BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

Thank you my equally intelligent friend for providing accurate information that was accurate to the topic. At the speed of light I will explain what I my stand point is when referring to GED. I myself is thinking about dropping out of high school to obtain my GED after 4 months of classes. I have eligible reasons that should convince any one that opposes them. I do not have time to inform you on my plans so I will move on. The test itself consists of literature, arithmetic. science, social studies, and the ability to read/analyze writings. In more simple terms all the necessary skills needed to succeed in the occupational life. Therefor all the people who believe that one who does not receive said high school diploma is at a disadvantage in obtaining a job. I currently work in the fast food industry, and I do say it is a pit. Therefor I am actively looking for more jobs, and what skills they require. NONE OF THE JOBS THAT I APPLIED TO LEFT OUT THE GED AS REQUIRED EDUCATION.
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

We probably agree on what the GED itself is. We also seem to agree on what a debate is, a discussion between two sides who give opposing arguments. What's crucial is that there are two sides. Issues can be expressed either as questions that have a yes or no answer (for example, "Should we allow abortion?"), or in statment form ("We should allow abortion"), pro or con. We don't normally debate sky color, but notice the question "How should murder be punished?" has many answers (death, prison for life, prison with parole, probation, etc), and two-sided debates usually avoid such multi-polar discussions.I've already given my general opinion on GED as an evaluation tool. I think the proposition: "A GED is equally representative of education as a diploma" is incompletely formulated. Equivalent in what way? You can obtain a GED with little formal education if you study. The GED is thus a knowledge equivalent, but it may not duplicate important social aspects of attending high school.
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

Definition: "A debate is always on a question, say: "Should a GED be recognized as equivalent to a conventional diploma?"" Sorry for going off topic but YOUR WRONG. The true definition of a debate is "a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward". (Emphasis on topic) You were referring to my statement as not a question, which was what in your case the correct format of debating, but a a general statement. In actuality the phrase "High school diploma is as equal representation as GED", can be interpreted for the reader as being for, or against the topic. When you ask a question like "what color is the sky", the opponent would struggle preparing a defense because the question asked is most likely already a known fact by both debaters. The definition of GED, "used for educational testing services designed to provide a high school equivalency credential" My opponent will now share his ideas.
High school diploma is as equal representation of education as GED!

A debate is always on a question, say: "Should a GED be recognized as equivalent to a conventional diploma?" (yes or no). There are two considerations: Getting a GED is obviously not the same as attending classes for four years. For that reason, if you have a GED you can't claim to have a diploma. But a GED is evidence of possessing the academic skills and knowledge that a high school graduate would be expected to have. So, in that sense, it is an equivalent. I would hold that a GED should be accepted in lieu of a diploma for meeting educational prerequisites, say for admission to college. Employers of course won't be fooled, as they realize four years' attendance implies a measure of personal discipline a GED doesn't. So, employers should be able to decide for themselves how to treat a GED.
We shouldn't raise, but instead lower the minimum wage (or maybe not have one at all).

I'm not saying we should raise minimum wage mainly because the economy doesn't work that way, however I do believe there are some corporations and franchises that are simply being greedy bastards treating their employees like garbage. McDonald's for example is more then capable of paying their employees more then minimum wage, especially now that they are actually replacing cashiers with machines "yes it is finally happening". However there needs to be a minimum wage because some wages are just to low to make working meaningful. Trying to live on 8.25$/hour while being an extrovert is already hard enough, trying to do anything with a wage of $1.65/hour for example is just not possible for the majority, this is one of the main reasons a minimum wage was created in the first place, if it didn't exist then corporations would be paying their employees like borderline slaves. Removing minimum wage would have a MUCH worse effect then simply raising it a few dollars.
We shouldn't raise, but instead lower the minimum wage (or maybe not have one at all).

You mentioned nothing of small businesses joining together, and if it effects the lower wages then your still looking at a rise in unemployment for those who had said tasks.What do you mean fail anyway? they would only fail if you implemented this idea -_-And I'm not Rasict XDAnyone who has taken even a high school level economics class should understand the importance of diversity among the market place and competing businesses, yet you don't understand why diversity is important and say its RacistIf someone gets fired, then it will be difficult for them to be hired in the same field somewhere else because of the lack of business and diversity you will have created by implementing this, again raising the unemployment rate.Just leave the minimum wage, removing it is more problematic and unrewarding then simply leaving it alone.
We shouldn't raise, but instead lower the minimum wage (or maybe not have one at all).

I don't think you understand my claim... 1. This competition scenario would only effect lower status jobs - This is quite obvious but at a higher level (a job that needs a college degree and probably higher), as you can actually get denied because of your resume, interview, and at this level it's not all about money. 2. Exactly, those X's are a good thing. They weed out businesses that would have failed anyway earlier on. Also, it would be quite the same to start a small business. Ex. 1X, 2X, 3X, 4X, 5X 1X = all jobs are filled in a month Now this will happen to all 5X's until all spots are filled. If a small business joined (6X) there are many people who will apply as all the others are already taken. How will it cause a big rise in unemployment? Still, how will it cause less diversity? And, what does it matter if a workplace isn't "diverse"? Now that's racism. For some reason, people have a problem with a business that's just white. But if it's black, brown, etc. is totally okay and good.
We shouldn't raise, but instead lower the minimum wage (or maybe not have one at all).

Raising the prices over and over and over isn't stable for diversity let alone businesses in general -_-And what do you mean why less diverse?Lets say these X are businesses.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNow the wages get raised and some company's cannot afford to pay a higher minimum wage, so as a direct result they go out of business.XXXXXYou cant just keep raising the wage, one by one businesses will die until there are only a few remaining business super powers for certain things, smaller businesses will have all gotten weeded out and starting a new business will be borderline impossible. Not to mention this will cause a BIG rise in unemployment.Your basically doing what this film character from futurama did, but instead of wages its ice.The problem is you don't consider the consequences of your claims.
We shouldn't raise, but instead lower the minimum wage (or maybe not have one at all).

NO. And this is why I love capitalism. Let me tell you a story... Johny is going to high school and wats to get his first job. McDonald's hires him for $0 an hour, But wait a minute. Burger King swoops in and really wants Johny. So they offer him $1. But so does Chick-fil-a. So they pay him $2. And then Starbucks says, come on Johny you can't say no to $3.5 an hour. This will eventually happen until Johny finds an employer that will pay him the most money. It's crude capitalism. Since there is no minimum wage, the business can decide what it is. If it's too low, people will just go to other employers paying more. This will ultimately force that business to increase there minimum wage. In this society, businesses are forced to increase there wages because of competition. But what if all the higher paying jobs are taken you say? Then fire and deport all of the million illegal immigrants taking millions of blue collar jobs. What a wonderful society to work and live in.
Christianity Is the most sensical and true religion (nonchristians only)

Did you even read my previos argument?? The frst fact I stated was I am an aithiest. If "god" is all powerful can he can (hypotheticly) build any wall. Even one so high that nobody can jump it. So can he build a wall so high even he can not jump it? But he is all powerful Therfore he can jump any wall. The "Quantum Theory of Consciousness" is, by name, a theory, and therefore not to be taken as fact. I googled it and none of the top 20 result said anything about proving human consiese will go anywhere after death. The "god" in christianty is just as evil as mohammed is islam, he sent half his children to be endlessly toutred in hell. The bible also says the earth is flat. I wish to be respectful, but your points on hinduism are truly rediculos. 1. Not all hindus belive in the recussian cycle (I also find it a bit strange) 2. hindus do not have millions of gods. Some hindus belive in thousands, some hundreds, I have hindu friend who only belives in three. 3. Even if there were millions of gods this wold no make it unrealistic Christianity is not the most realistic religion.
Christianity Is the most sensical and true religion (nonchristians only)

What religion are you? Atheism: atheist dont believe in things till they are 100% proven, and they have seen it with their eyes... or science has proven it. this one is a bit harder to disprove, but ill try.: 1. Science has proven the afterlife with a thing called the "Quantum Theory of Consciousness" that states that humans consciousnesses will go to another universe after death. 2. Just because you cant scientifically prove something doesnt mean it doesnt exist. For example, i could say "Gravity doesnt exist" because we haven observed any gravitrons in the universe, the mindset of "something doesnt exist till i see it" is BULL... you dont want to see him once its too late to start believing Deism: This religion is interesting.. a deist could THEORETICALLY believe in Jesus... all deists dont believe the same things... so it isnt possible to disprove ISLAM!: Mohammed was a terrible person with child brides... does this sound like a trust-able guy? Mohammed made this religion to get followers for his dumb war. The quran claims sperm comes from between your backbone and ribs (86:6-7) the quran suggests the earth is flat (Surah 13:3, 15:19, 50:7, 51:48, 71:19, 20:53) Hinduism: Humans will go extinct and our world will eventually end, thus ending their resurrection cycle. Plus, they have millions of "gods"(lowercase g) this is simply not realistic Tell me your religion... i cannot name all of the religions off the top of my head Christianity is the most realistic religion
what is the best government set up.

Listen.... This would never work for one reason. This reason is a community just can't be based on love. It doesn't work. I really do wish it could, but it simply can't. People are selfish. That's just how the world works.. and how it will always work. People are not going to follow laws just because people want them to. Equality will never work either. There is no such thing as an equal nation. People will naturally fight to have better lives. Those who don't fight will be lower in the social and economical status. The ones that don't fight won't have much. And that fact is what makes nations grow. People have the right to use money the way they want, as long as it doesn't count as murder. As long as it doesn't surpass the constitution of independence. As long as it isn't morally evil. Otherwise, though, they worked hard for it or somebody else did. That is how things change. People pay for them to change. The money signifies work. People working is what will make us a greater country. If someone works hard enough for something, they deserve to have it happen. No one can buy whatever they want to. There is not enough money for that. Hardly anyone has enough money for that. Yes, they can get a lot out of money. But that is the price many other people and I would be willing to pay for our nation to grow. For us to get better. Paper money does have value. You can feed your family with it. You have more choices with it. You need medicine? You got medicine. With a botanical system as the grain one.... you need medicine? Too bad. No one is going to work that hard to make something so hard to make for grain and fruits. I am very happy that we have paper money. Our entire nation would collapse without it. My nation wouldn't change. My opinion hasn't changed. My first government idea will still be my one and only government idea. But thank you for the debate. I enjoyed speaking with you. Now the voting period has begun.
what is the best government set up.

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." President James A. Garfield. Paper money has absolutely no value it is nothing but a way for the people in control of it to gain control of the people. While the grain idea might have not been the best idea it was merely an idea agianst paper money. The government would not be centralised if you reread my idea for the government (i know it is kind of confusing) there would not be anyone with an elected or any other position besides the level of respect they get. The tests would be examined by their community. If read carefuly enough this form of government would also prevent any kind of vote miscount be it on purpose or by accident. Teacher's evaluations would also be evaluated by the community. The teachers themselves would be put to high standerds as the training of the next generation is highly important. In conclusion Any government or peoples that wish to live long and prosperious need to be based on love and equality.
what is the best government set up.

As I said, people would decide when they want change. They can send a letter to the house stating what change they would like, and the house sends it out to the people to vote on. If people work hard enough for something they should be able to buy what they want as long as it doesn't negatively change anyone's lives. Also, the test to decide if you can have children or not is a violation of human rights. The government controls whether you are aloud to have children or not? They shouldn't be allowed to have such immense control over our every day lives. The government does not own us. With the system of voting, we already do this.. we debate. Not in the same way, but we do. Also, all teachers have different opinions. Laws are made up of the voters opinions. If the teachers do not agree with the students, does that make the teachers always right and the students always wrong? An opinion can never be right or wrong. By the way there is no such thing as fake money. Money is a form of currency. The green paper is as real as the grain idea... and even more useful than it.
what is the best government set up.

The Idea with the grain is to make monopolies impossible because if they are possible all one of them would have to do is pay off the right people and they would have control. It would be both debateing and then voting on the debate basicly. The parents would take a written test and when they had the baby they would be watched for any signs that they would abuse the child. Question for you How would the people decide when to vote for the positions?
what is the best government set up.

My government would change it quickly, setting it up for the future. Things are easy to change, so we can quickly adapt to any sudden change in the world. If something happens then we can react and fix the issue. Also, we would be using the same money as right now. I don't see the point in exchanging grains. Nothing would work correctly, and America would be very hard behind all of the other countries. Trading amongst ourselves would end and a large number of people would be left jobless, and many other family would be unstable. Money was created to avoid many of the bad things that would come from such simple trade........ ...and how would adults be tested to make sure they do not hurt children? Would they just be stuck in a room with a child and told ' Here you go. Stay in here for a few days without physically injuring or molesting him!' There isn't really a way to test it. *yes btw, I do know my thing about the decreasing suicide rates mixed with voting was stupid* Also a few questions. Would your government be based on debating? On voting? Voting seems more efficiant, so more people are happy than are not happy, and again, a much quicker American reaction time twords the rest of the world. The decreased taxes would take a lot of people out of lower class, making America more stable.
what is the best government set up.

My government would have many things in it. 1. Everyone would be taught how to debate and see faults in ideas. 2. For every law there would be a debate, each debate would have two or more sides depending on complexity. 3. Then every one would talk about it in groups of four or five then one of those people would talk to four or five other people who just talked to four or five people each. This would continue until it got to the last few people who would then make a decision on what the people thought. 4. Then it would go back to the people to vote on how accurate they felt the conclusion was accurate. 5.Teachers of the students would decided when they are ready to be in this process. 6.Basic needs would be considered first priority. 7.Parents would be tested for moral worthiness, tested to make sure they wouldn't abuse or neglect their children. 8. conservation and recycling would be mandatory. 9. There would be no "fake" money as the kind there is today there would only be useful money: grain and other various food products and supplies.
Labor Regulations

Even right here on Debate.org, the vast majority of people side with Ben Carson in believing that raising the minimum wage would increase unemployment. (See http://www.debate.org...). Beyond that, raising minimum wage across the board (such as the federal mandate proposed by Sanders) would inevitably result in businesses raising goods and services prices to account for the additional money they are spending in payroll which would not only negate any benefit, (maybe people make more, but if they have to spend more - it's a wash) but would also put even more financial strain on middle-class Americans who were meant to benefit from the wage hike in the first place. As businesses start looking to cut costs (to make up for higher wages), it's very likely that benefits (such as paid time off, employee reimbursement, tuition assistance, and other perks) would be drastically reduced or cut. Employees would then have to pay for these expenses out of their own pockets, further reducing their effective take-home pay. Raising the federal minimum wage is not an effective or sustainable way to accomplish the goals that Sanders is fighting for. Although it seems like a federally mandated minimum wage of $15 per hour would improve the financial situation of millions of Americans, it would actually bring about serious negative consequences for businesses, middle-class American families, and our economy as a whole.
Labor Regulations

On the contrary, the so-called Republican standard "trickle down" effect paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Big businesses and companies are always going to seek cheap labor in order to cut down on overhead costs so they can turn more of a profit. The CEOs at the top can donate to charities and institutions or offer bonuses for employees when the company does well but in the end the money trickles down only so far and it grows thinner the farther it trickles. Currently, lower-income Americans relying on minimum wage jobs do not have much of a safety net, nor even a way to keep up with inflation, really. Every society will have a lower-income class, and the strong and just societies should protect and strengthen this class. For as Sanders stipulates: "Millions of American employees have been working 50 or 60 hours a week while receiving no overtime pay. That is why Bernie has been encouraging the Obama Administration to ensure that more workers receive overtime pay protection. The Administration"s new rule extending that protection to everyone making less than $947 a week is a step in the right direction. It is a win for our economy and for our workers" (BernieSanders.com). Hence, Sanders is truly fighting for American workers and families. Plus, increased wages and overtime and other things like paid family leave will ease the constant stress of the American worker. Research has shown that when people are not stressed, grinding out long hours at work, they actually are more productive: http://www.cnbc.com.... Therefore, protecting workers with dignified wages and not overworking them will actually make our economy more productive. It's a win-win situation. Vote for Bernie!
Labor Regulations

While I believe that everyone in America stands by the right for individuals to earn a "living wage," increasing the federally mandated minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour is not an effective or sustainable way to help Americans support themselves and their families. Based on position statements on the Marco Rubio website, Rubio and other conservative Republicans indicate that increasing minimum wage through federal law would be seriously detrimental to small businesses across the country who would not be able to sustain the increase - and therefore risk going out of business. If that happens, unemployment would soar and the very people who were meant to benefit from the minimum wage increase would find themselves in a much worse financial situation, as a result. The logic that increasing the take home income of Americans will put money right back into the economy is fundamentally flawed based on the fact that it takes significant amounts of time for that money to trickle back up to the businesses that are supposedly sustaining the growth through payroll. Instead, I would argue that Marco Rubio's top-down approach - in which tax cuts for businesses, along with smarter economic policies, would help to create jobs that pay more. Historically, minimum wage laws have not helped the middle class attain more prosperity; they simply deplete small business' ability to sustain economic and fiscal growth.
Labor Regulations

According the Bernie Sanders, America's one true hope for a social democracy that truly values and protects the working and middle classes, minimum wage pay is simply not enough for millions of Americans to support themselves and their families. I wager that in light of the wisdom found in Bernie Sanders' campaign website, that by raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, the American economy will finally feel the kind of stimulation that it needs as millions will be taking home more income, which will inevitably be put right back into the economy. Therefore, I agree with and argue adamantly for Bernie Sanders ideas on labor regulations. Over time, the minimum wage should be significantly raised.