BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A higher minimum wage is the answer to poverty

This is an argument about whether higher minimum wage would be the answer to poverty. I will be pro minimum wage, and my opponent would be con/against. Here are some ground rules: The first round will be acceptance, followed by a starting argument. Grammar is not a valid argument. Keep a nice and calm tone. Do not go personal. Answer as quickly as possible - preferably within a day of the last one. Enjoy. Higher minimum wages would be the answer to poverty. There are a lot of people in America living in poverty, and it is rare that those people ever get out of it again. One of the main reason for that, is that there are simply not enough money circulating in the system. If the economic circle should be able to function, almost every household need enough money they then can spend on products from big firms, who are then capable of hiring more people, so that more people can get money, and put it into the system. That is how the American economic system is supposed to work. Sadly there is too much poverty in the country, to make it function properly. The people working in minimum wage does not have enough money to put into system, and therefore there are not being created new jobs for other people. That is why, not enough people have enough money to boost each other, and help each other get wealthier. One of the biggest issues today, is the rate of unemployment in the country. There are a lot of reasons why some people are unemployed, because of illness, injury or simply just lack of jobs, and those people do we of course need to respect and help as well as possible. Then there is the last category, the people who choose not to get a job, since it would simply be too much draining work for a too small pay. Those people are mainly the younger generation, who then just live with their parents or other guardians, so that they not only are a bother for the elderly generation, who may get a mental illness (stress etc.) and therefore themselves getting out of work, but also they are not contributing to the economy, by having a job themselves. To get those people into work, it is important to make sure that being employed is more appealing than being unemployed. That the pay is actually worth the work. Some people believe that higher taxes would be the answer to the problem of poverty, since it would make sure that the government is able to provide better for the less fortune. That is however a complete misunderstanding, and those people need to remember that we are not, and never will be, a socialistic country. By increasing the taxes, all the responsibility will be put on our government, who will then have too much control over the people living in poverty. Not only will they get less of their already small salary, they will also lose a big part of their freedom to the government, and everyone should have equal freedom. They will not be able to control their own lives, the government will decide what they need for them. As long as they are getting funded by the government, they will never be able to get out of poverty.
Topic To Be Chosen During Debate

I shall be stealing . . . I mean . . . "borrowing" s0m31john's case given that I probably would have made the same argument anyway. The social norm (the way it is now) creates a large disadvantage for extremely shy and socially anxious guys. "Love-shy people find it difficult to be assertive in informal situations involving potential romantic or sexual partners. For example, a heterosexual love-shy male will have trouble initiating conversations with women because of strong feelings of anxiety." ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) One may have the strongest feelings they have ever felt for someone and still be too shy to proclaim this outright. It's not a matter of "growing a pair" ( http://www.urbandictionary.com... ). It's just very hard for some people to overcome this social anxiety and and can lead to other conditions like depression (which could very well lead to suicide), when it could be solved by a nice girl taking the first initiative and realizing the guy may not be a social god. Thus, rather than uphold our current cultural norm and insist that guys be the ones to make the first moves, such a burden should be weighted equally amongst men and women. In addition to the above benefits: 1)A girl who wants to go out with a particular guy, but is too fearful of violating our current social code (in that a girl should wait for a guy to come to her) will no longer be burdened and will thus have the mental freedom of being able to start a relationship at her own convenience rather than merely have to wait for a "ridiculous" amount of time. All that being said, some of the above points may need elaboration. And that'll do it for now.
Topic To Be Chosen During Debate

Resolved: In the United States, the status quo should be upheld and minor Jail Time Ought not to be Replaced with Significant Rehabilitation.(I'm CON) In terms of Super powers, super speed would be more beneficial than the power of "absolute obedience" (I'll define in the comment section) - (I'm AGAINST:CON) Between girls and guys, the burden to make the "first move" (in terms of asking one another out) should be equal. (I'm PRO). If any of these topics need clarification, I shall provide some in the comment section.
Topic To Be Chosen During Debate

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate. There will be 5 rounds of this debate. 1A: This introductory post 1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems). 2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3. 2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON. If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied. If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A. The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
chuck Norris has nothing on the Stig

just a few facts about the stig: lives in clacton on sea sweat can clean metals tears are glue head always points north has robot legs he has 42Kb ram of ram in his computer brain he has 330bhp engines in his fingers which "power" his finger nails if you tune a radio to 88.4 you can here his thoughts he never blinks he sleeps upside down his skin has the same texture as dolphin skin he once punched a horse to the ground he drinks petrol his earwax tastes like Turkish delight he can catch fish with his tongue he has 4 knees his heart ticks like a clock he was born on Pluto he is a genius he has acid blood he can melt concrete on contact he has a digital face Stig once met Chuck Norris. Chuck mentioned that he was tougher than The Stig. Stig just blankly stared him down. Norris was later seen weeping in a corner.
Abusive language is bad! Must be avoided.

I would like to use a transitional argument. 1.Someone attacks you with their tongue. This paralyses you. 2.You insult their girlfriend or boyfriend. 3.They punch you. 4. You use a paralyze heal. 5. They punch you again. 6. You use your handy dandy Pikachu and shock them until their heart stops. 7. Pikachu doesn't evolve, because it has no desire for power, and would like to continue to be an easy target for pedophiles- I mean Team Rocket. You are obviously telling me to censor what I say and do, because you think it will bring about Pikachu related harm to myself. I can decide myself what's good for me you fascist commie hippie 1 percenter liberal. I mean, Mr. Nazi, that what my tongue decides to do in it's free time is not any of your business. it's obvious to me that this person, does not believe in freedom. Commie. As Bill O'reilly said to a liberal "You're a fascist.".
God Probably Exists

I have asked MrJosh to have a second debate on this topic. I haven"t been on this website much lately, but I have come across some points on which I would like the perspective of an Atheist, and I don"t know any in real life, so here we are. I am going to argue that God probably exists, MrJosh, if he accepts (which he has already agreed to by private message) will be arguing that God probably does not exist. The debate will be four rounds: 1 is for acceptance, 2 for arguments, 3 for rebuttals, and four for conclusions and the wrapping up of loose ends.
God Probably Exists

I will do my best to address his points. The Bible PRO has made the claim that the bible takes us from his “active agent” to the Christian God. I’m sorry, but not only do you have to actually draw the line connecting those three dots, you also have to demonstrate the veracity of the bible; none of which you have done. Outside of Space and Time PRO suggested that the cause of space and time necessarily exists outside of space and time. While this does seem plausible, especially given modern theories regarding a possible multiverse, this is something else that PRO needs to demonstrate. It doesn’t matter is a thing is plausible, or even possible, to be believed, it must be demonstrated. Active Agent PRO’s argument in favor of the first cause being an “active agent” appeals to intuition, but it is demonstrably false. Does a rock have to be an active agent to make the decision to fall to earth? No. Does a tree need to be an active agent in order to decide to grow upward? No. These things are explained by natural processes, and unless the existence of the supernatural can be demonstrated, there is no reason to posit it as an explanation for an unknown event. This is an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy [1]. Sin PRO’s claim regarding human imperfections being related to sin is a claim for which he has yet to provide evidence, or even answer the questions about it that I raised in the previous round. He has compounded his lack of evidence by making another unsupported claim in this round regarding the world being “in the hands of Satan. ” Evidence or it isn’t so. Occam’s Razor PRO went on in this round to basically claim that two competing hypotheses are equal if they have equal explanatory power. This is against the very concept of the razor. The point is that if they are equal in explanatory power, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is preferred [2]. Positing a god is a violation of the razor. Hell Regarding hell, PRO has not addressed the points I made in the preceding round. Instead, he has chosen to make a theological claim regarding sin, which need not be addressed until the existence of PRO’s God has been demonstrated. Something From Nothing This was actually PRO’s second point in this round, but I chose to address it last. I never claimed that our universe came from nothing, what I claimed is that we don’t know that it had a beginning. There is a difference between saying that we don’t know a thing and that we are claiming the opposite. A Final Wrap-Up PRO forwarded a single argument, which was basically the Cosmological Argument, which I feel I have handled adequately. I brought up three points, Unintelligent Design, Occam’s Razor, and the problem with Hell. PRO has failed to counter my points. Finally, I would like to thank PRO for this debate, I had a good time. I would be happy to debate him again in the future if he ever again needs the opinion of an atheist. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
God Probably Exists

I mostly agree with your breakdown of my argument, but you left something out between your last two statements, the bible. Once we get to the point that we recognize the existence of God, it is the Bible that shows that God to be the Christian God. Regarding the beginning of the universe, it seems that you are claiming that things can pop into existence from nothing. If you want to talk about claims that have not been demonstrated, perhaps we should start there. Of course any cause of the origin of space and time must necessarily exist outside of space and time because they would have to exist somewhere before space and time were created. Regarding the need for God to be an “active agent,” as you put it, this is intuitively obvious. God had to make a decision to create the universe; a “natural process” cannot make such a decision. I have already explained how human imperfection are the result of mankind’s sinful nature, the imperfections in the animal world are related to the fact that the world is currently in the hands of Satan. . http://www.keyway.ca... Regarding Occam’s Razor, neither suggestion has any more explanatory power than the other, so either theory is equally valid. Regarding hell, God DID provide a way for us to avoid hell, Jesus. It is our failure to accept this lifeline (note: OUR FAILURE) that condemns us to hell. I would like to thank Mr. Josh for this debate. It has been most interesting and I hope you would be up for another some day.
God Probably Exists

Thank you for you comments this past round. First of all, God judged his creation to be good immediately after he created it; before we sinned. Our own imperfections entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and we inherited their imperfections, including the examples you stated. This is not the result of "unintelligent design," but rather the result of our own disobedience. Occam's Razor is simply a guide; it does not claim that the simplest explanation is correct, it states that you should start with the simplest explanation that actually explains. Scientists can't explain the origins of the universe, but God can, so the God hypothesis has more explanatory power, and Occam's Razor doesn't apply. Regarding hell, God doesn't send anyone to hell; we send ourselves to hell through our own sins. The bible is very clear that God loves us and that he offered us a lifeline in the form of Jesus Christ. Therefore your claim about hell is invalid. http://www.biblegateway.com... I look forward to your comments.
God Probably Exists

For purposes of clarification, we are talking about the Christian God, the God of the Bible. My main argument is as follows: The science of the big bang tells us that our universe had a beginning at some point in the past. We also know from the law of causation that this beginning had to have some kind of cause. Now, simple reasoning tells us that this cause must be outside of our universe, since both time and space were created with the big bang. Therefore, there must be an active agent of some sort outside of our normal experience; that active agent is God. I look forward to your comments. . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.hawking.org.uk...
God Probably Exists

I was planning on taking a break from DDO, but since the semester is just about done, I’d be happy to have a go at this debate. Just to clarify, I will be arguing that “God probably does not exist,” and the burden of proof is shared. I’m fine with this. I have one point for clarification; are we talking about a specific God (as is suggested by your use of a capital “G” in “God”), or are we discussing the concept about gods in general?
Doctors make you sick

Alright, I see you responded in your format so I have decided to change it up a bit and write paragraphs. First of all your site actually supports my idea that cholera is caused by germs. The first paragraph tells how cholera is turned into a pathogen (germ) by it's virus CTX. Why do you get sick from eating feces or rotten food? Germs my friend as the definition still stands. I am researching to become a vet also and your view also affects me I know what your saying is false. Some germs do cause sickness contrary to what you believe. "Doctors never ask what you've been eating..." False! I can't actually believe what your saying! It's one of the first things they ask if somethings wrong. Diet; what have you been eating? Therefore they do address the problem with imbalance contrary to what you say. "Agriculture is the biggest disease creator.." Are we still on topic here? You say doctors make you sick that is the debate now your trying to change it into "They don't make you better" well that is not the debate the debate is doctors make you sick and such is not true since now your saying "farmers make you sick" a totally different debate. That is quite the bold lie telling me doctors don't recommend natural supplements. Maybe you haven't been to the doctor in over 40 years, healthcare has changed a bit doctors frequently tell you about the different options they have to offer including natural supplements. That report was written by a doctor! Telling us whole grains are good for us and a whole package of info delights. I recommend the voters to read it to disprove that doctors are making us sick since they are in fact giving us information that benefits our health. Well how do you know that the immune system is iodine based? False, the more deadly the disease the more work it takes to fix it that's what raises the money. Again changing the subject. Do you admit that doctors fix it? if so that ends this whole debate. "Doctors make you sick" that is the debate here. NO more trying to change it. Wheres your proof on 9? Do you have a prize for finding the cause of cancer? Do you know how to fix it then? I know you are wrong I won't debate it however and just ask you to prove such is so. heh heh attempting a little humor. I see you admit that doctors do recommend a balanced diet. Whole grains are good for you however and that is what doctors recommend as your site proved. In conclusion you do not have a platform built yet for you arguments on doctors make you sick. You pretty much admitted the opposite actually. I will wait to see if the last round is any better. I thank you for your timely response. Please work on a stronger argument and stay on topic. Thanks.
Doctors make you sick

It is nice to hear from and I really like how well organized you laid out your arguments and I will lay them out the same way in response. 1. You say doctors assume germs make you sick. first you must know that germ doesn't just refer to a bacterium but also a protist, fungus, virus, prion or viroid. Their growth and reproduction actually can cause a disease quite obviously in the case of Vibrio cholerae the bacteria that causes cholera. 2. You say doctors think drugs can fix imbalances in the human body. This balance I assume is homeostasis and it's not the doctor's choice to give you drugs and force you to take them however if you ask your doctor he will give you a list of other options that will help with any imbalance you have. This is what their paid for and if they don't give you options then you have an issue and then you should talk with the head honcho. 3. You say doctors assume nature made a mistake and that they assume they know more. Well if you believe in evolution you believe things constantly evolve. They were never perfect otherwise they wouldn't keep evolving, these imperfections need work and that's what doctors fix assume they know more. Well if you believe in evolution you believe things constantly evolve. They were never perfect otherwise they wouldn't evolve. And imperfections is what doctors strive to fix. The same imperfections are prevalent if you beleive the Bible. Sin/satan caused imperfections, doctors try to make life more comfortable. By healing or lessening pain. Therfore in any case nature has it's imperfections. So nature does have its mistakes theoretically. 4. Interfere with natural processes and don't allow the body to fix itself. In what case? Be specific. As I said they hive you options and advice it's up to you what to do. 5. False. I'm not going to answer this until you have proof and links to a website aren't proof to me. 6000 characters aren't for nothing. 6. On this one I had a chuckle because when I typed immune system iodine on Google the first thing that popped up was a report by a doctor on how good iodine is for the immune system. So I guess your claim was false eh? 7. People also choose to go to war. Bullets rip and tear, gas burns and infects lungs, flames burn, a-bombs radiate and who helps fix these cases? Doctors! If they use aggressive measures it was up to you. It's all a choice and sometimes it's the choice of life and death. 8. Again your choice. Many alternative options. 9. This is a well known fact and I'm sure my doctor can tell me poisoning causes cancer. Poisoning such as smoking, arsenic or sun poisoning. I dare you to ask your doctor and I can guaran-damn-tee you he will say poisoning can cause cancer. 10. My goodness! Do they have to? It's painted everywhere! Online (by many doctors), magazines (again doctors) T.V. (more doctors) oh wait. I guess doctors to tell us to diet and exercise. As for being nerdy bookworms, I forgive you for the stereotype. Because that's all it is, there is no proof that is true. In fact research shows the opposite to be true. I look forward on what you have to say next.
Doctors make you sick

Doctors are operating on many false premises. 1. They assume that germs cause disease. 2. They assume that drugs can fix imbalances in the human body. 3. They assume that nature made a mistake when it created humans and that doctors know more than nature does. 4. They interfere with natural processes and don't allow the body to fix itself. 5. They don't understand that modern foods like grain, sugar and dairy cause human dysfunction and disease. 6. They refuse to accept that the immune system is iodine based because you can't make any money out of iodine. 7. They use aggressive methods to fix problems like cutting, burning and radiating. 8. The use poisons to fix cancer. 9. They don't understand that poisons cause cancer and other health problems. 10. They seldom recommend better diet and exercise as a method of curing a problem. So, as we can see from the above deficiencies and problems, doctors are more likely to cause further damage to a person's health than they are of curing it. Most doctors are most probably blissfully unaware of their own ignorance on these matters. This happens because - in order to become a doctor, you must spend all your spare time studying and have very little spare time to look for any alternatives. This is how the system works. Thus, they mostly choose nerdy book worms who have very little real life experience to become doctors. http://www.ultrawellnesscenter.com... http://www.thenaturalrecoveryplan.com... http://drhyman.com...