BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should the government raise minimum wage

We are now at the point where there is no doubt that I have won this debate and CON has lost. CON concedes that he has no evidence to support his argument in the last round. Therefore, everything he's said so far is out in terms of determining who won this debate. But, worse, CON is wrong that I don't have evidence to support my rebuttals of his claims. Without re-posting a list of links and wasting character space, the judges are encouraged to review the foregoing rounds and see all the evidence I posted. As a point of consideration here: CON should lose the conduct point and the sources point. He should lose the conduct point for lying about the fact that I posted evidence, and he should lose the sources point because he has no sources. He has no links at all, just citations to articles that may or may not exist. Now, regarding the stuff he posted in the last round.... CON asked whether the "U.S. government increase the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $15?" The question here is whether, as I said above, the US should raise the minimum wage at all. The question here IS NOT HOW MUCH should it be raised. So, in talking about raising the minimum wage by a specific amount, CON is making an irrelevant argument. But there's another problem... and it's much murkier... CON literally stole his argument, verbatim, from this website: http://mitsloan.mit.edu... He did not link his argument to this website. He did not cite to this website. He literally plagiarized, and now must lose this debate for cheating. Like, read the article. It is word for word the same thing. In review, I have proven my side. CON has failed to prove his. I rebutted everything CON said that wasn't plagiarized. CON made no rebuttals at all, and tried to pass off this article (http://mitsloan.mit.edu...) from MIT school of management as his own... as if I wouldn't find it. So, even if you weren't convinced above that I should be winning the conduct point, now you have to be convinced because CON is a cheater.
Who is responsible for poor English, Students or Parents

Before I'd like to start, good luck to my opponent. My opponent pointed out that "Parents only teach them the moral values, they can't come to school with them and study with them". These moral values, however have a large impact on how the student chooses to study and how hard they wish to try. Discipline is key from parents to produce a good student, as without proper discipline from parents students will not care so much about school and English. Students work a lot harder from the fear of being punished by by their parents if they get bad grades. If the parents do not properly discipline their children in the event of a bad grade or result, the student will continue to slack off and neglect their grades, further worsening their performance on the English subject.
Who is responsible for poor English, Students or Parents

If a student does not understand a subject, the parent could lead them to a better understanding. The saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make it drink" is true, however it is not entirely true. The better a parent leads a student to success, the better they will actually succeed into actually doing well into the subject. Discipline can be instilled by parents which causes the stufent to have self consciousness and actually try in the subject. As I pointed out before, without discipline from parents means the students will slack off and not try hard enough.
Who is responsible for poor English, Students or Parents

My dear opponent. You've mentioned discipline . For a student, discipline just apart of them and not from the parents. If they feared for parents that they will punished, don't the student have self conscious to think what can do what cant do? Student future is in their hand not in parents. They just simply haven't try anything or just not understand the subject. There is a old age saying "you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink". It must felt by itself.
Moral and Scientific Objections to Christianity

PrefaceThis debate has been poorly structured by Con, since the rules round mentions nothing regarding scientific objections to Christianity. Moreover "objection" is a loose term, and I gave a specific take on it in my arguments. Pro personally may believe he has refuted my arguments, but instead he has largely completely missed the point of the arguments. Virtually all of his rebuttals are red herring fallacies as a result.Moral ArgumentsCon completely drops my arguments here, so I will leave them to stand as they are. The points I have established are:1. Christianity hinders moral thought and reason 2. Christianity entails dubious beliefs and hence dubious moral actions 3. Christianity is a self-motivating mind trap Any one of these should be sufficient to affirm the resolution. Con takes issue that I did not answer his question of "what is evil", ignoring my reasons as to why. The very question is loaded, it is akin to asking somebody "have you stopped beating your wife", when the question itself contains an assumption that one would disagree with. It is that assumption buried in the question of "what is evil" that I take issue with and hence cannot answer. Similarly one cannot answer yes or no to "have you stopped beating your wife" without incriminating oneself.Moreover the question is irrelevant to all three of my contentions. Hence should rightfully be ignored.Scientific Arguments With moral objections affirmed, I am going to fill out the rest of my space with these arguments.C4. Christianity hinders our ability to comprehendThe persuit of science requires one to take an impartial look at reality, by valuing evidence, and empirically testing hypothesis with observation. If one is not doing all of these things, then one is not doing science. Christianity on the other hand promotes faith as a factual virtue over evidence, and promotes a mindset which is decidedly anti-scientific. Christianity starts with a conclusion (e.g. "God exists" or "God created life, etc" and seeks to find evidence to support said conclusion. This is precisely the opposite to how science works, where it begins with facts, and draws a conclusion from said facts.All theories in science are tentative, and are subject to continual process of falsification, criqitique, and testing. Christianity on the other hand does not, and cannot do this. There is no way to empirically test supernatural claims, and large weight is placed on anecdotal experiences, authority, and appeals to ancient so-called sacred texts. These are decidedly poor methodologies for decithering any sort of truth from reality, as they fail to put into place the level of controls that a rigorous scientific study would in order to filter out cognitive bias, and any philosophical consideration on inferance to the best explanation.Therefore, Christianity is scientifically objectionable, in the sense that it promotes a specifically decidedly antiscientific mindset.
Moral and Scientific Objections to Christianity

When things such as "what is good?, what is evil?" are moral questions, pro IS obligated to answer Pro has pretty much refused to answer, calling my points irrelevant. This indicates an inabilty to answer a question. I fail to see why Pro cannot or will not answer. I'll take this as a concession. As for Pro's rebuttal to my contention, I fail to see what was so hard to answer. If this debate was specifically why does God exist or not exist, surely, he would bring up scientific reasons why God does not exist. This debate is very similar. I asked Pro to list his grevences against the morality of Christianity. Which he sort of did. Look at the title of the debate, "Moral and scientific objections to Christianity" I took it upon myself to address the issue of scientific objections to Christianity after I tore down the moral objections. I did not bring up specific scientific objections as there are way to many to state. Rather I asked, given that I have by all means successfully rebutted the moral objections, why would scientific objections matter? This was pretty clear. Simply, stated, once moral objections are answered, do the scientific objections atheists have still matter? Why? I do not know how this went way over Pro's head. I can give him another chance to answer or we can call it a concession on his part,
Moral and Scientific Objections to Christianity

I do not know how well this will work out, but here is how I am picturing this debate: Pro gives his moral objections to Christianity. Try to keep it to modern Christianity, but any and all moral objections are welcome In Rd 2, I will refute the moral objections and give my one single contention. Pro can rebutt as he desires and we will continue in Rd 3 with cross exams and rebutts. Rd 4 is closing arguments only
President Bush Against or For him

Thank you for responding in a timely manner, as I have seen many debates where it is left open. Next, I will continue on to my argument. You said "He keeps sending people into iraq." That may be true, but if you don't agree with it, then you probably have not realized that President Bush SAID that he was going to attack Iraq in his term. Additionally, as I have said, he keeps sending troops, only because that's what his supervisors say, and what congress agrees with. You and almost everyone who hates Bush think of him as a dictator. You seem to think he can send troops to wage war, or start a recession. This would violate the constitution, and it would be considered a dictatorship. "Those people keep getting killed. Yes the army is good, but all those people are getting killed." That's great, but that is an assumption. Also, the army is, at this point, a matter of volunteering, not a forced draft. So those who go to Iraq had made a commitment that they would risk their lives, to defend the nation. Now I assume you or the judges have taken a look at my other debate, where I claim the death penalty is unconstitutional, and you may relate it to my argument. Actually, this is the only part I agree with. I don't think its fair that they should die. However, life is unfair and its happening and I can't help it. "He is also bad with the recession. He thinks its not that big of deal because it will not affect him." This is not only an opinion, but also an assumption. How do YOU know that he doesn't care? Obviously, he cares a little bit, or he wouldn't be fighting in Iraq. Also, this is the treasuries problem as I have said. You have ignored the fact that I said "Now, I am sure, that you are going to blame Bush for the recession. That would be the treasuries fault, for creating money, and causing inflation. Everyone is getting scared and withdrawing their money from the stock market and banks…." So please read that carefully, before you make another assumption. I eagerly await your response. (ONCE AGAIN I ENCOURAGE VOTERS NOT TO VOTE PURELY BECAUSE YOU HATE BUSH, BUT RATHER ON WHO HAD THE BETTER ARGUMENT ON THE DEBATE. Thank you.)
President Bush Against or For him

Although I agree with you [to a certain extent] , that President Bush is a bad president, I will support his case for the sake of debating and give a quantity of fine information. First I will start with your side of the debate, "I hate president bush. He it totally ruining this country. He has so many problems." That's great, but that is an opinion. "He has led this country into the drains. People should not have voted him into office for the 2nd time." Once again, that's great, but it's an opinion again. Additionally, I do not agree that he has completely ruined the country and "has so many problems," he was doing what he believed in, and you can not say he's a bad person. After all, the idea that we have a huge army, and that we help a country that is suffering incredible circumstances under a portentous dictator, is not a bad one in itself. If you consider it, we actually are the ones who voted for him in the first place, especially in the re-election where he SAID that he was going to return to the on going issue in Iraq! Honestly, it may be the countries fault. If everyone hated him so much after the first term why did he get re-elected? In addition, the house and the senate both agreed with a 2/3 majority that the war in Iraq was good and the release of thousands of soldiers was OK. So sure, it might be his fault for bringing it up, but if it was that bad, the senate and the house would have voted against it. These are serious men, they put hours of debate into this topic, and clearly feel it is ok. Now, I am sure, that you are going to blame Bush for the recession. That would be the treasuries fault, for creating money, and causing inflation. Everyone is getting scared and withdrawing their money from the stock market and banks…. Lastly, in my debate I would just like to establish that I do not support bush, not for the reasons of war, but because I liked the democratic views, and at the re-election I was personally voting for Ralph, but that is an entirely different story. I am not of voting age, and I lied about my age on the thing to protect my own privacy…. Now, do not vote purely because you hate George, NEITHER DO I, but please vote on the better argument.
President Bush Against or For him

Fist off, I'd like to re-state, I don't like George Bush. Also, where is this certain "clip" of him saying he didn't care about the recession? It's not like he could help this recession either. "Yes people choose to go into Iraq, but if president did not keep the war going, these people would not have to." Now this is confusing. You say "people choose to go into Iraq." O.K. then you're basically saying they have a choice to join and go. Then you essentially say that if Bush did not keep the war going, the people would not HAVE to go. Well, you used the word Have, when in the sentence earlier you said they have a choice…. This totally contradicts your earlier statement, and clearly makes no sense. "Me and mostly everyone else im sure hates this man!" This is an assumption, for you have no proof, or polls to back it up. Now, assuming what you say is true, I would like to re-establish that I also hate Bush. But that does not mean he is doing all the things you say he is, or it would be a dictatorship. Additionally, I feel that you think this is going to be an easy win for you just because nobody likes George Bush. Although this may be true [I feel no one will bother to read my argument] I still feel like I have supported my side of the argument better than you have, because I have used factual information from the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, and not what I personally feel. You have kept your arguments short, and did not include much information other than opinions and assumptions, so for those reasons, I feel this isn't much of a debate, and me just wasting my time typing. Thank you for debating against me I hope my judges will read this whole argument thoroughly, and enjoy the rest of their day!
Can this work be considered metaphysical

I will open with an argument showing the underlying semantics of this debate.Can: be physically or mentally able to [1].In answer to the resolution: yes, this work can be considered metaphysical. "Can" refers to the ability. The ability is certainly there. Much like you can consider the weather to be sunny, or you can consider the dogs you are watching to be human. "Can" leaves all of the possibilities present since we are debating about what can be considered.1) Can refers to being "mentally able to"2) We can consider something to be anything as we are mentally able to do soC) Therefore, this work can be considered metaphysicalThe resolution is affirmed.Reference[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Evolution is a fact

Ever since Darwin came up with the idea that spieces evolved, science has been trying to prove him wrong. Over 100 years later and thousands of experiments later, science has failed to prove Darwin wrong. Everything they tried actually confirms evolution as a fact. With DNA alone. you can take any two spieces that exist and trace them back to the common ancestor they evolved from. The fossile record only confirms the DNA evidence. Using several forms of radiometric dating that all converge on the same results, every fossile ever found fits into the tree of evolution exactly where it would be expected to fit. All it would take to disprove evolution, would be to find just one fossile that didn't belong where the theory says it should go. . http://www.youtube.com...;It's alo important to realize that a scientific theory is not the same as non-scientific theory. When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. . http://www.livescience.com...
Three types of Christians shown in the Bible!

I am personally a Christian, and I can tell you that there is only one actual type of Christian, and that is those who believe in Jesus. Those others you speak of are Jews because in John 3:16 it says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And no I do not hate jews, I am actually part Russian Jew. God>highs and lows
Three types of Christians shown in the Bible!

Rules are simple, must be scripturally supportable. Should be knowledgeable of scripture, able to speak intelligently about the subject matter. Contention- It is biblically ascertainable, that there are three types/kinds of Christian believers on the Earth.1. Disciples of Christ (Sons of God) who will be Priest and Kings and granted right to share in Christ Throne recieving inheritence.2. Followers of Christ who shall recieve some rewards but not right of Sonship nor (right to inheritence)3. People of God .... who will recieve NO rewards and be saved ONLY!The goal of this debate is to allow those who wish to go for a higher position, ample time to do so, BEFORE the return of Christ! First. Is acceptance of debate with arguements to follow.
That the Olympics should expand to include non-sporting events

Yes, because the Olympics are based on world-wide talent. Key word being TALENT. The game does originate from ancient Rome, but we have grown from then. On America's Got Talent, you don't just see sports, because it's based off of talent. Olympics is won by having talent, and some of that talent could be in sports, but it also could be from other things. Many people do not have talent in sports, but in other things. If the Olympics are based off talent, then it should be extended.
The Holocaust Happened

I guess I should get serious. There are two reasons why the holocaust that my opponent refers to never happened. 1. The people that deny the holocaust the most is the Jewish people. Why in the world would somebody, much less a Jew, deny the holocaust. That is like an African American denying slavery. Unless, of course, it actually didn't happen. And also, in the Jewish religion, it is a sin to lie. So for a Jew to lie about something that serious might not be a lie. 2. 6 million Jews didn't live in Germany. Assuming that my opponent's definition of the holocaust is a mass murder of jews in Germany, that could not be true simply because 6 million jews didn't live there. They must have had to go to neighboring countries and taken jews from there. But how possible does it sound that while a country is warring against many other countries, that they have time to kill their own people. Now, according to my definition of the holocaust, my defense will be the same. The information proving that the holocaust as a historical event is not conclusive because of three main reasons: 1. It happens in the future. Something cant be historical if it happened in the future, proving not to be conclusive. 2. People don't live on the moon. There are no Americans that live on the moon, therefore that makes this statement inconclusive. 3. The Earth is still habitable. People can still live on the Earth, making this statement inconclusive as well. Sources http://answers.yahoo.com...
The Holocaust Happened

My opponent specifically said that "I want to debate someone who thinks or pretends to think that the Holocaust never happened." So for him to say that I am cheating even though he told me to pretend that it never happened is like getting mad at a kid for saying two plus two is not four when you tell him to say two plus twois three. "Everyone knows what the Holocaust is....." Also, there are some people that do not know what the Holocaust is and therefore my opponent's statement is wrong.
The Holocaust Happened

It seems fun, but let me set some definitions Holocaust- an event that happened on the moon in 2030 During the holocaust, Americans built civilizations on the moon because the Earth was uninhabitable. Historical Event- an event that happened in the past Conclusive- True The information proving that the holocaust as a historical event is not conclusive because of three main reasons: 1. It happens in the future. Something cant be historical if it happened in the future, proving not to be conclusive. 2. People don't live on the moon. There are no Americans that live on the moon, therefore that makes this statement inconclusive. 3. The Earth is still habitable. People can still live on the Earth, making this statement inconclusive as well.