BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage

My opponent asserts that a low minimum wage would only outsource a few jobs. This is correct in the short run; however, in the long run, a deflatory recession would push more and more jobs out of existence. The best option therefore would be to have no minimum wage, as it would allow for wages to fluctuate. Government cannot set a fixed minimum wage and change it effectively to react to day-to-day market changes. Government is not that efficient. And again, as I have stated, the minimum wage produces no positive effect. My opponent's only argument remaining for it is that it allows people to remain surviving. This would be an issue if there weren't a "natural" market minimum wage. Even Karl Marx conceded that people can earn no less than a natural minimum wage equal to the minimal costs of living. This is because the natural minimal costs of labour are equal to the costs of subsisting workers. Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations, agreed: . http://www.econlib.org... (Chapter 8, Of the Wages of Labour: "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr. Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must every where earn at least double their own maintenance" From same chapter: "There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably above this rate [meaning double the costs of the maintinence of the workers]; evidently the lowest which is consistent with common humanity. " So, a minimum wage is not even necessary to keep workers from starving, as the market naturally gives workers enough to subsist times 2. I will now let my opponent present his final case.
Minimum Wage

First of, I would like to clarify my position. I am not for a higher minimum wage, but a lower minimum wage that is around the wage that should actually be paid. The minimum wage should be like the minimum needed for survival. 1. "If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect. " Right. The person would get paid higher than minimum wage because that what the job produces. This has no negative effect because it has no effect. 2. "If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. This occurred in American Samoa with the canning industry. " This only happened because government did not regulate the minimum wage effectively. The workers were already getting a fair amount and the minimum wage should not have been raised. Again, I am not for a higher minimum wage, but one that stops companies from taking advantage of employees. Also, how many jobs are actually producing lower than the minimum wage? Not a lot. 3. "-Employees may strike until wages and/or benefits improve -Employees may organize into labour unions and therefore force employers to pay them monopoly wages" Yes, but some employees have to survive. If they went on a strike, they would no longer have a source of income and therefore would not be able to buy food or pay bills. This is not an option they can afford. 4. My opponent asserts that jobs should be eliminated if they are not especially valuable. This is the primary cause of unemployment during a recession; as wage deflation occurs, more and more jobs are pushed below the minimum wage line. This explains why states with a higher minimum wage (Michigan) are hurt worse during economic downturns. . http://www.house.gov...... . http://www.epionline.org...... . http://netrightnation.com...... Again, I do not want a higher minimum wage, but one where people can still survive.
Minimum Wage

Wage is always less than the value of the hourly produce of an employee's labour. Otherwise, the employee would not be hired. Because of the nature of wage, we can divide the effects of minimum wage into three categories: -When the value of the minimum wage is below what would otherwise have been paid -When the value of the minimum wage is above the real value of the produce of labour -When the value of the minimum wage is between what would otherwise have been paid and the real value of the produce of labour If a minimum wage is lower than a job would otherwise pay, then it has no effect. If a minimum wage is higher than the economic value of a job, then it eliminates that job from economic feasibility. This occurred in American Samoa with the canning industry. . http://www.realclearmarkets.com... If a minimum wage is higher than what a job would otherwise pay, but lower than the economic value of a job, then the costs of labour increase. If the costs of labour increase, the costs of products the labour produce increase. If the costs of the products that said labour increases, then the price of everything goes up. This price inflation balances out the effect of the minimum wage, so that the real (as opposed to nominal) value of the minimum wage drops again below the price labour would have otherwise paid. This effect is comparable to the "negative feedback" system in the human body. So, in no case can a minimum wage have a positive effect. Further, the third said case causes politicians to again raise the minimum wage, eliminating more jobs and creating more price inflation. Now, to my opponent's case: 1. My opponent asserts that the minimum wage protects workers from company abuse. However, there are other ways to do this without a minimum wage: -Employees may strike until wages and/or benefits improve -Employees may organize into labour unions and therefore force employers to pay them monopoly wages A minimum wage, however, is compulsory, and has negative economic effects, as discussed earlier. 2. My opponent asserts that jobs should be eliminated if they are not especially valuable. This is the primary cause of unemployment during a recession; as wage deflation occurs, more and more jobs are pushed below the minimum wage line. This explains why states with a higher minimum wage (Michigan) are hurt worse during economic downturns. . http://www.house.gov... . http://www.epionline.org... . http://netrightnation.com... In this manner, a minimum wage law intensifies recessions by increasing unemployment and limiting the market's ability to adapt.
Minimum Wage

Minimum Wage is the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that employers may legally pay to employees or workers". http://en.wikipedia.org.... I am PRO, therefore my objective is to prove that having a minimum wage does more good than bad. For CON to win, he must prove that having minimum wage is the worst possible option. 1. The reason that minimum wage was first introduced was because of companies taking advantage of it employees. They did this by paying them incredibly low wages. Since they made so little money, they had very little to spend on other things but food. However, with the minimum wage, they could earn a little more than bare minimum. 2. Also, minimum wage is actually pretty low. $6.55 an hour is not much money to employers that earn millions. And most jobs that employ people at minimum wage actually would earn that much money any way. I agree that if a certain job produces much less profit than should be earned with minimum wage, the law should not be enacted there. However, as a whole having minimum wage is a better option compared to the alternative of no minimum wage. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I will review more arguments in round 2.
Elephants should be able to own private property.

I am awake at roughly 4:00 A.M. because of this debate Stupidape :PThese are the questions that the voters must now answer for themselves:Can elephants legally assume ownership of private property if they don't have the ability to claim such things? What if you were to give an elephant a razor sharp knife? Could you reasonably tell (in a legal sense) whether or not the elephant chose to except ownership of your gift? Can elephants legally assume ownership of private property if they don't have the ability prove that they own it in a court of law? Should elephants be able to earn monetary compensation even though the concepts of monetary compensation and financial management are impossible to explain to an elephant?A robot can be given money because we can program a robot understand the concept, but elephants? I can't wait to see what the voters think about this one :) Thanks to Con for a wonderful debate and thanks to the voters for voting!
Elephants should be able to own private property.

"private property n 1. land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use" [1] There's no property tax on belongings, like a stash of peanuts or a straw bed. I see no good reason an elephant should be denied this right. Besides if we paid elephants for their work, they would be able to pay property taxes. Some elephants work hard, why shouldn't they receive monetary compensation? Robots in a Japanese hotel already do. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Elephants should be able to own private property.

Much thanks to Pro for bringing up the topic of brains :DI am currently completing my 1-year hospital internship and neurosurgical residency program as I have aspirations to become a neurosurgeon within the next few years.Surprisingly, an elephant's brain is similar to that of a human's in terms of structure and complexity. How cool is that!?Indeed, the reason for why elephants cannot own private property is not because they aren't smart enough.The main reason that an elephant cannot own private property is because an elephant cannot pay property tax :)It is true that some types of African elephants are endangered. However, this is not because humans are stealing food from the elephants or something of that nature. Unfortunately, elephants are endangered because ivory is so valuable to some humans that many elephants have been illegally killed for their tusks.While elephants do not own any private property for many reasons, humans do have large areas of land reserved just for the elephants. We also have plenty of laws set up to protect their well being.If you want to learn more about this, just click on the link! --> https://www.elephants.com... Thanks so much and have a nice day
Elephants should be able to own private property.

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Elephant "The largest land mammal on earth" [1] Resolution "The display resolution or display modes of a digital television, computer monitor or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed. It can be an ambiguous term especially as the displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in cathode ray tube (CRT)," [2] Own "belonging to oneself or itself "usually used following a possessive case or possessive adjective " [3] https://www.worldwildlife.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

I accidentally forgot to respond to fowls and insects, but it doesn't really matter. Fowls and InsectsMy opponent sites the Wikipedia main page, which obviously contains no information on locusts. Thus, he has failed to succesfully argue this point.Bat ClassificationAlthough my opponent's sentence is incoherent, from what I am able to dicipher it has absolutely nothing to do with my argument. Therefore, extend it.The Value of PiPi does not equal 3.14159265358979, as pi is a repeating and unterminating decimal [1]. That's my argument; you can't measure to perfect accuracy ever, so just because the ancient Hebrews were less accurate than we are today doesn't mean anything important.Rabbits and Cud:My opponent has deigned to ignore my point regarding a potentially broader meaning of cud at the time that Moses wrote.Pro writes 'Lol, strawman.......... Pigs have hoofs.........'Never said they didn't. The description of pigs was cut off because the only part relevant to the argument you raised was the rabbit part. Leviticus 11:7, which finishes off what 11:6 began, is as follows:'which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.'So my opponent clearly failed to even understand my argument, let alone refute it. Time Gap:My opponent drops this argument.ConclusionOh great irony, my opponent is strawmanning my arguments and claiming that they're strawmen. If anyone actually reads this debate, then they will see how my opponent is misconstruing my arguments. I think my arguments speak for themselves quite nicely, and so I feel no need to blatantly strawman my opponent.Thank you.Sources:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

Fowls And InsectsDropped by Con.Bat Classification:The translation that doesn't lie within the text does not equate what lies within the text. The Value of Pi:My opponent essentially drops this argument. Why is it not reconcilable: 31.4159265358979 =/= 30, regardless of the miscalculation.Rabbits and Cud:Two things that are similar are not the same thing. Dropped. The entire point is that the rabbit isn't doing anything with the hoof that it doesn't have.Lol, strawman.......... Pigs have hoofs.........According to this;1. Hares don't have hoofs.2. Pigs don't have hoofs. They do. http://en.wikipedia.org...; Time Gap:I apologize for my slight grammatical error, forgive me Satan Buk Lao.Precisely. lol.Conclusion-Con drops all of my arguments and makes numerous red herring and strawman arguments............. Like........Con's Strawman's-Pigs don't have hoofs.30 = 31.4159265358979Modern Science existed in the 9th century. Translation that doesn't lie within text lies within text.Rabbits chew something similar to cud therefore they chew cud.Vote Pro. Resolution Affirmed.
Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

Rebuttals:Bat Classification:I don't really know what my opponent's getting at here. I showed that the actual Hebrew word could mean 'flying creatures', and does not by necessity mean birds. Since my opponent has provided no real response to this, extend my counter argument.A bat is a flying creature. The word in question does not necessarily mean 'bird', but can mean 'flying creature'. If it is taken as meaning flying creature, there is no conflict.The Value of Pi:Somewhat humorously, my opponent writes 'it can not be rounded'.I suppose he himself has never rounded anything; every measurement must be taken exactly (never mind that modern science itself does not measure things to complete accuracy, and that's with modern scientific equipment), to the billionth place if need be.The people in question were using much more primative measurements and measuring utilities; it's hardly surprising that they recorded an inexact result. Since it's impossible to get a perfect result anyway, this is not a problem.Rabbits and Cud:I didn't say that Moses may have mistaken something else for cud chewing. I said since Rabbits reingest previously digested food to extract more nutrients out of it, it is possible that word used, meaning 'cud', at the time was more encompassing than the modern word 'cud'.Certainly, rabbits do engage in a practice very similar to cud chewing.The entire point is that the rabbit isn't doing anything with the hoof that it doesn't have.New American Bible's Leviticus 11:6 reads'the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig,'I rest my case.Time Gap:I'm glad to see that my opponent recognizes me as a source of infallible logic. That right there should be a concession of his argument, because if my logic is gravely infallible, then it must hold true no matter what.My opponent's argument makes no sense. If I wrote the phrase 'The Earth exists' in the 9th century B.C. and someone dug it up today, is it irreconcilable with modern science? Is 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico' (to which my opponent failed to respond) irreconcilable with modern science?I'll let the voters decide. Conclusion:The Bible is reconcilable with modern science.
Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

Defense Fowls and Insects:Of course by modern scientific understanding; Locusts do not only use four feet to walk they use all six; But whatsoever walketh upon four feet, but hath the legs behind longer....... Why does this not conform to current scientific understanding? Because as it is understood by science; Locusts do not walk upon four feet, and have longers legs behind those four feet. Locusts walk upon six feet, with four small legs and two big ones; http://en.wikipedia.org...... Bat Classification:Of course my opponent is taking it from the translation and not the text, regardless of the translation, Bats are not birds. http://en.wikipedia.org......; The Value of Pi: This most definitely cannot be reconciled by science because it is a grave miscalculation; it can not be rounded, the diameter of a circle in groundless and accurate; if it must be rounded then it is not a true circle. Rabbits and Cud: Con mistakes "something mistaken for cud chewing by a narrow-minded apostle" for "cud by modern scientific terms" While yes it is reasonable to see that Moses may have mistaken something else for cud chewing, that is simply not acceptable, the text should be read as it is, and it has already been established that rabbits do not chew cud. You have to have a hoof to not do something with it. Time Gap:Of course; The resolution doesn't say science, it says current science. Of course my opponent's logic is gravely infallible; if some wrote the phrase 'The Earth exists', this can not be reconciled with modern science because modern science didn't exist back then, as already established.
Current Scientific Understanding and The Bible Are Not Reconcilable.

My resolution: Current scientific understanding and The Bible are not reconcilable .Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions-current- generally accepted, used, practiced, or prevalent at the moment.scientific understanding- understanding ofphenomena of, relating to, derived from, or used in science.The Bible- a canonical collection of sacred texts in Judaism or Christianity.are- present 2d singular or present plural of be.not- used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word.reconcilable- to make consistent or congruous.Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached
The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

Without further ado, I will like to jump right in to addressing the claims made by Pro. Intuition Pro argued that our intuitions are generally correct unless there is some evidence proving our intuitions to be incorrect. This is a rather naive approach since time and time again throughout history, our intuitions have been wrong about a great deal. A flat Earth, a geocentric universe, and ancient beliefs that natural events that today have simple scientific explanations such as eclipses or volcanic eruptions were the direct work of supernatural gods are just a few examples of such intuitive beliefs that we know consider to be false [1][2]. And with the study of quantum mechanics, we are beginning to reveal many more instances of occurrences that defy intuition. A simple example of this is the wave-particle duality of light. Who would have thought that light could behave as both? Indeed, within quantum vacuums we are even able to see particles pop into and out of existence with no apparent cause [3]. Clearly our intuition is a poor guide in a search for truth. Something from Nothing vs. from Something Here we come to the crux of the matter. Although William Lane Craig is an important figure in a discussion of the KCA, Pro’s initial quotation adds little to his case. From what I’ve seen of Craig’s work, I have found that, like my opponent, Craig fails to offer any good proof of the first premise. The problem is this: As far as I am aware, nobody has ever experienced nothing to observe how it behaves. So, how then can we possibly conclude that something cannot come from nothing? The only examples we have in this universe of something beginning to exist is existence coming from some other something, not from nothing. Examples of vans and people beginning to exist with a cause are all examples of things coming from something. So, although Craig asserts that something cannot come from nothing and that all of our experiences confirm this, these claims are baseless as we have never really experienced nothing and therefore cannot assume that nothing cannot just become something. Conclusion I have successfully demonstrated why it is wrong to rely on our intuition for information as well as demonstrated why it is folly to make claims about the nature of nothing when we have never observed nothing. I look forward to my opponent’s response. Sources: [1]- . http://ancienthistory.about.com... [2]- . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]- . http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
The First Premise if the KCA is Probably True.

The first premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."Rules:1. Pro, the bearer of the BoP, shall begin his arguments in Round 1, and in the final round shall offer no further argumentation. 2. Drops shall count as concessions.3. Abusive including abusively semantic arguments should not be counted.Thank you.
Bernie Sanders would be a horrible president

My opponent has not been able to rebut any of Sanders' plans on economics, environment, or anti-corruption. Instead of criticising Sanders' economic plans, my opponent simply points to Americans using products made by incredibly large companies to make the point of, what exactly? Sanders is a Socialist, yes, but a Democratic Socialist. He does not believe in completely abolishing capitalism, simply instating higher regulations on corporations with incredibly high profit. Sanders' plan to spend 18 trillion dollars does have a plan, which is raising the income tax rate, especially upon the wealthiest on the country. He does not plan to raise taxes to 90%, as you lied about in the Second Round. Instead, he would institute a marginal tax at a rate lower than 90% (http://www.ontheissues.org...). He would also reduce military costs and and improve corporate tax code to reduce loopholes.Sanders would not be "extremely weak" on foreign policy. He plans on using strategies that have been shown to work on multiple occasions in history, such as organizing a coalition. In terms of Putin, he would be speaking the only language the greedy know, money. He would remove anyway he could get money, within Sanders' power, to cripple Russia's economy.Also, according to your first statement on voter turnout, you had absolutely no idea what a primary was if you went by your statement, and having a turnout of five times the number of individuals at your rally compared to your rival shows he has a mobile and active voting base.I have given example as to Sanders' ideas working in the real world.My oponent has used hypothetical scenarios to show his point on how Sanders would govern, where I have used previous examples.And I have shown that Sanders in office would be Not Horrible.I would like to thank my opponent for hosting my first debate on the site. I enjoyed this experience and am happy to have seen this debate at the time it was published.