt as long as the war continues. Not only people, but the American and othe National troops will get hurt or even killed. They could possibly have families they need to support but with them gone their families could have a much harder life, creating depression bringing back to my first point.
The Iraq War

My opponent claims: //" ...if we stay and fight more innocent people will get hurt, and counteracting with a war will only lead to another war, thus not needed, war is mainly the center of violence."// Innocent people are always casualties, no matter what. Our military is not allowed to fire on civilians, or throw grenades on al Qaeda agents with civilians nearby. The United States army does not use living people for shields as terrorists we fight do. The loss of innocent lives is largely due to al Qaeda and other's undignified tactics. //"2) Yes, because he led his troops to hurt innocent people and yes, stopping him ment the best for the world."// I agree; Saddam was a monster. As a result of the War in Iraq, Saddam was overthrown and the 200,000 people (who were executed by his Baath party) were the only one he could kill. So, Hussein was disposed of due to the war. If it were not for our invasion, he would still be out there. //"3) Well the positive affects of the war as I see it is allowing the Iraqies to know that we won't give up to the affects of stopping the war war. The negative affects include more war, we fight, it only let's the know that we want to fight which will lead to more war, as I said before, war is not good.'// Our war in Iraq has not lead to any more wars in the last half-decade we have been there. War is terrible, but sometimes is necessary. We have fought and killed over 60,000 terrorists. The death of the US soldiers is under 6,000. I'd say a 1:10 ratio of death of soldier to terrorist is a good one.
The Iraq War

Now there is a few things that may seem as though wrong about it, and these are my decisions on it. 1) To leave them along, if we stay and fight more innocent people will get hurt, and counteracting with a war will only lead to another war, thus not needed, war is mainly the center of violence. 2) Yes, because he led his troops to hurt innocent people and yes, stopping him ment the best for the world. 3) Well the positive affects of the war as I see it is allowing the Iraqies to know that we won't give up to the affects of stopping the war war. The negative affects include more war, we fight, it only let's the know that we want to fight which will lead to more war, as I said before, war is not good.
Minimum Wage

That is my problem. Someone can't work for $5 an hour. As a high school student working at Starbucks, I'd be totally willing to work as a barista for $5. Yet even though I and the mployer agree on a $5 an hour wage, It's still illegal. Luckily I got the job, Unforutneatly millions of high-schoolers/college students won't because the work and expierience they have is not worth $7. 25. Regarding your greedy capitalists, You know what that person who's working $5 an hour does? He quits. If all the employess threatened to quit unless there wages were raised, The "greedy capitalist" would be forced to higher their wages. This system puts more power and leverage into the employee's hands rather than the employer. In short, Businesses are fighting to get employees always trying to top the other employers wage. In the end, This would make the minimum wage probably much higher than $7. 25. Only thing this time, The employers are willing paying their employees more.
Minimum Wage

According to my opponent, Society would be better if we did not in fact have a minimum wage. I'm here to negate this opinion. Presumably during the creation of this resolution it was referring to the US federal minimum wage of $7. 25 and I would like the voters to keep in mind that my argument will mainly be focused on the US economy due to me being located in the United States. From a philosophical standpoint abolishing the minimum wage seems like a good idea. Skilled workers who excel at their jobs get paid accordingly and unskilled workers who do not put effort into their jobs also get paid accordingly. This idea of a minimum wage almost seems communistic and unnecessary to a US inhabitant. But the sad truth is that in our capitalist society that workers will not get compensated in a way that they can provide for themselves much less their families. Without a minimum wage, What prevents greedy capitalist business owners to just cut their unskilled workers pay to $5 an hour. However unlikely and immoral the minimum wage existing prevents this from happening. According to Scott Summers of Forbes, There are 9 developed countries in Europe that don't have a "conventional" minimum wage. These countries have had many labor reforms and their governments subsidize their wages. This is plausible in the US some years into the future but these countries also have a lower price of living as healthcare and college are free in these countries while in the United States they are grossly overpriced, But that is another debate. Furthermore, None of these 9 countries are completely missing a minimum wage, Rather they are missing the "conventional" minimum wage which applies to all workers per hour. These countries have specific minimums for specific occupations for different periods of time. I would also like to add that this article, The most recent I could find, Was written in 2013 and since them some countries have actually put in a minimum wage as it doesn't hurt anybody, Such as Germany's Mindestlohngesetz (Minimum Wage Act) instituted in 2014 which has matched its economy's inflation to 9. 19 euros per hour.
Happiness is the ultimate goal of all lives

What is the reason for that happiness is not the ultimate goal of lives? You already agreed with my opinion by saying 'happiness is what we want and try to achieve.' There is no proof for organisms need to survive. Do people think mosquitoes, terrorists need to survive? If 'all organisms need to survive' is correct, How can you conclude 'survival is the ultimate goal' from this premise? All organisms need nutrition. Could we infer that nutrition is our final goal? Survival is not the final goal. Some animals involving humans decide to die for happiness. They think that death is good for own or other's happiness. Recall suicides, soldiers, martyrs and so on. They apparently want to achieve happiness more than survival.
Happiness is the ultimate goal of all lives

I will argue that happiness is NOT the ultimate goal in our lives. Instead, I would like to say that survival is. I am new to this site and so may not be very good at debating. However, I will try my best. My point here is that happiness is what we want and try to achieve. It is important but not the ULTIMATE goal in life. All organisms NEED to survive, so therefore, I believe that survival is the ultimate goal.