BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

You failed to address my argument entirely, thereby giving it more credence, and you used the word "macroeconomics" without using any economic theory. 1) In fact, you seemed to acknowledge that workers would be laid off as a result of the minimum wage, but then essentially made the counterargument: If we lived in a fictitious world where there was economic stimulus and stability (whatever that means?), everyone would have a job. Unfortunately for you, I make my arguments in the real world (Which is why the Minimum Wage Should be Abolished); 2) The truth is that if there was no minimum wage, the cost of living would decrease, which I demonstrated in my introduction. You, however, simply invented a fictitious world where the cost of living stayed static no matter what any government policy did; 3) You also made the erroneous assumption that only businesses "set" prices. The truth is that with competing businesses all trying to gain the same pool of workers, they all would have to raise wages to a point where the amount of work would be correctly valued with the cost of living (otherwise, nobody would be willing to work); 4) You also never addressed the simple fact that having a job for low wages is undeniably better than having no job at all. Moreover, my hypothetical even paints a better picture than what really happens in the economy with the minimum wage. Because the wages are scaled for productivity, the number of workers fired as a result of the minimum wage increases exponentially (I just used simple math so that people who do not understand economics could follow the argument); 5) Lastly, you simply invent the assumption that in a "stable" economy everyone would be hired. No, no matter what the economy is like, prices are created by supply and demand, this is a scientific law no different from the laws of gravity. You could artificially raise the price so that it would not reflect the true supply and demand, but that does not create more jobs or put anyone in a better situation. I makes everyone worse with the higher prices of goods and services, plus more unemployment. In fact, the people who are most forgotten are those who never create a new businesses in the first place because it is not worth the cost. Overall, you failed to address my point and simply invented an alternative reality. That is just not a sufficient argument to combat the facts: The Minimum wage increases unemployment, increases the cost of living, and hurts the people who its well-intentioned sponsors want to help the most. I am sorry; but, if that is all you have I have won the argument.
The Minimum Wage Should be Abolished.

Let me begin by saying that I vehemently share your qualms with the american bussiness system. But culprit is neither minimum wage nor "ignorant do-gooders". the culprit a a lack of economic stimulation. I will proceed to use your example to display the benefits of a system of an economically stimulated system that continues to use MW (i will use MW to represent minimum wage throughout the round) In your example, you weigh that it is more beneficial to have 20 workers with 50 dollars each rather than 10 workers with 100 dollars. First, macroeconomically, you are mistaken: a worker who makes 50 dollars a week, no matter how many of them there are, are not going to buy as much as a worker who makes double. Put yourself in the situation, would you be more likely to buy, for example, an expensive car if you had 50 dollars or 100 dollars a week? Even though having 50 dollars would mean there are 20 people just like you, those other 19 people are no more likely to buy said car. If we assume you buy the car with 100 dollars, than we assume that the other 9 people can as well. Think of what you do when you have more money than you need: you buy more than you need. Now to focus on the microeconomic effect: youre absolutely correct in the assumption that those 10 people laid off due to the 10 people making more money are screwed. But this is only true in an unstable economy. In a stable economy, i invite you to re-examine your example: We can assume that the 10 people who keep their job and get more money are the 10 better workers out of the 20 total. In a stable economy, those 10 laid off are able to get another job, but one that pays less. To keep with your social darwinist theory, i think you'll agree that a high quality worker should, in fact, get paid more than a lesser worker. Finally, we see that there is no logistical alternative to minimum wage. Look back to your example: Now assume there is no law to what you can pay your employees and you still have your 1000 dollars. Can we assume that all bussiness owners would be respectful to their workers and pay honest wages? I think youll agree that industry does take advantage of its workers more often than wed like it to. In a free-for-all job market, i can gaurentee that he industries will prevail over their unsupported workers. In summation, i agree that there must be reform, but i cannot see how MW is the prevailing issue.
the u.s. should switch to a pre-set budget for campaigning

The court has held that you cannot cap the amount of money spent in a campaign:Also in 2006, the Supreme Court held that a Vermont law imposing mandatory limits on spending was unconstitutional, under the precedent of Buckley vs. Valeo [1]It is unconstitutional to limit spending for campaigns because it infringes upon our First Amendment rights to free speech. Political contributions have been established by the courts as a form of political speech and is thereby protected by the constitution. Such actions are unconstitutional and therefore cannot and should not be undertaken.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
the u.s. should switch to a pre-set budget for campaigning

You make valid points but you're not acknowledging the fact the government tells people what they can and can't do with there money all the time, for exampe; car insurance or drug policy. It could be easily done if you have a supporter with political courage. perhaps a better solution would be a spending cap on campaigning purchases. that would only be applied after a certain amount of fringe candidates are eliminated.
the u.s. should switch to a pre-set budget for campaigning

There are a couple of problems with the idea you have proposed:1) If there is no monetary influence then either a) candidates will be barred from purchasing TV and radio ad time or b) the stations will have to give away their air time for free. Both are bad. Without the natural filter of money and monetary backing to weed out the field many more people would run for office and have to get ads within their set budget or not get ads at all. This would be a confusing jumble of small information that would strain the information industry. 2) This restricts the freedom of the people running. If a person has the money to put into a campaign then they should be able to. The US government can't tell people who they can or cannot give their money to, who they can or cannot support etc. This would be a massive violation of political rights, something this country holds sacred.3) There will always be monetary influence. Barring legal monetary transactions will only open the door to seedier areas of money that wouldn't be as easily watched or controlled by the government thereby boosting corruption in elections.This idea you have set forth is a poor one.
If God was a person, he would be arrested.

Hmm... Rebuttals: "God of the old testament created all things. Life is a gift from God. Without God nothing would be possible and if God was arrested more lives would be lost and satan would be in control therfore making it dangerous to arrest God."-This is irrelevant. Modern society wouldn't care, when we see a murderer, we arrest them. "Since God created man he obviously has a love for us. This love is shown through the Bible. God had the chance to wipe out the human race but decided against it and that alone should prove how God's love is more overpowering than any crimes against him. Especially when you realize how much more good came from God than bad. In fact nothing bad ever came from God but from satan." -Not according to the verses I showed. Truthfully, the only thing God did good for humans was create them. In the rest of the bible, he kills millions of his creation. And for a preemptive rebuttal, just because God created us, doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants with us. Take our parents for example. If they kill us, they get arrested. If they force us to do something wrong, they could lose custody. If they rape, beat, or neglect us, they can lose custody and get arrested. Why? Because they are hurting living, breathing, thinking person. Killing a human is the worst crime one can commit; you remove that person's past memories, his conscience, and all of his future memories forever. You also can destroy the person's family, and their loved ones. That worst crime ever. That is no different for God. So as you see, God doesn't get a "Get out of jail free" pass. "First of all we are assuming an almighty omnipotent God from the Bible exists. First of all I would like to point out the impossibility of God being a person." -I said no kritkiks... "Second I'd like to point out that God is who decides what is right and wrong and it is him that makes a crime a crime so on that note God must be blameless." -So then you are saying God is a hypocrite? And God doesn't decide what is right and wrong; morality is subjective. I have question: Does God say murder is wrong because it is wrong, or is murder wrong because God says it is wrong? "Since God created man he obviously has a love for us. This love is shown through the Bible. God had the chance to wipe out the human race but decided against it and that alone should prove how God's love is more overpowering than any crimes against him. Especially when you realize how much more good came from God than bad. In fact nothing bad ever came from God but from satan." -So if a person decides not to kill every single person on the planet they created, that proves their love is strong??? Also, Satan killed like 10 people max. God killed 25 million people in the bible. So by basic logic, God is worse then Satan. To conclude, I believe my point stands. I have countered my opponent's rebuttals, and I have shown God's crimes, proving that if God existed as a human, he would be arrested. Good luck!
If God was a person, he would be arrested.

Okay time to take care of business. First of all we are assuming an almighty omnipotent God from the Bible exists. First of all I would like to point out the impossibility of God being a person. Second I'd like to point out that God is who decides what is right and wrong and it is him that makes a crime a crime so on that note God must be blameless. Now onto arguments. God Is Creator and Moderator God of the old testament created all things. Life is a gift from God. Without God nothing would be possible and if God was arrested more lives would be lost and satan would be in control therfore making it dangerous to arrest God. God is a people person Since God created man he obviously has a love for us. This love is shown through the Bible. God had the chance to wipe out the human race but decided against it and that alone should prove how God's love is more overpowering than any crimes against him. Especially when you realize how much more good came from God than bad. In fact nothing bad ever came from God but from satan. In conclusion... That is about all I can say in this round since burden of proof lies primarily on you I will mostly focus on rebutting your claims.
The Biblical account of the Flood is not historically accurate.

Resolution : The Biblical account of the flood as written in the Bible is not historically accurate. There is no emprical evidence to support the claim that the account of the flood in the bible is in fact true or historically accurate. Pro is accepting and defending the stance that the flood that occurred in the bible and the story of Noah is in fact true and is historically accurate. No semantics or trolling. StructureMe R1 : Resolution and rulesR2: Opening contentions, no rebuttalsR3: Closing statements, rebuilding contentions and offering rebuttalsAdversary R1: Opening contentionsR2: Closing statements, rebuilding contentions and offering rebuttalsR3: Shall type "no round as agreed upon"Rules [1]10k Character limit is allotted at can be used if needed[2] 48 hour argument time[3] A FF of a round will result in a loss of a conduct point, the FF of 2 rounds shall result in a full 7 point concession to the opposing contender. [4] Failure from con to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will result in a 7 point win for pro, because it will be an extra round for con[5] Valid RFDs must be given in votes.
You will not accept this debate, and I will not lose. [NOT CLICKBAIT]

No I have won mate. I am the greatest meme lord with shrek and harambae as my side kicks and sanic as my ruler. You have lost your odds of winning and you shal forfeit rigt now or get sh?t on by cu?t doku. I play roblox and kick as at it. 1v1 me In cod and you will lose
You will not accept this debate, and I will not lose. [NOT CLICKBAIT]

However I cannot lose, because it is stated in the rules that i cannot lose, because of this, I have not lost. there is however still hope for me in the slight chance that I may lose. Rule 5 states "you cannot vote against me" since no one can vote against me, my chances of not losing have increased. you have also clearly broken rule number 3. I am superior in every way. I'm THE GREAT LASAGNA. I WILL NOT BE DEFEATED.
Resolved: Co2 Theory is false.

Ok, my opponent never proves the Co2 Theory True, first of all. However, Co2 theory implies man-made. The only reason we are having this debate is to debate the fact that human Co2 emissions have caused global warming. But, either way my opponent has failed on both terms: 1)Even if we aren't debating human emission of Co2, my opponent has still failed to negate the resolution. A)He brings up first the argument from Libnez, which after my rebuttal has agreed that the experiment was only done on a small scale. He then brings up the Russian experiment. However ill give you the study and I'll explain how it doesn't help my opponent. "the new study improves the study of greenhouse warming in several ways: (1) It allows us to calculate exactly how much of the IR photon energy (intercepted by a CO2 molecule during a CO2-CO2 collision) is transferred directly to the neighboring gas molecule, where it is converted to kinetic energy of translation; it's about half of the IR photon energy. The other half of the IR photon energy goes to rotation of the two molecules, which will then start spinning more quickly. (2) It shows how to introduce higher-order effects, such as the simultaneous collision of three molecules. On Venus such collisions should add significantly to IR absorption. (3) It provides evidence that inter-molecular interactions at close range separations (interactions acting when the colliding molecules approach to within a few angstroms) have no effect on absorption, a conclusion in conflict with the mainstream belief that short range interactions should play a substantial role in collision induced molecular absorption." According to the site, it only improves the study. The study doesn't prove that HEAT is absorbes, it only proves that light can be transferred from molecule to molecule. And again, it was only done on a small scale. B) He never brings ANY scientific or empirical evidence to prove the heating effect. He uses INDIRECT studies to infer that heat is absorbed, but it hasn't been proven outright yet. You can drop my opponent's arguments. For this reason I win the blank Co2 Theory debate. Now, I'll explain why my opponent can't win the man-mad Co2 theory either. A) In his previous round, he already said that natural processes make global warming. B) He never proves that human Co2 is causing the heating. C) The Temperature record disproves human Co2 creation of global warming. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) The temperature record goes against the man-made Co2 Theory. 2) My opponent, nor any other study has proved man-made Co2 Theory true. 3) Even if you buy my opponent's only Co2 general theory argument, he still loses on the fact that its not proved that heat is trapped. 4) My opponent has essentially affirmed the resolution on the fact that in his previous rounds, he has agreed the natural process in the Co2/global warming debate. =============================================================================== IMPORTANT READ Letter to the IPCC: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com...
Resolved: Co2 Theory is false.

Ok first off the CO2 theory does not imply man-made emissions, just that CO2 is involved with heating the planet. I have given reasons for this correct statement, while my opponent has only offered his statement alone. He refers to the theory of man-made global warming, and if that was the point of this debate, he should have included it in the resolve. 1) My opponent fails to disprove the theory, as he fails to disprove the data that proves it. In response to the experiment done by Libnez, Simpson, and many other US government scientists, my opponent only offers Libnez's opinion. In response to the experiment done in Russia, my opponent states that "The study doesn't prove that HEAT is absorbes, it only proves that light can be transferred from molecule to molecule." My opponent has misunderstood what heat is. Radiation, which includes light, is heat, and therefore LIGHT IS HEAT! The study clearly shows that CO2 absorbs IR(infrared radiation) which is heat. Also even though the experiments were done on a smaller scale than nature, almost every experiment is done on a smaller scale than nature, this does not make them invalid. My opponent also says that I do not provide evidence, but "infer" from experiments. This another untrue statement, I have not "inferred" anything. The experiments I provided were meant to prove the CO2 theory, which they did. 2) My opponent has dropped ALL the attacks I made on his case. He must disprove the CO2 theory, and the only evidence he provides against me is a scientists opinion and a misunderstood statement about heat. He has not provided a single standing point against it! I realize that some people may wish for this to be about man-made global warming, so I'll show why my opponent's logic is flawed here too. 1) I have proven that CO2 does absorb heat, thus keeping in the Earth and heating the Earth. 2) CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past naturally, brought about by things such as an increase in volcanic activity. In present times, man is releasing massive amounts of CO2, and there have been no natural causes for the heating. 3) The temperature record merely shows times when the temperature has changed for reasons other than CO2. It is not the only thing that affects the climate! **Also, my opponents 3rd voting issue is also false. By absorbing heat, CO2 keeps it in the atmosphere and also radiates heat to the ground.(My very 1st point) ========================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) My opponent has failed to prove that CO2 does not absorb and retain heat. 2) The temperature record, and every other argument offered by my opponent does not stand. 3) My opponent continues to use the non-resolutional theory of man-made global warming, although he fails to prove that as well.
Britain should change its voting system to proportional representation.

You say that no system is ever perfect but some systems are closer to perfect than others. The system that you are arguing for is first past the post I presume. In this recent election Ukip (not my favourtite party) got 12.6% of the vote. That should get them 82 seats in the house of commons if it was done fairly. When I say fairly I mean percentage of seats per percentage of votes. However in first past the post Ukip only get one seat.The green party party got 3.8% of the vote. That should gaurantee them 24 seats. Typically though they only got 1 though. There are many other examples. For instance the Lib Dems should have got 51 seats. First past the post gave them 8.When you say that in first past the post everyone has an equal say you are wrong. If you live in my constituency where the tories have 52% of the vote and you are a green party supporter your vote doesnt count. However if we had proportional representation every vote from every person would count towards the actual numbers of Mps.You say that if you want a bigger say you can join a party and help campaign. But joining a party costs money. Joining The Tories Costs £25Joining Labour is £3.88 per month.Some people living on the minimun wage could not afford this.https://join.labour.org.uk...https://www.conservatives.com...
Britain should change its voting system to proportional representation.

Yes I agree the British voting system is not perfect. But what is perfect. Democracy will always be flawed their will never be a system where everyone has a say that is equal. The system in Britain is a good system because everyone has an equal say. The say may be small but an equal say all the best. You vote in your community for your MP if you do not like the MP that has been elected you wait for a term and then you vote again. If you want a bigger voice you join a party and you campaign to have a bigger say. The system in Britain works because if you have an issue to raise with the government you bring it up with your MP and they try and fix it. If you were to remake Britain what system would you use?
The means testing of social security benefits.

Since my opponent is not really participating in this debate, I'm just going to state two simple argument points:1. Not granting social security benefits to all can decrease popular support for the program: If not everyone are receiving the benefits, it is much likely for voters to turn against the program as it is part of human nature; no one should get it for as long as I am not receiving it. In order to keep the program funded, every working Americans need to pay for it.2. Difficulty in assessing who "need" the benefits:With a pension of $25,000 a year, you may just be fine living in one of the Southern states; but it is near impossible to live in L.A. or NYC. Social security benefits will not allow you to live grant, but it would at least supplement your income as to close down the gap a little bit. In either case the individual will be above poverty line, meaning he/she will not receive any social security benefit as what PRO argues for.