BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Theory of God

Just because a thing hasn"t been proven, doesn"t mean it doesn"t exist (I know that"s not a claim that you made) Yes, man's logic seems to better support the nonexistence of God (and not even to everyone on earth), but man"s limited world view, and natural imperfection, leaves room for a potential being that operates in ways that we just don"t understand, that are totally different from what we"ve deemed fact If you can accept that there may be things that don"t operate in accordance to man"s theoretical science, then you must accept the possibility of God"s existence. If God possibly exists, earthly logic doesn"t apply to him. So saying it's more logical to not believe in the theory of god than to believe in the theory of god is illogical
Raising the U.S. minimum wage to $10/hour is a bad idea

Okay so to start let"s talk about politics. Yes the dreaded subject that no one cares to talk about but in this instance we must. To start I would like to point out that as of the seventh of December my opponents party is the Republican party, nothing wrong with that he can choose what party he wants to be on as that is his own choice but due to this my opponents views well be more bias. Now I know you"re saying this is a debate about minimum wage why are you talking about your opponent being of the Republican Party; to answer you both parties have differing views on how the economy, i. e. we see that Republicans already think the economy is bad and dislike how Obama (Democrat) is handling things so Republicans strum up these fears that increasing minimum wage well just cause inflation and layoffs. This is the republicans scar tactic way to get people to vote for their side. On the other side we see that Democrats are more positive of the economy and to support Obama, and to remove those fears and saying that raising minimum wage would inject money into the economy and cause job growth. The issue here is both sides are wrong economist say that raising minimum wage to $10.10 an hour well do little to inflation and to job employment. So as we can see there the Republicans want to scare people into believing our economy is crumbling and that what Obama is doing as a democrat well only worsen our economy when all there doing is using scare tactics to get votes; and we see this on the side of the democrats as well as we see them pushing and saying that the increase in minimum wage would help our economy which is a major stretch of the truth. Now does that mean that we should forget about raising minimum wage no as raising the minimum wage still matters a lot. Economics say that increasing minimum wage would reduce poverty, reports show that a 10% increase to minimum wage would reduce poverty by 2% or more. Now Obama who want to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/h which would be a 39.3% increase which could reduce the amount of people below the poverty line by 4 million. And as an added benefit many of these people that are living off minimum wage are also living on food stamps and welfare and increasing the minimum wage would alleviate that stress and reduce the amount of money the government has to spent to keep these people in a house and fed as they can"t live off of minimum wage now as the economy is still recovering from the recession and inflation from the recession is still high and due to this people can"t live off minimum wage, yes minimum wage has increased with inflation throughout the years but when arguing about this you have to remember that we went through a recession and due to the inflation of that the current rate minimum wage is climbing it can"t keep up with the inflation and causing people to rely on government aid which is only adding to the pressure being put upon the government.
What do you think of switching to boys only or girl only classrooms. Can it be beneficial to student

I accept the challenge. In the course of this debate I will demonstrate that segregation of classrooms based solely on sex of the students is beneficial to the learning experience. It shall be assumed that the same curriculum is being taught to each class, male or female, and that this particular separation shall occur ONLY during designated class periods and not lunches, study halls, or any variety of assembly. Thank you for this topic, and I look forward to a thought provoking debate.
America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The benefits of illegal immigration do not outweigh the negatives. First of all, illegal immigrant labor will depress American wages and keep the unemployed or underemployed out of the job market (Dann). Even with wage laws negotiated by unions, granting illegal immigrants a path to citizenship will simply make it more difficult for American citizens to find work and support their families. Proponents of amnesty argue that illegals take care of the dirty manual labor that "Americans wouldn't do," but this absurd assumption is false. There is no job that would not be filled by American citizens if all the illegals in this country disappeared (Hawkins). Even if the "jobs Americans wouldn't do" statement were true, unskilled workers eventually become a burden on society. When they become too old to perform the hard menial labor for which they were hired, the cost of taking care of them will greatly exceed what we pay in taxes (Hawkins). Greedy business owners want to maximize their profits and minimize spending. Therefore, they hire illegal immigrants over American citizens because they do not have to pay them what the job is worth. These employers exploit the tide of illegal immigration selfishly, and increase the hardships of already struggling Americans. Also, awarding amnesty will cause rampant identity fraud and a new surge of illegal immigration. In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which granted amnesty to 1.5 million illegal immigrants that had entered the country before 1982. The law promised to tighten subsequent immigration policies and penalize employers who hired illegals over citizens. However, it merely welcomed another wave of illegal immigration as well as widespread document fraud. As a result, today there are more than 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country (Dann). If amnesty were granted again, it would invite even more aliens to enter this country illegally and be allowed to stay without repercussions. In conclusion, United States citizenship is a precious thing that should not be dealt out to just anybody, especially those whose first accomplishment within our borders was to break our laws. If we reward any and all illegal aliens with amnesty, we are compromising the value of American citizenship and the dignity of the country. Works Cited Dann, Carrie. "Humanity? Practicality? Amnesty? The arguments for and against immigration reform. " NBC News. 12 April 2013. Web. 27 October 2013. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com.... Hawkins, John. "5 Reasons Illegal Immigrants Shouldn"t Be Given American Citizenship." N.p. 23 February 2010. Web. 27 October 2013. http://www.rightwingnews.com....
America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Undocumented workers do not receive full Social Security benefits because they are not United States citizens " nor should they be until they seek citizenship legally. Illegal immigrants are legally obligated to pay taxes, and they owe the government for allowing them to live and work in this country. One must remember that, whatever their reasons, immigrants who have come to this country without legal documentation have broken the law. Just as criminals lose their rights when they break the law, so should illegal immigrants have to face the consequences of their actions. Granting illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens would encourage them continue to break the law instead of seeking the approved path to citizenship ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). Obama's plan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants involves awarding visas to immigrants who have waited patiently in their countries of origin and to those who broke the law to come here ("Is it...Illegal Immigrants?"). If we award illegal immigrants legal rights, then we are essentially condoning crime. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to assume that illegal immigrants are not benefiting from living in this country already - even without full Social Security benefits. For example, money sent home by illegal immigrants is one of Mexico"s largest sources of revenue after oil sales and exports ("Top Ten Pros and Cons"). This revenue drains money away from the millions of unemployed and poor Americans who need help, and proves once again that illegal immigrants should not automatically be granted legal rights and receive the same benefits as citizens. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 21 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org.... "Top Ten Pros and Cons." Procon.org. 2009. Web. 21 October 2013. http://immigration.procon.org....
America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The solution to illegal immigration is not to grant aliens the same rights as United States citizens or immigrants who are here legally. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, illegal immigration costs taxpayers $113 billion every year, which amounts to an extra $1,117 per household ("Illegal Immigration"American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigrants do pay taxes, but this only yields $13 billion per year, leaving a net cost of $100 billion that must be made up by law-abiding citizens. ("Illegal Immigration"American Taxpayer"). Illegal immigration is clearly unhealthy for America. In fact, the money spent on education and welfare programs for illegal aliens exceeded the budget deficits of 18 states in 2009 ("Illegal Immigration"American Taxpayer"). If a "path to citizenship" were granted, tax revenues from current illegal aliens would certainly increase. However, this yield would be greatly exceeded by the cost of the full welfare benefits to which they would automatically become entitled ("Illegal Immigration"American Taxpayer"). Therefore, illegal immigration should be discouraged so that the U.S. can dig itself out of its fiscal grave and first provide law-abiding citizens with the care they need. Works Cited "Illegal Immigration: the $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer." Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 18 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....
America should support blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants should not be granted amnesty because it would skyrocket the financial strain on social services. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 57% of both legal and illegal immigrant homes are receiving the benefits of at least one welfare program ("Is it"Illegal Immigrants?"). If granted amnesty, illegal immigrants would become eligible for full benefits and the burden on legal, taxpaying citizens would increase drastically. In addition, businesses, especially if banned from outsourcing, will turn to the equally as detrimental technique of "in-sourcing," or hiring illegal aliens in the U.S. Although the Senate is demanding that employers prove that American workers are "unwilling or unavailable" to take these jobs before they hire illegal immigrants, they will find ways around the law in order to make the most profit at the least expense by hiring cheap labor ("Is It"Illegal Immigrants?"). For these reasons, only legal immigration should be supported in the United States. Works Cited "Is it a Bad Idea to Legalize the Illegal Immigrants?" Illegal Immigration Statistics. 2013. Web. 14 October 2013. http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org....
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

Ok for the final round thanks for reading until now, I hope you learned some new stuff. Here's the deal, as I keep writing again and again, the question of what is old testament Judaism is not semantics it's the topic of the debate. All that was clear from the my opponents opening statement was that she seemed not to be aware of the laws of old testament Judaism, in other words she thought that the old testament demands now a days to carry out a bunch of things which she feels should not be allowed according to freedom of religion and tolerance in this country. To this I responded that she's not aware that according to old testament Judaism now a days these laws which she finds intolerable cannot biblically be carried out (meaning even if Israel is taken over by religious Jews they would not carry out these death penalties because the bible does not let). And I kept trying to explain that there is no different type of Judaism it's all the same Judaism. Obviously me and my opponent misunderstood each other so I'm sorry about that. It's clear that my opponent didn't read what I wrote about rebuilding the temple etc. namely that biblically it cannot be rebuilt until g-d wills it so.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

even a commenter acknolweded what it really is that con is doing, namely semantics... "I suppose semantically you could argue what is old testament Judaism." first, it was clear that what was being discussed is "old testament judasim", or to put another way, judiasm as practiced by those in the old testament. this was further clarified by the fact i pointed out those various laws that i find disturbing. con went on to try to arugue about anoher tyupe of judiasm. also, in the present tense, it can easily be said that modern judaism has to be restricted. that's because the temple can be rebuilt at any time, and because the full extent of judiasm is when the temple is built, we can execute people for (trivial) offenses. so, the full extent of judiasm has to be restricted.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

con points out that many jews in the USA fully practice their version of judiasm, and that many jews made oral laws that later minimized the issues in question, and they are considered to be fully practicing judiasm. con ignores, however, that this debate is obviously about banning the region only insofar as it is practiced, as it was practiced in the OTestament. there's no reason it couldn't be practiced that way. if it was, it shouldn't be allowed. even according to con, american jews only don't do the death penalty, cause the temple isn't standing. when or if that day comes, they will be free to use the death penalty. that would be them fully practicing it. then, and now at least as a matter of principal, full judiasm shouldn't be allowed to be practiced. i will have to change this debate in the future to narrow it down to forbidding judiasm's practices, as they are practiced in the OTestament.
freedom of religion in USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm

freedom of religion in the USA should not involve freedom to *fully* practice old testament judiasm the USA is known to be a religiously tolerant society. but, old testament judiasm permits or requires things that go against our commonly accept values and laws. examples. in the old testament, people are to be put to death for what many would consider trivial moral infractions, slavery is often permitted or directed, women are treated as property, a woman raped can be forced to marry her rapist. to name a few. it's not the point of the debate. but that a country as tolerant as the USA would not and should not allow it to be fully practiced, says a lot about the religion.
The USFG should withdraw its extended nuclear deterrent presence in japan (nuclear umbrella)

anyways, i think we should remove the umbrella, true that it never states that we would fight the other country but just by having the agreement proves that we could escalate to war and we would be involved, if we are going tell them that we might not be there some time, is just like saying lets take it away, my opponent contradicts himself with that argument, besides that are relations will improve, he also never gives specific evidence about how japan wants us out, that's exactly how we will get better relations it is unlikely that the United States would exert the type of pressure that could damage severely the U. S. –Japan alliance in order to prevent a determined Japan from pursuing an independent nuclear deterrent. Japan is the preeminent economic power in the Asia–Pacific and has successfully sustained a democratic form of government for more than 50 years. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states look to Japan for economic leadership and, through the U. S. –Japan alliance, for security assistance---this comes from CLIFTON W. SHERRILL, Florida State University, Comparative Strategy July 1, 2001 now not only will this help to allow them to get nuclear weapons but they will get nuclear weapons the Japanese public is now less condemning. Not surprisingly then, nationalist parties that advocate for a nuclear weapons capability are gaining popularity and traction in Japanese politics. ---this is from Elizabeth D. Bakanic. While a master's student at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Bakanic worked on a policy report that recommended ways in which to prevent proliferation chain reactions in Japan, South Korea, and Egypt. Accordingly, in fall 2007, she traveled to Tokyo, conducting interviews with Japanese and U. S. government officials, nuclear experts, and academics. She simultaneously served as a Department of Homeland Security Graduate Fellow for Science and Technology. now before my opponent can brig up the argument saying that japan would come back and hurt America i would first like to say that nuclear weapons will be small and defensive here is my evidence to back this up Japan is simply too small and vulnerable to contemplate any but the most minimal deterrent options against counter value targets Such a punitive approach has long underwritten the doctrines of such smaller nuclear powers as France and China relatively short ranges , imply a modest regional deterrent force even hard-liners and proponents of nuclearization embrace a defensive-minded nuclear doctrine. -- this comes from Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes The authors are associate professors of strategy at the U. S. Naval War College. Toshi Yoshihara has served as a visiting professor at the U. S. Air War College, in Montgomery, Alabama. James R. Holmes has been a senior research associate at the University of Georgia Center for International Trade and Security, Athens, Georgia.
The USFG should withdraw its extended nuclear deterrent presence in japan (nuclear umbrella)

I think it is important for the voters to be informed of what the nuclear umbrella really is before we ask voters if they think it should be removed or not. The nuclear umbrella is an agreement that we are in with Japan, among other nations, that if they are attacked we will defend them. It is to allow smaller nations the freedom to not have to worry about investing massive amounts of money in a military when they have a lower population, and so would have to invest more money on more advanced technology to just to maintain the same level of strength. This was originally implemented during the cold war so that every nation didn't need to develop their own nuclear weapons for their own protection from anyone that may threaten force. I believe that it is very important to note that the agreement is that we will only DEFEND other nations. We are in no obligation to join them in an offense conflict. I don't see any problem with telling our allies that we will protect them if someone attacks them. And I don't see how telling Japan that, "if you are attacked, we may not be there for you so you may want to start worrying about protecting yourself," is going to increase our relations with the Japanese, as my opponent suggests.
The USFG should withdraw its extended nuclear deterrent presence in japan (nuclear umbrella)

The Plan is simply take away the extended nuclear deterrence otherwise known as the nuclear umbrella or missile defense, from Japan. This will solve for an China or an north Korean war. The way it does this is by allowing Japan to have nuclear weapons to deter China or North Korea if they try to attack, this will increase relations with the Japanese, so put American first and vote affirmative.
That we should ban guns in urban areas

*Sorry if I do some argumentation in the wrong way, this is my first debate online, and also if my formatting is a bit wrong; I don't do American-style debating* Today, I am proud to propose that we vastly restrict gun control in the United States of America. PRO will argue that gun control must be restricted, and our model will be as follows: •Guns will not be allowed in urban areas •Guns will be allowed for farmers who are considered to need them for the purposes of protecting themselves against animals, but this flow will be highly restricted •The 2nd amendment will be amended to define the right to bear arms as one that exists only in rural and regional areas. In countries such as Australia [1] we believe that this model has been highly successful in stopping organized and petty crime and gun-related accidents. As PRO, I will argue that the government has a responsibility to restrict gun control, that this will decrease organized crime, petty crime and spontaneous crime and finally that it will stop the occurrence of gun-related accidents. As CON, I expect that my opponent will argue that guns should be available as in the status quo. There will be four rounds of this debate. I recognize that I hold the burden of proof and, for this reason, will thank my opponent for not advancing arguments in Round1. DEFINITIONS I define: Urban- Located inside a city. [2] City- A center of population. [3] Gun- A portable device consisting of a metal tube from which a projectile is fired at high velocity into a relatively flat trajectory.[4] I expect my opponent will accept these definitions. I look forward to a good debate. http://guncontrol.org.au... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://guncontrol.org.au...