BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not break a rule.

0. This debate poses off of another debate that was quite comical to me. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannnot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an oppportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON opponent must use the passive voice and proper grammar for all rules. 2. CON cannot use any of the following words in his rules: can may not allow permit PRO CON no a an will rule rules state English speak say saying my instigated permitted allowed stated spoken said 3. For every round, CON must post a Youtube video that has German audio and English subtitles.
I will not break a rule.

(My opponent claims that my rule broke Foundation Rule #1. However, this is not true. My rule did not contradict any rules; it merely required my opponent to end sentences in a special way. There were no previous rules that said that sentences could end in anything other than "Q," and thus, my rule did not break Foundation Rule #1.) (It is very easy to use 8,000 characters and follow proper grammar. If you just repeat the word "ever" or "very" enough times, you will reach 8,000 characters in three sentences, or even one sentence, and you would still follow proper grammar. Or, of course, you could use a mass of "+"s and "-"s. My opponent claims that it is impossible, but he fails to back up his claim.) (My opponent has also broken rules by not obeying restrictions that he put on me. His rule specified CON, but the restriction was on me. Thus, his rules are restrictions placed by himself on me, and he must then follow those restrictions. The rule imposed a restriction; while the rule specified CON, the restriction was, in fact, on me. Therefore, the word "CON" is irrelevant, because it is still a restriction placed on me, and has not been followed by my opponent. My opponent placed a restriction on me by saying that CON couldn't use the active voice. This is a restriction placed on me by my opponent. Thus, by my first rule, this restriction must also be followed by my opponent. He has broken countless rules: 1. He has posted most of his rules in the active voice, rather than the passive voice, which fails to comply with the combination of my first rule and his own first rule. 2. Almost all of his sentences failed to be completed with the letter "Q," which fails to comply with my third rule. 3. He has used the words "CON," "may," and "not," which do not comply with the combination of my first rule and his own second rule. By breaking four rules, my opponent loses the debate.) 1. Countries in South America cannot be mentioned by me. 2. The names of Presidents of South American countries cannot be mentioned by me. 3. Words that use the letter "ï¿½" cannot be mentioned by me. http://www.youtube.com...
I will not break a rule.

(My opponent claims that my rules are impossible to follow. However, this is not so. The list that my opponent cites does not mention some key words, such as Iraq and Compaq. http://www.compaq.com... It is very easy to make a rule in the passive voice that uses any number of characters. For example, he could have said, "Usernames must never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever... be mentioned by my opponent, unless he is being detained in Iraq." He only needed three sentences, so picking three words would be easy, although awkward. Therefore, rather than my breaking a rule, my opponent has broken a rule by failing to end each of his sentences with the letter "Q.") (Furthermore, I believe that my opponent has broken a rule. According to my Rule #1, Round 1, the restrictions placed on me are also applied to my opponent. The restrictions are what are looked at, rather than the actual rule. Therefore, because my opponent restricted me from posting an argument that lacked a German video with English subtitles, it is a restriction placed on me by my opponent, so the same restriction must be followed by my opponent, as in Rule #1. Because my opponent did not post any videos, and used forbidden words in his rules, and has not only been speaking in passive tense, he has broken three rules.) 1. A video that has any amount of German audio and any amount of English subtitles must be posted by me. 2. A video that is in color must be posted by me. 3. A video that has at least 10 views must be posted by me. http://www.youtube.com...
Minimum wage

Rebuttals "Yes. An employee can be taking advantage of their work by only working say, an hour, and make say, $20 (Which for now, we'll assume is more than our current minimum wage). Since they don't deserve it, they'll be discharged, either temporarily or permanently, because of the suspicion of taking advantage of work. So yes, indeed, there must be a minimum wage. Expecially the fact that like said, an employee can work for months and only earn a dollar because, it belongs to the owner. The government doesn't really have any business in that. However, now, out of curiosity: Is this even supposed to be a rebuttal?"As in the argument above, In actuality, no company would ever schedule an employee for 1 hour. We'll assume that the minimum wage is in fact $10.00, if this were to happen, then the company would be forced to fire people, because if they spend more money paying their employees than taking in during that expense period, they would have to fire people to make up the loss. Maybe, sometimes, the owner of a business schedules their employee for 1 hour for something. Alright. Let's assume that the minimum wage is $10,000. The company may have to discharge employees becauuse if an employee works even more than that, it would exceed $10,000, and a company may not have that much. However, you can not use this as a contention; Why would the government set the minimum wage up to that?Also, apologies for the misunderstanding."My 2nd argument wasn't supporting increase in minimum wage. My 2nd argument was that if a person worked say, an hour, and minimum wage, at the very least, was earned by working an hour, that person deserved that amount."As for the argument above. Although the worker most of the time deserves the wage they receive depending on their performance. But in many cases employees that work their asses off and barely make enough to fill their gas tank don't make enough. Then in that case they do need a wage increase. But you still have to keep in mind equality. If one worker that works the same position, and started the same time as the other, and works the same hours, but makes more than the other employee, this is wrong. Lets say that we do raise the minimum wage, what would be the backlashes? If any? An employee can work his/her *ss off, and in return, earns money, however, that is not the amount they need for something. However, that's not the owner of the business's fault; You HAVE to earn it; If you deserve a certain amount of money, that's the amount that you should receive. The owner can exceed that wage if he/she would be willing to do the favor.That concludes my argument. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Minimum wage

"Yes. An employee can be taking advantage of their work by only working say, an hour, and make say, $20 (Which for now, we'll assume is more than our current minimum wage). Since they don't deserve it, they'll be discharged, either temporarily or permanently, because of the suspicion of taking advantage of work. So yes, indeed, there must be a minimum wage. Expecially the fact that like said, an employee can work for months and only earn a dollar because, it belongs to the owner. The government doesn't really have any business in that. However, now, out of curiosity: Is this even supposed to be a rebuttal? " As in the argument above, In actuality, no company would ever schedule an employee for 1 hour. We'll assume that the minimum wage is in fact $10.00, if this were to happen, then the company would be forced to fire people, because if they spend more money paying their employees than taking in during that expense period, they would have to fire people to make up the loss. "My 2nd argument wasn't supporting increase in minimum wage. My 2nd argument was that if a person worked say, an hour, and minimum wage, at the very least, was earned by working an hour, that person deserved that amount. " As for the argument above. Although the worker most of the time deserves the wage they receive depending on their performance. But in many cases employees that work their asses off and barely make enough to fill their gas tank don't make enough. Then in that case they do need a wage increase. But you still have to keep in mind equality. If one worker that works the same position, and started the same time as the other, and works the same hours, but makes more than the other employee, this is wrong. Lets say that we do raise the minimum wage, what would be the backlashes? If any? Thank you, this concludes my second argument. I am eager to hear my opponents response. Thank you Here is a supporting link. [1] . http://www.forbes.com...
Minimum wage

Rebuttals Argument #1:If every worker in the U. S. made more than minimum wage there would be layoffs across the board. Due to the fact that the more their workers make, the more they have to downsize so they don't have to close the doors. Yes. An employee can be taking advantage of their work by only working say, an hour, and make say, $20 (Which for now, we'll assume is more than our current minimum wage). Since they don't deserve it, they'll be discharged, either temporarily or permanently, because of the suspicion of taking advantage of work. So yes, indeed, there must be a minimum wage. Expecially the fact that like said, an employee can work for months and only earn a dollar because, it belongs to the owner. The government doesn't really have any business in that. However, now, out of curiosity: Is this even supposed to be a rebuttal? Argument #2:Although I do support raising the minimum wage limit, I disagree on drastic increases. It just can't be done without whiplashes in the corporate world and in the working sector. My 2nd argument wasn't supporting increase in minimum wage. My 2nd argument was that if a person worked say, an hour, and minimum wage, at the very least, was earned by working an hour, that person deserved that amount. I await my opponent's next set of arguments.
Minimum wage

I wish the Con part is still open. Going against this topic will be hard. But I accept the challenge. Argument #1: If every worker in the U.S. made more than minimum wage there would be layoffs across the board. Due to the fact that the more their workers make, the more they have to downsize so they don't have to close the doors. Argument #2: Although I do support raising the minimum wage limit, I disagree on drastic increases. It just can't be done without whiplashes in the corporate world and in the working sector. This concludes my first argument. I am eager to hear my opponents arguments.
Minimum wage

Rules 1. No plagiarism. In other words, don't copy someone else's work and claim it as your own.2. You may only troll when things get completely out of hand.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.Presentations 1. There is an owner of a company, where people can employ and work for the owner. If there was no minimum wage, an employee can work for months and only earn a dollar because, it belongs to the owner. The government doesn't really have any business in that. 2. The minimum wage would be higher than it currently is if an employee didn't deserve, say, 10 dollars for working, say, an hour. However, apparently, they do deserve it.
"Pinning the homosexuals" is a terrible idea

Full Resolution: Penning the homosexuals as suggested by my opponent is a terrible idea. First, let us clear this up. My opponent has made an outrageous post in the forums suggesting that we should "Pin the gays" from society so that they eventually die out. Here is the forum post he made so you can see what he is suggesting: http://www.debate.org... My opponent has suggested to: "Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there. Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out…and you know what, in a few years, they'll die out…do you know why? They can't reproduce!" In order for me to win this debate, I have to show that: 1. True Christians as defined by the Bible would not support this. 2. This entire idea would not work.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

It is exceedingly arrogant, egotistical and unethical of you to PRESUME yourself to be Jesus! And to act as though you are he. Even for the sake of debate. It is also extremely unfair of you to PRESUME that I have not studied or read those sources you listed. During my lifetime I have read hundreds of works relevant to religion, philosophy, God, Truth and Christianity. Your responses are not those of a polished, mature debater, but are only knee-jerk reactions to issues you clearly have never considered before. Maybe you should get off your high horse and deal with my statements like an adult, and use rationality instead of presuming me wrong right-off-the-bat. You have not established HOW or in WHICH WAYS "it is obvious" I don"t know what I"m talking about. Stating that someone doesn"t know what they are talking about without backing your claim with evidence and reasons makes one"s claim empty and void. So far, the only one wasting everyone"s time is YOU. For you have failed miserably to provide any convincing reasons and/or evidence of why my claims are not true. You have only arrogantly laid claims to having the truth, and denied my claim without the least effort of showing why or how. No, I am stating that St Paul and Emperor Constantine in 317 AD had the primary hands in defining the basic precepts of the Christian doctrine and belief system. ORIGINAL Christian doctrine was suppressed and attacked by Saul of Tarsus, and the Roman government, etc. Then on the Road to Damascus Saul had an attack of conscience, where he heard Jesus ask why he was persecuting him. Saul made an extreme reversal and went from attacker to supporter of the new religion. These two individuals in particular chose specific ways to INTERPRET Jesus" words, whereas contemporary schools of thought at the time such as the Gnostics and Essenes were suppressed. Their interpretations did not meet with the approval of the new Roman Church as decided by Constantine. Hence, their views on how Jesus should properly be interpreted were excluded and forbidden to have any say in the new religion. No one was able to make sense of why Jesus died and then nothing happened. Paul provided a seemingly valid explanation. No one ever questioned his basic assumptions. Granted, some of the things Jesus said are self-evident truth, like "Love your neighbor as yourself." Other things he said, like some of his parables, were unclear even to his disciples. And they complained about it. The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" Matt 13.10. If all that is really necessary for salvation is to "believe on him", then why all the parables and metaphysical teachings he spoke of? Now are you going to join this debate as a proper contributor and stop playing your little game of being Jesus incarnated?, or just keep making claims to truth and that my points are untrue, without backing your arguments with any historic or rational evidence?
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

It's obvious that you have no idea of what you're arguing about!As I've already stated, my name back then WASN'T JESUS.(You may call me Vaj. )Neither I nor anyone else back in Biblical times spoke English.English didn't even EXIST back then.You really should check out the references I already gave you instead of wasting everybody's valuable time arguing against the truth!As I have already stated, I created My Religion- Christianity.It's based on my teachings, not on my body of 2000 years ago.(How could anybody not understand "LOVE ONE ANOTHER. " ? ) Are you claiming that the Fundamentalists, rather than Christ, through his (my) own statements,decide what Christianity is all about?Does anybody really believe that a God, or a Son of God, can be Murdered?Doesn't the Bible ITSELF state that I was walking around perfectly normally a few days AFTER the Crucifixion?You want to brag about THE OH SO POWERFUL Holy Roman Empire?You really should consider the difference between MY time, or what you might call "God's Time" , & normal, human time. Remember what L. Ron Hubbard asked :"Who fears now that archeological curiosity called Rome? "The Roman Empire ceased to exist a Long Time ago!You really should go back & study what I said & did back then, as described in the Bible.I didn't set up, or claim I was setting up, a formal organization.I said that my kingdom is not of this world, & that my church would be built on "the Rock" , (apparently a pun on the name), Peter.I may not have been around for very long back then, but I'm sure back now.Anybody who's misinterpreting my words, etc. , have problems!
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

"Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip?" John 14.9. Then many of his disciples, when they heard these things, said, "This is a difficult saying! Who can understand it?" John 6.60. It is clear that even his most highly touted disciples had trouble understanding him. If his disciples had so much difficulty grasping what Jesus was all about, how much more difficulty would the entire world have, especially after he was gone? You concede that Christianity has "SOME confusions, false assumptions and lies""but what if just ONE such assumptions " a most fundamental one of fundamentalists -- is FALSE, namely; that he came for the purpose of dying in order to forgive sins? Why on earth would the murder of a Son of God erase sins? If anything, it merely compounds them. The evidence in the Bible reveals that after Jesus died, everyone was waiting for big things to happen; The wrath of God to come down on the Romans, etc. But nothing happened. Then Paul/Saul saw a vision and even though he never met Jesus, he provided an "explanation" of what the life of Jesus had been about. This then was PAUL"S INTERPRETATION of events and teachings of Jesus. And it was by this means that Christianity had its beginnings, and not Jesus forming a formal organization. Jesus was no longer available for comment, nor to correct interpreters of his words in the event that they MISinterpreted him.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

Speaking of confusion & knowledge of the truth,My name wasn't Jesus- I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.I would tend to agree that modern-day,orthodox Christianity does contain SOME confusions, false assumptions & lies, but I wouldn't say that it contains a LOT of that sort of thing, nor would I agree that my true followers are confused. My religion was started by my followers?Nope- I started it! You might want to study Constantine, the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, etc. , the influnece, manipulation, control of modern-day, orthodox Christianity by the so-called "Holy Roman Catholic Church" , etc. , none of which I'd automatically consider my true followers, at all. Sorry.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers, who failed to understand him clearly; thus said religion is full of false assumptions and lies. For example, Jesus did not come to earth for the purpose of being killed in order to forgive sins; rather, to live and to teach the Truth. John 18.37. Only the knowledge of Truth can set you free. John 8.32.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

You keep making this outlandish claim that I am a liar and have lost the debate. The burden of PROOF of these contentions rests on YOU. It is you who must SHOW how and in what ways I have told a falsehood, or have lost the argument. You must learn to back up your claims with sound and solid EVIDENCE... not just make blank statements. Calling someone a liar is not very mature, or professional. It makes your own position weak. I have presented biblical "facts" and clear reasoning to back up my arguments. What exactly have you shared or offered to back up your claims? NOTHING that I or anybody else can see. You are all talk and no show.
Christianity was not started by Jesus, but rather by his confused followers...

You state that you never disagreed with the statement that Christ's name wasn't Jesus, but you keep calling Christ Jesus.I don't disagree with your statement that not all of my teachings are found in the Bible.Modern-day, official, orthodox "Christianity" ISN'T my religion, at all. Just because some of my disciples didn't understand everything that I taught doesn't mean that they were confused. You've lost this debate.I have every right to call you a liar (Ist Amendment Constitutional Right) . You ARE a liar. Goodbye !