BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Public Prayer Should Not Be Allowed In School

We must go back to our first amendment that gives us the freedom of speech.(1) Now if we think about this topic there are going to be many guidelines among this. Shall we force students to pray at school? No, because there is separation between church and state. But, should we stop students from being allowed to pray in schools? No because we do have freedom of speech. Also in our first amendment we are given the freedom of religion. So although we cannot be forced to believe something, then we also can not be forced to not believe in something. So therefore if we believe we need to participate in public prayer, then according the first amendment we can't be forced to not do what we believe. 1) https://www.aclu.org...
the cost of greening who will bear the price developed countries or developing countries

Developed countries are the countries that by far consume the most amount of electricity and are the worlds biggest polluting nations. The US alone pollutes over 3 times more ALL OF AFRICA COMBINED, and the same is true for the US and all of South America. http://baraza.wildlifedirect.org... Electricity wise, the US consumes 12 times more electricity then all of Africa combined, and about 5 times more then China. http://en.wikipedia.org... So the cost of greening will fall almost entirely on developed countries like the US, Europe, and China, not on developing countries.
Wikipedia is a Fairly Accurate Resource

Wikipedia.org is one of the top ten most visited websites the internet has to offer, but takes a lot of heat for being inaccurate and not reliable. Personally, I've never been allowed to site Wikipedia for any research I've done in school. I find, however, that Wikipedia is almost always flawless, usually only not perfect because of a simple grammar mistake. Wikipedia has an entire network set up to ensure that their articles aren't vandalized or edited by misinformed people. Some say that since anyone can edit Wikipedia, it's not reliable. That's not entirely true, however. There is a complex class system of articles, so that important articles can only be edited by qualified people. For example, the article on George Washington is what is called "semi-protected". In a nutshell, unconfirmed users cannot edit it. But there are many different forms of protection, all of which can be found on Wikipedia's Protection Policy page (Ref. 1). But does this network of article protection work? How hard is it to be a "confirmed" user? Not very difficult, but not worth your time for a simple prank. With 4 days of holding an account and 10 edits, a user can be autoconfirmed, and capable of changing popular data across Wikipedia. However, with over 20 million named accounts on Wikipedia, false data doesn't stand very long. There will always be vandals, but there will always be many, many, MANY more reviewers. Despite this, there are still many people point to other resources like Encyclopedia Britannica as a defense that Wikipedia isn't accurate, with the assumption that Britannica is far more accurate than Wikipedia. How true is that claim? Luckily, there was a study on this very topic. Nature (a science journal) took articles from random topics from both Wikipedia and Britannica, and had experts compare the articles, one from each website on a single topic, side-by-side. The results were fascinating. The number of errors were almost equal. Major errors were equal, minor errors clocked in at 2.92 per article for Britannica, and 3.86 errors for Wikipedia. In conclusion, neither website is better in the grand scheme of things, but for any given article there may be 1 or 2 more misleading sentences or instances of missing information on Wikipedia than you will find on Britannica. Wikipedia is one of the world's favorite sites, and one of the most hated. Someone quickly looking up who won the Battle of Bunker Hill will enthusiastically click on the link to Wikipedia, but school teachers won't have any part of Wikipedia's "false information." It's unfortunate, since it is one of the most accurate resources available on the internet. Encyclopedia Britannica has Wikipedia beat because of a couple better-worded sentences, but you just can't beat the diversity and magnitude of Wikipedia. But best of all, it's free... in more ways than one. References: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Minimum Wage

As my opponent has failed to realize that if you raise the minimum wage everything else will go up in price. As I have said earlier in my second round. So you might as well keep the wage at a minimum. My opponent mentioned is his argument that not all wages should be raised. Well with the wages everything is supposed to be raised evenly. (Well, the manager or the owner gets to decide how much he can afford to pay his workers) You got to take in consideration that it also takes money to train you. This is not on who is better and who is not. For instance, a McDonald"s worker gets the same wage an hour as someone who is working at Kroger. It"s two different environment working facilities, but still get paid the same an hour. As me being a Conservative, I would like to point out that I do not want higher taxes and having to pay $5.00 for a burger at McDonalds. Also there would not be a value meal either for people who can"t afford $5.00 burgers. Some wages are different in pay. For instance, you come from college with a degree, you will get a higher pay. Also minimum wage job is a job just to get you started, not to be your livelihood. Thank you dear friend for debating me in this debate. I will say this right now, everybody who votes please vote fair and honestly. Thank you once again. Check this website please voters. It's long I know but it shows the different wages in the US. http://www.dol.gov...
Minimum Wage

A key thing to point out is that both employers and workers seek to make a profit. Employers gain value from workers because of the services they provide, and workers gain value from employers from the money they get paid. No rational person would attempt to give their services to the employers for nothing in return. Raising wages for those who deserve it is the manifestation of the appreciation the business owner has towards the worker, and an attempt to keep the worker working. Skilled workers at a job should not be paid the same amount as those who are bad at the job. The business owner gains more value from a skilled worker than an unskilled worker. An incentive for having good workers is the possibility for increased wages, and, as such, increasing wages directly benefits the business owner.This is not to say that wages should be increased for every worker. This would lead to the situation you have described, in which no real benefit is gained, as everyone's wage is increased regardless of the worker's abilities. If, however, wages are selectively increased in order to deliver the most benefit to both the worker and the business owner, the result would be that those that are good at their job will have more money than those who are bad at their job, and, as a result of having more good workers, the business can afford to sell higher-quality goods for a lower price than before. You cannot ignore the values gained from the goods themselves when looking at this issue.
Minimum Wage

I am debating that minimum wage is good and that we should not raise the wages. In my opinion we should not raise the wages we get paid. We don"t work at jobs just to work at jobs. The owners hire employees so that the employers/owners can make money. Let"s look at Burger King for instance. Let"s say they raise the wage to $20.00 an hour. If they don"t jack up their prices on their food they will lose money. Also raising the wage will not make anything better. Everything will just double the price. There will always be poor people, so that problem is not solved. Also money doesn't grow on trees. Let"s look at the sales example, say the wages are raise, which means the people who make car parts have to jack their prices up. Then when you go buy the truck or whatever car the price will be doubled. Taxes will be doubled too. So this is not a win win situation. Nothing will change, the only thing that will change is how much you get paid, but you will still be left over with less money than you started with. Check this out!! http://www.dol.gov...
Burqa wearing

I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate. The presumed resolution is that it is wrong to tell a woman she cannot wear a burqa when she chooses. I will now offer my main points. Contention 1: The concept of a Burqa. A burqa is a garment worn by women of an Islamic faith. It often covers everything but the wearer's eyes. This creates complete concealment of one's identity. So if we are to allow women to wear burqa's whenever they choose, then at anytime they can completely conceal their identities. I will go on to discuss the issues that arise from this in my next two contentions. Contention 2: Identification Issues. We must imagine a scenario where the police, government, or any other institution requires identification. In these situations a woman wearing a burqa is completely unidentifiable. If a woman is able to choose to wear a burqa whenever she wants then she would not have to take it off. This is obviously unacceptable. Contention 3: Security Issues. In some public places and businesses it is illegal to wear a mask. For example, a bank or an airport. These rules are established for the safety of all people involved. We cannot allow anyone to be above these rules and regulations. While the woman may be offended, it is worthwhile. We cannot sacrifice the safety of everyone in order to avoid hurting the feelings of an individual. It is for these reasons that I respectfully ask for a Con vote. I now turn the debate over to my opponent.
Abortion

So I have a few questions and I will give my answers to those questions also to give you a better understanding of where my beliefs are to. Then you can respond and state whatever you wish and ask me any questions you would like. 1. When do you believe the baby becomes a human? Conception? sometime in the womb? Or after it has left the mother? 2. Why do you believe this? 3. What situations do you believe the mother's rights supersede the babies rights? My answers: 1. I believe the baby becomes a human being at conception. 2. I used to believe it was certain weeks along in the pregnancy, but the more you learn about how fast the baby develops the more I realized my beliefs were starting to crash with my morality. This point of when the baby becomes a human is probably the one point where my beliefs have the best chance of getting changed as I don't see to much evidence for either side when it comes to morality. 3. The only situation I see where the mothers rights supersede the babies is when the life of the mother is in danger.
Abortion

You are the con ;)What I meant by entitlement is a mix between 'the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment' and 'the fact of having a right to something'. Anyway, onto my counterarguments.Abortion is not the killing of a created human, because a fetus is not a created human being. It is still being crafted into a adult human.Under my logic, it isn't morally correct to kill half the population because morales tell us killing is wrong.In the United States, we are not entitled to not be murdered, or nobody would be murdered. We are entitled to the government trying to lock up the murder if we are known about and the government doesn't hate us.Now my argument.There is a difference between fact and opinion.Fact is either true (the other definition of fact) or false (fiction).Opinions are neither true or false but they are often backed up by fact or more accepted opinion.Whether something exists or not (e.g. God) is the fact type.All laws and morales are opinions and are not true or false. Right and wrong are opinions as well.Of course most of the laws have reasonable evidence for them. Murder of born humans should be illegal because the possible victims don't want to be murdered. The fetus however is a fetus and cannot want to not be murdered. Abortion is a type of birth control and like the rest stops birth. The victim of all types of birth control are without a working brain that allows thought of any sort.I, a human being, operate to not murder others because it is a bad survival ability and therefore a group that has the trait would be dead pretty quick. Because of that, I feel wrong murdering another human being that might not like it. Again, the fetus, the egg, and the possible future child will not not like it because they can't at this time.I did not say not reproducing and birth control were the same. I said they were similar choices with the same affect. There is a spectrum between not reproducing and standard killing. What sets the line is that, as I have said above, the fetus, egg, possible future child etc. does not have thought or wants. That is what creates the line between okay by law and not.
Abortion

Con believes that no one not even the baby is entitled to life. I would like everyone to take that statement into account for the rest of the argument. THe question of whether the baby is a human being is absolutely relevant. In fact it is THE question in the abortion argument. If it is a human being it is illegal to kill it because that would be homicide. If it is just another piece of flesh in the women's body you can do whatever you want its basically a kidney, But lets go back to your no one is entitled to life. So under that logic murder should be legal in your mind? Because that is basically your argument. No one is entitled to life... That in itself is a dangerous statement. It is also a factually untrue statement in the United States. Definition of entitlement " a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract." Considering murder is against the law that is an entitlement. Now lets tackle your claims that if abortion is illegal all forms of birth control should be illegal. I find this statement dangerous to. To conflate abortion with condoms is a highly suspect claim. The baby starts to become a separate entity when sperm meets egg. A condom prevents that from happening. Abortion is conducted after that process they are not the same. Next statement was abortion is the same as choosing not to reproduce every second. That is just not the same morally or logically. Abortion is the killing of another human being that has already been created, and choosing not to reproduce is not creating another human being. Under your logic it would be morally correct to kill half the population because the world is overpopulated. Because there is not difference between killing a human and choosing to not reproduce. You may not believe that we are entitled to "life" but under the law in the United States we as humans are "entitled" to not be murdered.
Abortion

1. It doesn't matter when the baby becomes human...2. ... because abortion is either killing or denying life to the baby.3. I don't believe the baby, or anyone else, is entitled to life.I would consider denying life is a lot worse than standard killing because it doesn't allow any consciousness in the first place.Understand this: If abortion is illegal because it denies life, then condoms should be to. Under this logic, all types of birth control should be illegal.Besides the choice to use birth control, there is a similar choice: the choice to try to reproduce. Making abortion illegal under the logic it is killing is very similar to not reproducing every second illegal because it is denying life.And while not reproducing being illegal is beyond insane, abortion and other birth control types being illegal are insane as well. And more importantly, they have the same affects.
The EU is bad in regards to Poland and Hungary

The problem with what you just said is, That they do. Hungary voted for not taking any migrants and EU wants to punish them for doing so. This is not democracy. And yes leaving might be a point, But as you said, It is death to leave. Your words. As said, Forcing a county to do thing they don't want to do is the anything but democracy. That is my point and again please focus on that part.
The EU is bad in regards to Poland and Hungary

They don't have to join if they don't want to, In fact even when they do no one forces them to take immigrants do they? No one even forces them to balance heir bloody budget even though they should, As i said the eu was better when it was just be ne lux germany france tialy and ireland if they don't like it then let them leave, Do you see the disater in the uk now, To leave is death for their standard of living, And in the eu how many immigrants hav they taken? Hm? How many were forced on them?
The EU is bad in regards to Poland and Hungary

I know a bit about the EU, My family is from the netherlands and i know being in the eu is really benificial to a small nation. In my opinion Charles de Gaulle was correct when he opposed entry of the UK, The common market should have been limited to the benelux italy france and germany, And perhpas Ireland, A very friendly nation and people easy to get along with. Many nations are chavanistic and nationalistic and jealous of sovereignty. . The heck with them. . Never the less if you can swallow your pride and move past you egos, You will see how much you benifit from the eu. . Don't be difficult, If you plan to be, Do what the british did and just leave, Slit your own throat, Why should we care?
Jesus is not without sin

Wrath is officially described by the Catholic Church as "Wrath, when used of man, is the exhibition of an enraged sinful nature and is therefore always inexcusable (Genesis 4:5,6; 49:7; Proverbs 19:19; Job 5:2; Luke 4:28; 2 Corinthians 12:10; Galatians 5:20; Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8). It is for this reason that man is forbidden to allow anger to display itself in his life. He is not to "give place unto wrath" (Romans 12:19 margin), nor must he allow "the sun to go down upon his wrath" (Ephesians 4:26). He must not be angry with his brother (Matthew 5:22), but seek agreement with him lest the judgment that will necessarily fall upon the wrathful be meted out to him (Matthew 5:25,26). Particularly is the manifestation of an angry spirit prohibited in the training and bringing up of a family (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:19). Anger, at all times, is prohibited (Numbers 18:5; Psalms 37:8; Romans 12:19; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:26; James 1:19,20)." As Jesus is both man and God this definition must also apply to him.
Jesus is not without sin

"Is Jesus not described multiple as both man and God in one body?"Yes, He is."So why does if it was wrath or not only apply to one side of him?" It does not.I did not argue that what made the act sinless was that the wrath comes from the "God" side of Him.You misunderstood why I wrote "wrath of man is not the same as the wrath of God"...I put that in there because you said that wrath is a sin.My point was...1. the Bible says God is sinless2. The Bible says God has wrath.3. Therefore wrath is not a sin.I was not focused on the wrath aspect of what Jesus did but on the righteous anger aspect.If you would like me to focus on wrath, I will."I agree his anger was directed at sinful behavior but one sin does not justify another."A) I demonstrated clearly that none of what Jesus did was sinful.B) Do you want to claim that I am trying to justify a sin? If so,...C) You will have to prove from the Biblical text that what Jesus did was not righteous anger.Regardless of His motivations for His actionsNo, not regardless of His motivations. The motivation behind anger is what shows wether something is righteous or unrighteouss anger. Unlike other sins, anger can be identified by motives. For example, lying is still a sin regardless of wether someone's motives are good or bad. Why? This is because lying in of itself is a sin. Anger, on the other hand is NOT in of itself a sin.Jesus threatened the merchants physically and destroyed their property.He did not sin by doing this. He did the exact opposite...“Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? [Isaiah 56:7-8] But you have made it a den of robbers [Jeremiah 7:11].”2. If a man has weapons that he uses to murder, is it a sin to destroy those weapons?2. How much more if he was using those weapons in the house of God?Anger in of itself is not a sin, nor is flipping tables.
Jesus is not without sin

You are confusing sinful anger with righteous anger.As a matter of fact, this was a messianic prophecy being fulfilled.Psalm 69:9 "For zeal for your house will consume me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me." [EIn the New Testament we find that Jesus’ emotion were described as “zeal” for God’s house...John 2:17 "His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house will consume me.”"Where in the Bible does it say that zeal for God, righteous anger, or even that wrath is a sin? It does not say that anywhere.Interestingly, the Bible does have a great lot to say about righteous anger.For example, the Bible says to be angry... Ephesians 4:26 "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,"Jesus displayed righteous anger, yet did not sin,1. Jesus' anger had the correct motivation. There was no selfish motive involved. The only motive involved was the love for His Father and His Father's house.2. Jesus' anger had the correct focus. Jesus' anger was aimed towards sinful behavior.3. Mark 3:5 says that His anger was with grief over the Pharisees’ lack of faith. In reality, Jesus’ anger stemmed from love them and It had nothing to do with unrighteous hatred or ill will.4. Even in His wrath, He was not out of control. The Pharisees' did not like when Jesus' cleansed the temple (Luke 19:47), but Jesus' had done nothing sinful. 5. He dealt with each situation properly, and He handled anger with proper timing.6. Jesus’ anger lead towards Godly actionWrath of man is not the same as the wrath of God.