BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
there is no such thing as hell.

i can at best believe in hell.. stories are not real, as i cant see, hear, touch the stories beyond the words being spoken or where ever you get the story from. belief is false, be lie, as i dont know is true, and i have no beliefs i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i am certain that i am not, but i can believe there is a dog in my room that i cant see i can believe that i will go to hell, no matter what i do, no matter what religion i believe in, and the evidence to back up this belief is equal to any religious story i can believe about hell for me to claim, i will go to hell or heaven when i die, is not a true claim, but you claiming you are reading these words on a screen.. to you, is not an imaginary claim
Should NAFTA Be Abolished

The North American Free Trade Agreement has promoted and promotes trade growth. Not only does it remove unnecessary tariffs so that North America can trade freely, it helps the three countries to have an understanding of each other and to decrease the unemployment rate in Mexico, thus eventually decreasing the welfare the U.S. pays. While I concede that there are negative affects regarding the loss of blue collar jobs to places like Mexico and pollution (although there is pollution wherever there is manufacturing), this only has come about because of Mexico's loose regulations. Were the U.S. to pressure them to tighten their grip on their economy and increase minimum wage to, say, 150 pesos an hour, this would quickly change. However, I am now dealing in the theoretical, so I invite you to provide your argument.
That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Salve. (I find it slightly ironic that I had just started learning Latin recently.)I too am very disappointed in how that debate turned out, and though I had placed the blame on Vinnie, I'm afraid to say that I had acted childish in that debate. I have learned a little maturity since then, and I hope that we can have a good conversation in this debate. I accept the rules and definitions as provided.
That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Salve DrCereal, I just read through your incomplete debate with Vinnie_Cross_Briet, and I was disappointed to see it end how it did. If you're up for it--which it seems you are, as you've issued three debate challenges on the existence of God--I'd like to offer my commentary on your previous debate, and pick up the conversation where you left it with Vinnie. RULES: In round one: I'd like to adjust the scope and definitions of the previous debate: DrCereal v. Vinnie_Cross_Briet, "A Creator's Existence is Apparent" [1]. You may take this round to accept, and adjust the rules however you like. In round two: I will offer my commentary of the previous debate, and formulate what I think is the best form of the argument Vinnie was trying to make. Thenceforth, a freeform debate. This is of course a very important question to solve, and I"m sure we can keep this more amiable than the previous debate. I will assume the burden of proof such as you prefer, but my resolution shall not be "Given the philosophical thought and empirical evidence available to us within the natural universe, we can safely conclude that a creator's existence is apparent." A few words on why this seems like an unfitting resolution: the first clause is unnecessary, of course we will be basing any conclusion on reason and evidence; the second clause is simply a silly resolution I think, that the existence is apparent. If it were apparent, then it would be apparent to everyone, and there would be no cause for debate on the subject. RESOLUTION AND DEFINITION: Instead, a more proper resolution I think, is that it is more reasonable to think that there is a creator, than to think that there is not. As for the definition of creator: I don"t think there is any need to include personality in the entity of the creator, qua creator. Also, while it may be necessary per the argument that the creator must have always existed, it is not part of his definition I think, but a quality; it also does not imply that he is "eternal and everlasting." Therefore, I think the better definition we arrive at is that a creator is a being of intelligence, which is the first cause of the material world. I hope you will agree to engage, and finish civilly what was started. If after a period of ten days, DrCereal has not accepted, message me if you"d like to assume his role as Con. I look forward to our dialogue! [1] http://www.debate.org...
That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Rebuttals:I. The Beginning of the UniverseUltimately, the original argument - given your explanation of prior matter and energy - proves the necessity of the Big Bang (and the consequential singularity) being the origin of matter and energy. I wouldn't necessarily construe your argument as being the same as a proof for a necessary cause for the singularity (or that that cause is "uncaused").Apologies for this rebuttal being brief and somewhat meek in its attempt.II. Cosmological ArgumentIt appears that our main disagreement with this argument lies in the definitions we use to expound our thoughts. My "form" can in a way be descibed as an "essence". A form is something which can have "individuality" and is something that is defined by the properties it has.I maintain that Pro's validation for this argument is still a hasty generalization. [1]III. The Design ArgumentIn round 3, it does seem like Pro supports line 2 with the statement (A statement that wasn't add to the more explicit form of the argument. This is why I missed it in the last round.) "[Every change] either is itself passively in motion on account of something else ... " If you were to think about this statement, it assumes that there are only two ways from which change can be caused:1.) The change was intentional ("active") or2.) The change's cause was accidental and caused by another ("passive")."Accidental"is an antonym for "intended". There is no reason to suggest that an accidental cause needs to have a prior cause. To be more explicit, the dichotomy presented by Pro in this argument is a false one. The presence of this fallacy renders the argument unsound.Direct Responses:I."I am arguing that it is logical to think that it behaves in the same way that all observed change does"It isn't because doing so is a hasty generalization. [1] They are not equivalent phenomena so this is not an induction we can make. Final Remarks & Debate Conclusion:Though there were problems with this debate (As with all others.), I wholeheartedly thank Raumulus for having it with me. It's been a pleasure discussing such an important topic with you. Vale!As of this point in the debate, I still contend that the arguments have yet to be properly substantiated. The Cosmological Argument has not been validated, and the Design Argument is hopelessly flawed. I think - if one wishes to quickly read through the debate - my primary and best responses can be found in rounds 2 and 4, though, obviously, the other round (round 3) was vital in the discussion (especially "1a").The resolution has not been affirmed, and I encourage the voters to vote Con.Sources:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...
That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Concerning the origin of the universe, your questions are already addressed in the argument. The matter and energy being discussed is that which some may allege to exist before the big bang, and the distance is the which exists between the matter and the singularity of the big bang. The argument and it's followings have not been objected to. To be honest, I found your qualified definitions a bit strange, they seem to be skirting around my argument. Undeniably, the creation of a new animal is the creation of a new essence, not simply new form. It is of course, as said multiple times by both of us at this point, not creation of matter. The creation of the universe, which is the only creation of matter, is not observed anywhere in the natural phenomena, is still a kind of change, and so I am arguing that it is logical to think that it behaves in the same way that all observed change does, namely as the effect of an external cause. I think your dichotomy and distinction are irrelevant. Concerning the uncaused cause, the internal property is in the cause which is outside the universe, so no, I don't quite see the problem. Concerning the second line of the syllogism, I'd ask you to review my argument more carefully. I clearly stated that causation is either active or passive, and the principle of intention only applies to the active. Space-time is a passive existence. About line five, again review the argument. As we go into the final round, I'd ask you to review the arguments a little more carefully, and present a full assessment.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

1st.) If the resolution doesn't state something as important as this it shouldn't and couldn't be used as a point. No were does it say that the innocent person consents to being killed to save the lives of the others. So yes this point is completely irrelevant and can't nor should ever be used in a debate under this topic. 2nd.) Again we have a completely irrelevant point that should not be considered because no where in the resolution does it say that the innocent person has threatened anyone and this argument should not be considered. 3rd.) If you are on a plane and unaware it has been hijacked you are either completely stupid or high. But even if the terrorist found a way to hijack it unknowingly how would the government know it is headed for a building to blow it up Ok so this makes no sense because your first point is completely irrelevant so it can't even be taken into consideration in this debate so come up with at least 1 relevant point next round or forfeit.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

"1st rebuttal: First off in the topic it doesn't say you get the consent of the person you are about to kill. So this point is irrelevant." It doesn't say that you don't get the consent either. And this is not irrelevant, it is an example of when it would be undeniably morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. I obviously would not state a contention that had nothing to do with the resolution. I'll assume Con could not think of anything truly wrong about it and just took the easy way out by trying to prove it untopical. Nice try. "2nd rebuttal: Second the innocent person isn't threatening to kill anyone he is just an innocent bystander." Again, I am giving an example of when it would be undeniably morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. If a man threatens another but does not act, he may still be morally innocent. However, by threatening another's life, he has forfeited his own right to not be killed. Therefore, it is possible to be innocent and forfeit you're right to live. "3rd rebuttal: You can't shoot the plane down when there is a chance for the people to still live. There is a chance they could take back control or you could send people into the plane to stop it." If the people were completely unaware? If they had no idea the plane was headed for a building, how can they know to stop it? Just off a gut hunch? And I would love an example of when the government boarded a plane traveling 300 M/H and was being piloted by a terrorist. The plane isn't gonna hold still while the enemy throws grapples at the plane. "You can never justify killing. Killing is killing. Killing a harmless innocent person is wrong and will always be wrong. No matter what the circumstances are." Wrong. Even if you feel my first contention is irrelevant to the resolution, it still would prove that killing an innocent would not be wrong so long as the innocent consents.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Thank you Undebatably_Superior for posting this debate and allowing me the opportunity to debate you, so with that I get started. I agree with all your definitions and accept them. 1st rebuttal: First off in the topic it doesn't say you get the consent of the person you are about to kill. So this point is irrelevant. 2nd rebuttal: Second the innocent person isn't threatening to kill anyone he is just an innocent bystander. 3rd rebuttal: You can't shoot the plane down when there is a chance for the people to still live. There is a chance they could take back control or you could send people into the plane to stop it. Now for my point You can never justify killing. Killing is killing. Killing a harmless innocent person is wrong and will always be wrong. No matter what the circumstances are. Again thank you for this debate and allowing me to debate you.
The minimum wage should be raised

The con side has forfeited the 2nd round so I will keep this short to keep it fair. The point of the minimum wage, as put by FDR, is to make sure someone can have a decent level of living. The current minimum wage is a poverty wage and needs to be raised. I do not want 15 dollars but more likely 10 dollars and will be implemented over a long time. The economic downfalls will be negligible and we will end up with a net gain.
The minimum wage should be raised

I accept the challenge and will debate that we should raise the minimum wage. The resolution or the con speaker did not define or say how far reaching this raise was or how much it will be, so I will debate that this will be a increase on the existing federal minimum wage. I would first like to state the purpose of the minimum wage. It has been and still is needed to prevent a slave like wage for work. FDR, who put the first minimum wage in place, stated that this was needed so people can support themselves. This minimum wage has to change and grow with the gain in inflation and growing cost of living. We still have now that the minimum wage still ends up getting you below the poverty line and in need of welfare programs which is of more cost to or already large deficit. A raise in the minimum wage and its effect on the economy has had a lot of research over it but nothing has come up with much conclusiveness. Many do show that there is a job loss in youth or low-skilled work, though usually only a small amount. However, I would argue that the majority of people will be helped by this increase in wage and the small amount hurt is insignificant. I am not saying that we raise it to 15 dollars an hour, just a modest dollar or two. Over half of the states already have a state minimum wage greater than the federal on so this increase will have little change. The Con speaker has brought up the problem of immigrant and youth workers. The problem is is that those workers are already competing with natives. Yes, immigrants may offer to work less but the work is the same. Many immigrant fill jobs with low supply. Also the change in youth employment would be very negligible and also is a non-issue. Many teenagers are already supported by their parents and the job is mostly for just spending. Many places of work also depend on teenage workers because the supply of older ones are not their, again showing that a raise would not change much. The issues that face black Americans are real and need to be dealt with. It will be with better focus on education and vocational training. Not raising the minimum wage is not a solution to the problem. We must also take into consideration that the raise increase will give more money to lower wage workers who will spend it, and thus, stimulating the economy. The faults in raising the minimum wage are present but there is a net gain in doing so modestly.
Governmental Economic Intervention

The point of government intervention in the economy is not only to encourage growth, but to protect the consumers of America from the corporate greed and corruption of big business. During the most recent recession, big international banks like Bank of America engaged in the risky business practice of giving loans to people they knew could not pay them back. As a direct result of this practice, foreclosures rose 81% in 2008 (CNN Money), while the stock of Bank of America plummeted and the company was in danger of declaring bankruptcy. The government had no choice. Hundreds of thousands of people had already lost their houses, but if Bank of America went the same way as the Lehman Brothers or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, millions of hard-working Americans could lose their homes or face much higher interest rates and mortgage payments if their mortgages were bought by other large banks. The government under President Obama stepped in and gave Bank of America a total of $45 billion worth of taxpayer dollars (Donate) to prevent a total meltdown. Bank of America defines what it means for an international company to be "Too Big to Fail." Their dishonest and toxic business practices contributed to the crippling recession of 2008, and yet, they received billions in a government-initiated bailout because the collapse of the company would be catastrophic to the American people and the economy not only in America, but all over the world. When big business is behaving in a way that is morally and economically wrong, it should not only be the government"s right, but their obligation to step in and protect the American people, and if possible, punish the corporation that is responsible. Works Cited: "Donate." Bailout List: Banks, Auto Companies, and More. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2013. "Foreclosures up a Record 81% in 2008." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 15 Jan. 2009. Web. 24 Oct. 2013.
Governmental Economic Intervention

Indeed, it is obvious that governmental intervention and spending are integral to the economy, but that"s not to say that intervention is a good thing. President Bush did indeed reduce income tax, but he did not do so exclusively "on the wealthy." President Bush reduced income taxes, and thus Americans of all socioeconomic classes paid fewer taxes. The amount of money saved by the average American due to a tax cut is relative to his income. Therefore Bush"s tax cuts were not attempts of "trickle-down economics" but rather intentions of putting more money in the average American"s pocket " this includes both the rich American and the poor American and everyone in between. President Obama similarly issued approximately $288 billion in tax cuts as part of his 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (Major L. Clark, III). President Obama evidently believed in part that reducing taxes would stimulate small businesses and the working class. President Bush"s tax cuts accounted for an extremely minute increase in the federal deficit during his two presidential terms. Rather, President Bush"s reckless federal military spending accounted for the majority of the stifling increase in the deficit. President Bush"s funding of two wars, one of which " Iraq " was an utter calamity, accounted for the vast majority of the increased federal deficit. Interestingly, however, "the national debt has risen more during President Obama"s three years and two months in office than it did during the 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency." (Knoller). Works Cited Major L. Clark, III and Saade, Radwan N. The Role of Small Business in Economic Development of the United States. U.S. Small Business Administration. September 2010. Web. 3 October 2013 . Knoller, Mark. "National Debt has Increased more under Obama than under Bush." CBS News. 19 March 2012. Web. 17 October 2013 .
Governmental Economic Intervention

You don't need to look very hard to realize that government intervention in the economy is unbelievably important. During his years in office, President Bush put into place many policies that would lessen government intervention in the economy, which he believed would stimulate economic growth. He cut taxes on the wealthy from 39.6% to 35% (Bartlett, Bruce). He believed that more money in the hands of the wealthy would "trickle-down" to the lower classes. What actually happened was a rapid increase in income inequality that actually caused the budget deficit to increase because the government was collecting less money from wealthy taxpayers. President Bush also supported free trade and worked to build upon the policies established by his father when he was President. President Bush's free trade policies failed utterly. The US's trade deficit, that is the difference between what we export and what we import, reached historic levels under President Bush. His hands-off approach to trade increased the trade deficit from $379 billion in 2000 when he took office, to $700 billion in 2007 (English, John). His free trade policies also encouraged companies that normally manufactured their goods in America in order to avoid tariffs to leave the country in search of cheaper labor, putting their former employees out of work. In fact, between 2000 and 2008, 3.4 million manufacturing jobs were lost in America (English,John). There is nothing wrong with letting the economy run it's course because the economy is the backbone of any nation. The economy creates jobs, and provides people with an income, which allows the government to collect income taxes, allowing the government to function. Problems arise when international corporations who employ hundreds of thousands of Americans decide to pursue their profit margin and line the pockets of their executives and move production out of the country, leaving hard-working Americans to provide for their families without an income. Works Cited Bartlett, Bruce. "Bush Tax Cuts Had Little Positive Impact on Economy | The Fiscal Times." The Fiscal Times. N.p., 17 Sept. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. English, John. "Job Loss Due to President Bush's Trade Policy." Epipolicycenter.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.