BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raising Teachers Salary

This house believe that raising teachers salary is not beneficial to teachers and students. Some teachers cannot focus well on teaching because of their families and the extra work they have to do, not their salaries. Many schools offer activities and interest classes after school hours for students, in order to let them to get more diverse learning opportunities. Teachers has to deal with that. Some teachers need to teach interest classes after school hours, so they have less time to mark their students' homework. Some teachers have kids, so they want to spend time with their kids, play with them, go out with them, instead of preparing for lessons and marking homework. Teachers are usually well-paid, so money is not a problem for them. Also, if worrying the financial problem will cause huge problems to teaching, I believe that worrying other problems like relationship will do the same. Then do we need to ban teachers from dating? Raising their salary will never decrease their workload, and thus will not make better teaching. Raising teachers' salary will make students more eager to become teachers, but it will not make better teachers, but more selfish teachers. They want to become teachers only because they want a well-paid job. Top students who are not interested in teaching may become teachers to get higher salary, while the students who preform less well in academic but want to become teachers may not be able to be teachers. This is a true pity to the future generation because how well a teacher can teach is not measured by how well he/she preform in a test. Only those who are interested in teaching may teach well. If teachers are less interested in teaching, students would learn less efficiently and reduce interest in learning. If the government or the school do have money to raise teachers' salary, why not hire more teachers to reduce the workload? Even though this means that more people an become teachers, as the salary is not that high, those people will still be the ones who are interested in teaching. If you pay the teacher more to ask them to work more, it is not efficient because they need time to relax and spend time with family and friends. So it is much better to hire more teachers. I would like the ask the Affirmative side, does money solve all the problems?
Meaning of Life Is Subjective

I agree we give subjective meaning to our lives only through our consciousness and that life doesn't necessarily denote conscious experience. Therefore it is good I specified in round one that: "By accepting this debate, my opponent disagrees with the motion that the meaning/purpose of human life is subjective." I am specifically debating for human life (which has conscious experience) as having a subjective meaning, not a single celled organism with no consciousness to create meaning.This 'meaning' obviously doesn't exist physically in the world, but rather is a purpose created by the human mind through our consciousness. So in this way meaning does exist, it's just that it is 'not out there' but inside our minds, because the meaning was created or was initiated through our consciousness. Hence if someone argues the meaning of life is to achieve your dreams, then this meaning subjectively does exist, in the sense that it makes the life of that person purposeful and (some may argue) worth living. It is a meaning they regard to be true for themself personally. Just because this particular example of the meaning of life doesn't objectively exist in nature, does not mean it doesn't exist subjectively through that person's consciousness, just like thoughts form through our consciousness and therefore exist, but not in the physical form 'out there'.I encourage everyone to vote for the motion, because if you feel you have a meaning, purpose or goal in life and you feel it is real and true for you, then you believe there is a meaning of life. All you now need to do to understand how this meaning of life is subjective, is to look around you and ask different people what they think the meaning of life is. Everyone will not say their meaning of life is the same as yours. This proves the meaning of life is subjective (down to individual's opinion/feeling and interpretation), rather than not existing at all. You probably won't find many people believing 'meaning of life doesn't exist', but this is also their subjective view on the meaning of life.Thank you Z4RQUON for the debate which has changed one of my perspectives on life.
Meaning of Life Is Subjective

//"most humans in the world... disagree with your view. "// Centuries ago, everybody knew that the world was flat... and they were wrong. //"The question of meaning is not separate from the issue of whether life/existence is present."// At one point in time, the only lifeforms were single celled organisms, they had no central nervous systems and, so, no conscious experience. There is no "what it is like to be" an amoeba . "Meaning" is inseparable from "conscious experience", yes, but life does not necessarily denote conscious experience. //"The car could not have a meaning/purpose if it did not exist"// A car does not have a purpose, conscious observers have a purpose FOR the car. The meaning/purpose does not really exist. Current neuroscience is indicating that free-will does not exist. If this is true then meaning, which derives from this "sense of self", does not exist either.
Meaning of Life Is Subjective

You have raised some very intriguing points.I understand what you mean by arguing that properties of life are objective and that life objectively exists independent of our perception of its meaning. Nevertheless, most humans in the world (take the examples of the majorities from Christianity and Islam) disagree with your view. Muslims and Christians (as well as other theists) believe that God gave humans life and created everything. Muslims believe the meaning of life is to worship God and christians may agree and add that the meaning of life is also to find peace in God and follow Jesus' teachings to attain heaven. Hence, christians and muslims would argue that from their beliefs the meaning of life does exist (from God) and our lives would not exist if God didn't create us, so the meaning is objective in the sense that it is only to please God and other subjective views are wrong. I am not using the fact that the majority of the world's population hold these beliefs for the meaning of life, to prove that their beliefs are right. However, this example supports my stance on this debate and proves the motion right, that the meaning of life is subjective.Your opinion that the objective meaning of life does not exist is also subjective and my argument by example above illustrates how a subjective view can be taken of our lives, which disregards your argument of life existing independently of our perception of its meaning."What you call "the meaning of life" is actually your projection of meaning upon your perception of life. Whatever meaning exists, it is not "-of life" but "-of your conscious experience".If the meaning of life is my projection of meaning upon my perception of life- then this supports the motion that the meaning of life is subjective. My consciousness and my physical body together make up my life as it is now- a typical human life. Therefore this meaning, if it exists, is of the whole of life (including the physical bodily aspect of life), not only a fraction of it, the conscious aspect. The question of meaning is not separate from the issue of whether life/existence is present. That is like saying that the meaning/purpose of a car (which is to drive) is independent of a car existing. The car could not have a meaning/purpose if it did not exist, just like human life can't have (even objective) meaning without existing. Asking what is the meaning/purpose of something that does not have life/existence is irrational. Hence arguing that the meaning of humans' lives is independent of there being life, is irrational.Not all people who have an opinion on the meaning of life can prove it. They may use a holy scripture, inside feeling, satisfaction of desires or achievement of goals to support their view of the meaning of life, but this isn't necessarily strong evidence. It is easy for me to prove that the meaning of life is subjective, just ask people from different cultures, backgrounds and religions: 'What is the meaning of life?' And you will be able to see with this experiment that the meaning is subjective to different people. In other words, you choose what the meaning in your life is.
Meaning of Life Is Subjective

To defeat the motion, I do not have to demonstrate that the meaning of life is objective. At bare minimum, all I have to show is that whatever properties life does possess, meaning is not one of them. So, I shall go for that low hanging fruit. What you call "the meaning of life" is actually your projection of meaning upon your perception of life. Whatever meaning exists, it is not "-of life" but "-of your conscious experience". The meaning is not inherent to life but of your own conscious perspective, epistemologically downstream of your 5 senses. There are plenty of life forms without central nervous systems with which to draw abstract thoughts and, so, the question of meaning is necessarily separate from the issue of whether life is present in a particular scenario. Furthermore, independent of your perception of it, life continues to exist and have the properties that it does. Whatever properties life does possess they are objective ones and they do not include meaning. The meaning of life, objectively, does not exist and is, therefore, not subjective.
Meaning of Life Is Subjective

By accepting this debate, my opponent disagrees with the motion that the meaning/purpose of human life is subjective. They must prove that the meaning of life is not subjective (alternatively that it is objective). Remember that if you use a religion to give your life meaning, then this is subjective as different religions give different meanings of life and people not following one particular religion will hold different view to the meaning of life.It is evident in the world that the meaning of life is subjective. I have asked many different people this question. some muslims said the meaning of life is to worship Allah and pass this worldly test. Other people said you just live happily and achieve your goals. Some said to marry and have children. No matter what the meaning/purpose of our lives is that you believe in, there will always be other people who don't share your meaning of life. Hence this proves that the meaning of life is subjective to people and not an ultimate, universal and objective truth.Another way of interpreting this motion is by asking why are we here? Is there a reason, which demands humanity to conform to? If not, then does that mean the meaning of life, belief of why we are here and exist, are subjective to each person?
Abortion is murder.

1. "The zygote doesn't know it exists" For this statement I disagree. The baby may be a cell, but it is still a living thing. Plants are cells, and we still decide to have them right? Right. Babies aren't just toys where you can do whatever you want to them and be perfectly fine with killing it. That is murder. 1. "It's cheaper to get an abortion" Lies my friend. Lies. Putting a baby up for a adoption is tons cheaper. Pay the fee and you are fine. Plus, it's not like you will have the baby long after giving birth to it. I'm not saying as soon as you have it it can go up for adoption either though. 2. The mother may not have a steady job/life: The mother made that mistake in the first place for having the child unless she was raped. If raped, I'm 50% with abortion. You've got the idea of losing the life once again because of abortion, but you've also got the idea of having a child you don't want and just putting it up for adoption. I hand the debate over to the con side.
Abortion is murder.

Thanks to pro for challenging me to this debate. I will now state my case why abortion is not murder.1. The zygote doesn't know it existsIf you discover you're pregnant and get an abortion early first trimester, say the third week, your baby is no more than two cells. It has no heart, nervous system, brain or lungs. The brain doesn't start developing until the 7th week. Even then, the baby is no bigger than a pencil eraser. It is not self-aware. It's the equivalent of killing a bacteria cell.2. It's not functioning as fully as a born human, so it cannot be defined as humanThe heart doesn't start pumping blood until the 6th week, the brain is non-existent until week 7[1], you could say you're not even killing anything. (I got all of the information for these two points from one website)I will now state reasons a mother would choose to get an abortion rather than give the baby up for adoption.1. It's cheaper to get an abortionDepending on what week you get it in during the first trimester, an abortion can cost as little as $350 to over $1,000[2]. It may seem like a lot, but the cost to give birth in a hospital with a C-section was $17,509. Complications would raise the bill to an astonishing $25,433. A natural birth without complications would cost you $10,197. Again, complications would rack up the cost to $13,830[3].2. The mother may not have a steady job/lifeTaking the cost of giving birth and comparing it to the cost of abortion, a woman earning minimum wage would not want her baby to be born into a life of poverty or have to pay for a pregnancy she couldn't afford.3. The mother may be too youngA girl may be raped and she is pregnant. She has two options: Go through nine months of carrying around a baby (including going to school with it) or get an abortion. It may be easier to shell out the dough to give birth to a baby just to give it up for adoption, or it could be easier to have an abortion.I hand the debate over to pro.
Abortion is murder.

Reason #1 for why abortion is murder: A baby is just beginning to be developed and then dies for absolutely no reason because of the person/mother making that mistake to not use protection or such. This in other terms, is like taking a cat or animal and having it be an outdoor pet. Say you have a cat and let it outside so it is an outdoors cat. This cat could get pregnant and then be stuck with their babies anyway, so the only possible way is adoption. Unless you use the term "animal cruelty" and kill it yourself. That's my belief with human babies as well. If they are killed, this is set as cruelty in my book.
Abortion is murder.

I apologize for not stating my sources in the second round. Here they are: [1]-http://www.mayoclinic.org...... [2]-https://www.google.com...... [3]-http://transform.childbirthconnection.org...... "Plants are cells, and we still decide to have them right?" Actually, plants are not cells. Plants are otherwise known as producers, and we keep them around because they take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. We take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. We both need each other to live. However, that is not the same thing with pregnancy. Plants can produce their own food, any human can't. A mother doesn't need a baby, but a baby needs its mother. Pro has failed to fill her burden of proof, as such, points should go to me. It was nice debating you, hopester.
Eden Gardens are in Heaven !

I hope it won't prove to onerous a burden. At least we agree on where Eden is mentioned. I am happy to restrict myself to what is wrongly called the Old Testament, if only because it was all my king, Christ Jesus, had to teach from, and likewise his early followers in the first century, and hopefully I shall avail myself of a number of translations. Not always restricted to popular or even commonly known ones, but we shall see. My belief is that Eden was created on heaven as an example of what Jehovah wanted Adam and Eve to spread across the earth, and that belief is largely based on scriptures such as: Psalm 115:16 NWT 16 As regards the heavens, to Jehovah the heavens belong, But the earth he has given to the sons of men. YLT 16 The heavens"the heavens are Jehovah's, And the earth He hath given to sons of men, Rotherham 16 As for the heavens, the heavens, belong to Yahweh, but the earth, hath he given to the sons of men. I look forward to the next round.
Eden Gardens are in Heaven !

John 1:13 It isn't a prophecy of his ascension and return because there never will, or even can, be a literal return to earth. For Christ to take on human form again and come down would not only be a futile exercise greeted with greater hostility than his previous "visit" than was so that time. The general teachings of those who call themselves "Christian" are so far removed from what Jesus and the Apostles taught that they rival the teachings of Judaism in the 1st century for Apostasy, probably even surpassing them. One only has to see the reception truly Christian teachings get on this site to realise what opposition Christ would receive, and this time by a while world of people, not just a few local "Pharisees" etc. Thanks to Satan's intervention opposition would be far greater if there were another time. It is also worth taking into account Jesus words at Luke 17:26-30. If that is indeed the state of mind of people when he is "due to be revealed" then the reception he would receive is obviously not going to be favourable. In fact Christ's "return" had precisely the same intentions as his primary purpose first time, to bring God's people back to God. Back then God's people were the remnants of the nation of Israel, and faithful ones followed Jesus and his Apostles and became the newly formed "Spiritual Israel", The New Israel" or "Israel of God" (Romans 9). When Christ turned his attention to the earth from heaven, whihc event was after he took up his throne ion 1914, he found, as he had feared that the faith was in fact no longer in the earth (Luke 18:8). Therefore he pulled a few who wished to be faithful out of Apostate Christianity into a New "Spiritual Israel" and proceeded to teach them in preparation for the work ahead of them (Matthew 24:14) That group eventually became known as Russelites and so were forced to change their name. After much prayerful consideration they settled on that suggested by Isaiah 43:10 "Jehovah's Witnesses". In that sense Christ turning his attention to the earth had exactly the same result as his first visit did, and created a cleansed band of servants. In fact I didn't say the observer had to be on earth, I said, as is self evident to a discerning reader that is was written as if by an observer on earth. That explains what otherwise might appear to be contradictions within the text. In fact the first is a separate step since it only deals with the creation of heaven and earth whereas verse 2 onwards deal;s with the preparation of that planet for habitation. No other details are supplied because none are needed. There is absolutely nothing in that verse 8 to suggest that they were in heaven. the expression "the sound of Jehovah God walking up and down " can only be figurative since God is a spirit, and therefore has no spiritual form to walk up and down. (John 4:23,24). Where in that verse does it say the Cherubs are anywhere but on earth? Nowhere. Angels and Cherubs have visited the earth, both literally and in vision, on may occasions. No, I cannot believe that Eden was in heaven because all of scripture points to it being on the earth.
Eden Gardens are in Heaven !

MCB : " Eden was created in the East. In the east of what? Where is there any suggestion that Heaven even has an "East", only the Earth is ever spoken of as containing such directions. "First it's not Eden that was created in the east, but the Garden where Adam was put was grown in the East of Eden, the east being the direction where the light source appears to rise from in the "morning", this doesn't have to be on earth at all. For more about the east of Eden, please consider these verse: 3 and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is. 4 And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, 5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is amorning -- day one. Genesis1 YLT This first light isn't the sun we know, and the days it produces aren't our days, and the place it enlightens isEden. This light was created before the sun, here are the verses that refer to the creation of the sun, moon and stars, later in the same chapter:14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night,then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so. 16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary-- and the stars -- for the rule of the night; 17 and God giveth them in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth, Genesis1 YLT 18 and to rule over day and over night, and to make a separation between the light and the darkness; and God seeth that[it is] good; 19 and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day fourth. So other than or sun, there is a light, and that light is the one according to which God counted the days in Genesis 1 and 2 , and who says days, says land, and the land is Eden. And if my opponenet insists on Eden being on earth, why can he not just locate it and let us see what the Garden looks like? I will allow my opponent to use a couple of verses from the new testament that show - according to him- that none ever came from Heaven, as agreed with him on PM. The verses were clear about the fact that Adam didn't belong to Eden, but to Earth: from it he was created and to it he shall return, and from it he shall be resurrected in the day of judgement , Which strongly hints to the fact that Eden and Earth aren't the same place. I look forward to read my opponents next rebuttals.