BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage should be ablolished

The minimum wage debate has been such a partisan issue for so long and has been a rallying call for people for both ends of the spectrum to fight over what a basic human needs to survive. By raising the minimum wage, the cost of living is only bound to increase or slowly adjust to what the new minimum would be. This would inevitably create another problem down the road and again, raise the issue of "Increase or Stay the Same". On the flip side, people who are against the increase are on the right track except it would force them to maintain a defensive position. It would continue to cause families to struggle to get by and make ends meet. If the minimum wage was abolished, companies could have the ability to expand and adjust to the new economy. Big companies wouldn't pay people less than there job is worth because the company would struggle to survive due to the lack of motivation of the workers. Yes, the rich would stay rich and the people on the low end of the spectrum might not have the nicest things, but I feel as though this solution would expand the window of opportunity for the low income families but allow them to make ends meet and support a family. The possible ripple affect could be that people might live happier lives if the cost of living adjusts so it is suitable. People may begin to weigh the option of starting a family because it will be easier to afford essential items. I'm doing a paper in Personal Economics and thought i would see what the option is out there.
intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school

I understand what you are saying. However, it is 'unfair' to discriminate against the immature and/or less intellectual just because there are others smarter and more mature. It is extremely unfair to them anyway, and the parents would put up a huge fight at that. And who really knows whether someone is mature or not? I can be very mature, but I can also be immature. At the age we're at, our maturity levels are up and down all the time, so there can be no way to tell. Teachers are adults, and they've been through more than kids. They have more life experience, and they're aware that there is no way kids are mentally, emotionally, and physically ready for true relationships. It is also completely improper in this day and age to have twelve year olds, for example, making out in the hallways. That is completely unacceptable, and I'm sure teachers know that certain people can be trusted. But they know as well that children around our age are mentally growing and that we really don't know what we want at this age. That's why they're always so careful with students in middle school. High school is when our growth spurts start to level out and we get a sense of what we want. It's still turmoil, but not so much. Some kids just don't care whether they should make the right choice and what the consequences are if they don't, and some kids aren't lucky enough to have parents that teach you what's right and what's wrong. I can see this from your perspective, but I'm a very very conservative eighth grader and this is what I believe.
intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school

I understand what you are saying, and your right but for the people who are mature and who focus on their knowledge too should be able to date at school and show their affection. I would know because I am an intermediate student at my school and I am dating this guy and I tell him that school comes first and he understands and we have a perfect relationship and we only hang out on our spare time and we don't go to far and if teacher's were to give intermediate students a chance, we could prove that we could handle it. But another thing is that, they pretty much HAVE to make the right choice because teachers are all around you and if you make the wrong choice, you can get into trouble. Also, the students should know better because their parents should teach them what's right and what's wrong? That's all I have to say for now, and I can definitely see this from your point of view.
intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school

Look, I understand that you think that the intermediate student age group cannot handle dating and showing affection, but in case you have not noticed, all people are different. Some people have been learning from young and can handle feelings and stuff like that. But I'm not asking whether intermediate students should be able to date and show affection. I'm asking whether they should be able to date and show affection at school. That is because some intermediate students are able to handle dating and I think that they deserve to be able to show affection and date at school. BTW intermediate includes grade 8 too.
intermediate students should be able to date and show their affection at school

Intermediate, so as to say middle schoolers? 5-7th graders? If this is the case, I'll be happy to debate with you. Intermediate-aged students aren't mentally mature enough to truly, emotionally date. At least, not fifth-seventh graders. They're still going through puberty and are only just developing feelings remotely close to attraction to the opposite/same gender in a romantic light. Their minds are overwhelmed with this new information and whatever they learn from older kids. I look forward to your response.
God exists

" I think it is important to note that neither side can offer evidence that can concretely prove the existence or nonexistence of God" This may be true, but the burden of proof lies on you, not on me. If you're the one that is making the claim that God exists, you're going to need some evidence for this claim. Secondly, just because you cannot prove that something doesn't exist, it does not mean that it exists. Think about it, just because there is no proven cure for the common cold, does not mean that it is not out there somewhere. Just as you claim that I cannot prove that I thought of building a pizza store, you cannot prove any of the 90% of the testimony for the existence of God, you can prove that people say that they have had divine experiences, hearing things from God, callings, etc, but you cannot prove that any of them are real. Also, the proof for the murder would be the two dead bodies. 2,000 years ago the concept of the atom was proven. In the 5th cent. B.C. the Greek philosophers Democritus and Leucippus proposed that matter was made up of tiny, indivisible particles they called atom, or in Greek "a-tomos. http://en.wikipedia.org... Once again I will hammer home that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the theist, not the atheist, I do not need proof for the un-existence of God, you need proof for the existence of God, which, so far, there is none. Do I know that there is no God for sure? No Is it possible that there is a God? Yes Is it plausible? No, there is no evidence for his existence. You believe in God because a) You were told to by your parents b) You think you've had some connection(s) with God that are not able to be proven by science (Which the connections might not be explainable, but as you've stated, it does not mean that there is no explanation for them).
God exists

Secondly, I think it is important to note that neither side can offer evidence that can concretely prove the existence or nonexistence of God. My opponent simply and impudently asserts that God does not exist because there is no proof. Well let us reason that Tholos asserts that he was thinking about building a pizza store yesterday, I might ask, "well could you please concretely substantiate that claim. " What evidence would Tholos offer the skeptical that he was indeed thinking about building a pizza store. Unfortunately no one has access to the thoughts of Tholos, other than Tholos of course. So we must take his word for it. Just as much as I can not concretely prove to my mom, by means of the scientific method, that I love her – so Tholos cannot prove to anybody that he was thinking, loving, feeling any certain way at any particular moment. So it seems that a lot of credence is given to human testimony. Let us then treat this like a courtroom. I exclaim that God exists, and Tholos emphatically denies. I step up to the stand and offer my experiential testimony for the existence of God. Would Tholos' testimony at the stand negate my own? How can it be that since Tholos has had no divine experience that he can demand that therefore none exists? If in a courtroom a witness steps up and proclaims that they had witnessed the murder of two people. Would the defense have a reasonable case if they just grab some nobody off the street to say "I did not witness the murder of two people, therefore it did not happen. " Clearly such reasoning is weak. But even if such negation were logically permissible, I would then call my second witness to the stand, who gives there experiential testimony for the existence of God. Then a third, a forth, and soon 90% of the worlds population would have been called to the stand to give experiential testimony for the existence of God. So the existence of God is confirmed by the majority of witness testimony (and not by a small margin). Lastly, if we were to focus purely on semantics, my opponent has made a fatally damning mistake in his reasoning. He presumes that something "cannot" exist if there is no evidence for it. I will not concede that there is no evidence (I will save my science and metaphysics for later in the debate), but I will however highlight that evidence does not determine existence. 2,000 years ago we had no evidence that atoms or bacteria existed, does that mean they did not exist at that time? There certainly was no evidence for them. My opponent is obviously taking the route of atheism, which is a belief that no God(s) exist, so he must therefore offer his evidence for such a belief. If I were to say that there is absolutely no gold in China, I would necessarily need absolute knowledge of China to be sure. Since my opponent asserts there is no God, and does not have absolute knowledge of the universe, such a statement is a statement of faith, and he must offer evidence for his belief.
Jesus is not God

Again I repeat, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1) [1]. You are stating an incorrect definition of immaculate conception. Immaculate conception is not Jesus' conception while Mary was still a virgin, but rather "that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin." [2] John was not immaculately conceived, but rather was cleansed of sin during the Visitation. [3] Notwithstanding the incorrect definition, John was NOT born from a virgin or directly from the Holy Spirit. Zechariah and Elizabeth had tried to conceive, and therefore had intercourse, but were not able bear a child to until the Lord allowed them to (Luke 1:5-25). [4] This is not like Mary conceiving Jesus through the Holy Spirit, but rather more like the story of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac even when she was old and barren (Genesis 18:11-14). [5] I recently found an article outlining the several times in the Bible where Jesus DOES claim to be God. [6] Here is summary of them (I won't link these as there are quite a few): "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9) "'Very truly I tell you,' Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'" (John 8:58) "But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (John 10:38) "You call me "Teacher" and "Lord," and rightly so, for that is what I am" (John 13:13) And finally, as a rebuttal to your statements in Round 1: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God" (Mark 10:18). [7] can be interpreted very differently from they way you chose to. It means that since Jesus is the "Good Shepherd" as he is so often called, then he must therefore be God, since He is good. Finally, your second statement "And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9) [8] is Jesus telling us to let go of the earthly desires which hold us back from heaven, which may or may not include family members. [1] https://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.catholic.com... [3] http://www.newadvent.org... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com... [5] https://www.biblegateway.com... [6] http://www1.cbn.com... [7] https://www.biblegateway.com... [8] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Jesus is not God

The entire premise of your argument is that being the son of God makes you God. John the Baptist was also born through immaculate conception, therefore he is also the son of God yet we quite rightly have no reason to believe that he is God. Adam is also the son of God and again we have no reason to believe that this makes him God. The Bible states that if we are led by the spirit of God then we (even your good self and I) are in fact sons of God (Romans 8:14). Clearly the term son of God does in no way mean the same as God and therefore your argument is fallacious.
Jesus is not God

You are proven wrong in the very first chapter of Luke: "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35) [1] Multiple times, Jesus says he is the Son of God: "Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven." (Matthew 10:32-33) [2] Even the demons recognized Jesus as the Son of God: "He shouted at the top of his voice, 'What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God's name don't torture me!'" (Mark 5:7) [3] But the most powerful argument that Jesus is the Son of God and is therefore God comes from the first chapter of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-3,14) [4] So there you have it. ALL FOUR GOSPELS say Jesus is the SON OF GOD, and is therefore GOD. Links to all verses: [1] https://www.biblegateway.com... [2] https://www.biblegateway.com... [3] https://www.biblegateway.com... [4] https://www.biblegateway.com...
Jesus is not God

I have provided two quotes from Jesus that clearly show that he did not believe himself to be God. He never claimed to be God but made it clear that only the Creator is God. Without any clear and unaltered Bible text stating that Jesus is God Christians have no reason to believe that he is. Jesus did not preach that he was God. We know this because the Bible tells us that those he preached to believed him to be a prophet. Jesus claimed that he was a prophet he simply never claimed to be God.
Jesus is not God

Mainstream Christianity teaches that Jesus is God however there are no clear or unaltered verses in any of the bible that support this. Jesus tells us; Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. (Mark 10:18) call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) Jesus never claimed to be God and always made it clear that he was sent by God.
Conduct on DDO debates should be based on respect

"..it is actually not poor sportsmanship but poor argumentation for Ad Hominem" Ad Hominem still uses personal attacks in argumentation, so it's not only poor argumentation, but bad sportsmanship. "Fluidity ensures that Conduct is maintained in a more professional manner. "Respect" is frivolous as one of the most common things I come across personally when reading debates is a two-faced nature. "Thank you opponent for that round, it was jolly good!" followed by "By the way, you're a moron, here's an accusation, here's another accusation, and my summary is my opponent is a moron. Thank you for time opponent." It's sewn into the fabric and it's relatively hard to see to the untrained eye. A jab may go unnoticed if it's embedded in an argument like "My opponent thinks (<- That's the jab) such and such is so however ... [evidence]" when naturally the opponent never said anything of the sort, it's the opinion (or really the dishonesty) of the contender trying to soil his opponent through a basic statement of declaration (despite it being completely false) and this behavior continues throughout the debate with what I will call "stealth mudslinging"." Mudslinging is also disrespectful and is thus against DDO policy. A real counterargument would seek to understand arguments and refute them accordingly. "Respect" does not do this. When one looks at the second quotation you've given, regarding passion, and really pushing a person away from Argument of Emotion, isn't respect somewhat based on emotion? "I don't like him. I don't respect him because I don't like him.", well there's bias again. This is one of the major culling features behind voting that really decides whether someone wins or loses: Their popularity. That's not okay." Respect is based on civility and ethics. I agree that bias does happen when people vote in favor of a person simply because of dislike. However this has nothing to do with your decision to award conduct points. I don't like some people, so because of bias, i'm not going to vote on their debates. If i do like someone, i will add or subtract conduct points depending on whether or not he/she disrespected the other debater. Debates should strictly focus on arguments and rebuttals, but not logical fallacies or cheap debating tactics such as personal attacks and such.
Conduct on DDO debates should be based on respect

According to the DDO article "How to vote" by Nate Simmons (1), the article says this: "Which debater, on balance, was more composed, and used fewer or no personal attacks against their opponent? Improper conduct includes personal insults, profanities, and bad sportsmanlike behavior." This is clearly a statement demonstrating that personal attacks are prohibited in debates. Any Ad Hominem attacks used in debates does nothing to add or benefit debaters, it's a waste of characters. Users should instead use that space to further attack their opponent's arguments and/or strengthen their cases. In the article "how to Debate" Nate Simmons says this: "Passion is a driving force in almost everything we do, but when emotion is tossed into that mix things can go downhill fast. When you are debating on Debate.org try to keep emotion out of your arguments. Debate.org is a place for fun and relaxation; not drama and stress. However tempting it may be, always refrain from using personal or general insults. It is not only rude, but against the terms of service as well." (2) Clearly, using any form of personal attacks is against DDO policy. DDO terms clearly state the following: "Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.No use of profanities or swear words.No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.No threats or implications thereof." (3) Conclusion: It's clear that personal attacks of any kind is forbidden on DDO debates. Such disrespect of any kind should not be tolerated among users and does not contribute to debating. Any user who engages in such behavior should lose conduct points and the most respectful debater should be awarded them. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://www.debate.org...3. http://www.debate.org...;
Education in Malaysia is badly in need of reform

Pro has yet forfeited another round, however I will disregard this and go ahead and post my argument. I am assuming that Pro would have argued that the education system in Malaysia is broken; and thus should be reviewed and changed. However, as Pro has continuously forfeited, it is difficult for me to predict what specific sections of the education system he/she would have focused on. Nevertheless, I will argue and provide facts that in fact the education system in Malaysia has numerous positive aspects and should not be changed.Malaysia is truly starting to flourish and expand as a country. Malaysia is trying to rebuild the economy, and the economic structural transformation that has taken place over the last 40 years is incredible. The Malaysia government places a high priority on education and there are approximately 17 public and 20 private universities and colleges, along with various polytechnics and industrial training institutes in Malaysia [1]. Moving on the quality of the education. The education system in Malaysia is up to international standards, and is regularly monitored by the Ministry of Higher Education [2]. In addition, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), is personally responsible for overseeing that the quality of the education in Malaysia is up to standard. What about the cost? In the table below you can see the approximate annual tuition fees, annual living cost, and total education cost, for Malaysia and several other countries. As you can see, the price is much lower than the other 4 countries. This means that you get just as good of an education at a much lower price. I am going to end my argument here, and hope that Pro will post something in the final round, in order for me to get a better understanding of what aspects he/she believes should be reformed. [1] http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my...[2] http://www.campusmalaysia.com...
The Christian God exists (6)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. The Christian god is the god as described by Jesus and the Bible. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. I await my opponent's arguments.
The Christian God exists (6)

okay, who cares if the christian god exists or not. people have the right to believe in whatever they want and you shouldn't be the downer to oppose to other peoples belief. Christianity is not only about whether god exist or not, is also about respecting and being kind to one another. you are one of those people who like to be negative towards everything and only look at one side of Christianity or any religion! their is more to Christianity then god