BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum wage

I will now offer my closing statements. Pros main argument is that without minimum wage the companies will exploit their workers, however she does not understand that in the workplace there is no such thing as exploitation. The reason for this is because the employee thinks he or she is getting paid fairly for the work they are doing otherwise they would not do that job for that amount. I fail to see pros proof of this cost analysis and would like to ask why not 10.10 rather than just 10. In fact what is the perfect number for a wage? The main problem with the minimum wage is it discriminates against the unskilled worker, such as teens. The main reason is that the unskilled worker is not worth as much. Another group this discriminates against is WOMEN. Take for example welding where men make up 94% of the work force. Now let's say a man and a woman went in with no experience and the same skills, who would the company hire? Most likely the male would be hired, now let's say the woman said I'll work for 4 dollars less, they would probably hire the female. This is not exploitation otherwise the female would not have said I will work for that little amount. Pro has also stated a major problem with the minimum wage- it is that the companies have no reason to pay more. However in a non- minimum wage society, competition is increased thus raising the price of each individual worker based on skill. In regards to the non-regulated society, it is basic economics. The reason is that when the government does not intervene people spend more money, putting more into the economy, and everyone gets richer. A great example of a non-taxed, non-regulated site is Netflix. Everyone wins- the CEO of Netflix gets money while people pay $7.99 per month for unlimited movies and TV shows. This is why non-regulation works, it is worth it to the customers to buy that service and the CEO gets more money. This is why I will never favor a minimum wage in any case.
Legalization of Marijuana

What does marijuana do to the body? "It just gets you high" Is what you said but what exactly does it consist of. Fistly a distorted sense of time ,weird or random thinking, paranoia (like you stated),anxiety ,depression, and short-term forgetfulness for the time being in which you are high. None of these symptoms sound or seem to be things that a person should be feeling because all sounds like it can possibly lead to dangerous situations, bad desicion making, and if your a driver to reckless driving.. Marijuana or anything that makes you feel like that for any amount of time should never be legalalized. By legalizing marijuana it will open a whole set of new problems and issues. For example it will create a society where getting high on a daily basis is alright which affects the productivity of any one under that influence. Also, who can have acces to marijuana, is it legal for everyone including kids, or teenagers, and can it be done in public or around school. Lastly what will be the consequences which can't be to bad since it would be legal. Basically marijuana should stay illegal because it would just open up more problems and more risks for everyone
Legalization of Marijuana

Scientifically speaking it is impossible to be harmed by marijuana. It doesn't damage the brain, or cause long term health effects. It just gets you high. People can become paranoid while using it, and that's probably why ER rooms get cases of people using marijuana. Also, by your own argument you must conclude that marijuana does not have an effect on crime rates. As you stated it is not the only deciding factor. In fact, I compared America to Amsterdam to show this fact precisely, comparing a country that as a large amount of violent crime, America, to the Netherlands and Amsterdam, which still has a really low crime rate regardless of marijuana.
Legalization of Marijuana

It is possible to draw conclusion of crimes raising from the use of marijuana, by comparing business crime rates where marijuana is not legal and then comparing them with businesses in Amsterdam where the use of the drug is legal and you will see that the crime rate is higher or slowly rising more in the ones in Amsterdam. Also its easy to check the trends of crimes that happen more often in places where marijuana is legal. Also, it is pointless to point out the crime rates of the USA or European countries and comparing them with Amsterdam because there are countless reasons for why violent crimes occur and marijuana should not be the only deciding factor to decide that the crime rates in these countries is because of marijuana. It can be true that people go to the ER for drinking more than because of marijuana but it does not change the fact that a lot of people go to the ER because of marijuana so why even risk the numbers in marijuana getting higher by legalizing it. There fore marijuana should stay illegal eliminating the possibility of more people getting harmed by it.
Legalization of Marijuana

1) The fact that alcohol is legal in the US should not be a justification for the legalization of marijuana because there is no point in legalizing more drugs that can cause harm, this one has sent over 400,000 people to the ER in the year of 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2)Amsterdam is a place where it is legal to consume, statistics done has shown that crimes have gone up in the business that allow it and children are being exposed to it. which is forcing new policies to be made to prevent kids from smoking in schools. http://townhall.com... 3) therefore marijuana should not be legalized.
Athiesm is false

My arguments were purposefully fatally flawed as a parody of common creationist arguments, but con, unfortunately, could not refute them despite how purposefully flawed my arguments were."My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil"My opponent has conceded, ignored, and denied all my arguments about morality that I said last round. Let me repeat it to my opponent again. The argument, word for word, that I wrote down in last round that con has not yet refuted: While an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books."Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution"While evolution can exist without atheism, atheism cannot exist without evolution, as it is the only theory explaining biology that is still supported in the scientific community. My arguments were, therefore, relevant to athiesm, and con flatly ignres them in this round.Con states that the people were "power hungry", but has no proof.
Athiesm is false

My opponent has provided no evidence atheism is evil and only keeps supplying stuff on evolution which the title states Athiesm( spelled atheism wrong) is false. Atheism is not the belief of evolution it is the belief of no god so stop supplying things with evolution Josef Stalin even started the cold war The cold war was not a real war as there was no fighting between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were atheist All power hungry leaders Most atheist aren't dictator's with supreme control over people and power hungry
Athiesm is false

My opponent is an athiest, therefore, he supports OOOOOBBBAAAAMMMMMAAAA! Why do athiests hate 'Murica?1. MoralityWhile an athiest may think that doing certain things is immoral, they cannot have an objective standard for morality, while religious people have an objective standard through interpeting their holy books.2. EvolutionCon states that evolution is not the alternative for a recent creation. However, it is, as macroevolution as scientists know it can only happen in a long time period. Con says that the matter came from a nebula. However, where did the star that created the nebula come from? Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneouslyLife coming from water? Nooooooopppee. Evolution states that the deep ocean floor, with volcanic activity, was where life appeared. It WAS spontaneous, as that was the definition of abiogenesis. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis )Where are the transitional fossils, if that happened? My opponent dropped my point that transitional fossils did not exist, as well as my point about speciation. A cover up of whatA cover up of the fact that evolution is false! Now, where did my other points, such as the evolution of matter, go? They were not addressed by con. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolveI was talking about the formation of life, similiar to the beginning of life, not the peanut butter mutating. Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religionJosef Stalin, Mao Zedong, and many other dictators were athiest! They killed a LOT of people! Josef Stalin even started the cold war! In conclusion, none of my points were adequately addressed by con, and many points, such as transitional fossils, speciation, and the evolution of matter, were ignored.
Athiesm is false

Hello i'm surprised you wasted your time and put all of that stuff down because it is obvious you didn't check your sources 1. Atheists have no morals that is false as some atheist may have no morals but i am an atheist and i have morals, like not being mean to people or killing animals and just because they don't believe a higher power will punish them doesn't mean they cant have morals. Also i don't eat babies so that is off now 2. Evolution is false it is here hat i think you did not review your sources the atheistic worldview is based primarily on evolution as an alternative for a recent creation. That is wrong my world view is not based primarily based on evolution nor is any of my atheist friends and even if i did it would not be for an alternative for a recent creation. Evolution is a theory that states that the universe came from nowhere. No it isn't it is a theory that states living things can change over time to better fit their environment and live longer. nothing turned into the solar system through random chance. though it was chance it did not come from nothing it came from a large celestial body called a nebula which came from a star which exploded and eventually the gases that were left condensed due to gravity Then, the Earth formed and life spontaneously appeared out of rocks. Nope it is stated life came from water anyways and not spontaneously Then, the rock-monster turned into plants and animals i don't even understand this rock-monster turned into plants and animals more of the fact the rock monster as i have never heard of the rock monster theory then whales came out of the ocean and became cows i doubt that whales just came out of the ocean monkeys turned into people, again through random chance. Nope Monkeys are less related to a human than a chimp and humans did not come from monkeys. The orgigin was handy man (Homo Habilis ) 100% of the instances caught on telescope are lies made up by the NASA as a part of a cover-up. A cover up of what and what source did you get this from Also, peanut butter. If evolution is true, then life should be able to spontaneously form in peanut butter. Peanut butter is made from a peanut once a peanut is picked off a peanut plant it is no longer alive only alive things can evolve. also it takes if thousands of years to evolve Belief in atheism will destroy us all! Well atheism hasn't started as many wars as any other religion
tupac owns bigggie

http://www.merriam-webster.com..., but rather in the urbandictionary. However, I will make an argument using Pro's definition, even though this is the last round, due to the misunderstanding. However looking at the definition of "own": 1. To win a round in a game. (usually a video/pc game) 2. To beat someone at a game. (usually a video/pc game) 3. To be better at someone. (usually a video/pc game) Where does tupac own biggie? What game is tupac winning? If we're referring to in the context of rap, I'd like to note that one cannot 'beat' someone in rap (no pun intended) since the music industry is not a contest, it is about creating a music that others enjoy and that you enjoy. There are no winners or losers, since some artist prefer to reach different audiences, while others wish to reach a broad audience. However, biggie is a distinguished rapper, with MTV ranking him the third greatest rapper of all time and obtained a four time Platinum album for "Ready to Die" . http://en.wikipedia.org... While based on what I stated about the music industry earlier, while I really can't prove that biggie is a better rapper than tupac, since it is subjective, you can't prove that tupac is a better rapper than biggie so the resolution is negated.
tupac owns bigggie

Tupac did not own Biggie, since ownership involves possession. Since slavery in America no longer exists, it is not possible for Biggie to be a slave. Although human trafficking does occur, I do not believe that Biggie was a slave for the following reasons: 1) Biggie was born in the United States. Human trafficking occurs from smuggling people from one country to another. 2) Biggie spent his money. If Tupac owned Biggie, then Tupac would have taken all of Biggies money. 3) Biggie was too popular for his life as a slave by Tupac to be unnoticed. Somebody would speculate and the media would have discovered this incident. 4) Biggie and Tupac lived too far away for Biggie to be Tupac's slave. If Tupac were to own Biggie, then he would have to live closer, to better control him.
uploading of the mind

I'm an atheist. However I am interested in Christianity concept, but only from philosophical point of view. It is hard for me to accept that there is a being, who has created us all and who probably would know what will happen to the humanity. Generally, I believe that God is inside everyone of us. But I call it morality and conscience. The choice how to live our lives is ours. When it will be time for me to go and I will be offered a choice to prolong my life with those methods, I probably will agree, because there will be so much more that I can do, for everyone, for myself. If I will be tired of life, then probably I will enjoy the sweet release of death. I suppose, when it will be possible for a average human to upload their mind into a machine, there will be a lot of tension. Maybe to decrease this tension, only those who really want and will do something good for humanity will be offered a chance for immortality.
uploading of the mind

but a world with no emotion. I couldn't imagine. while we live in a world where freedom has caused terrible things. think of all the good emotion has done. all the art. all the weddings. emotion is what makes us human you know. if I were offered this I would refuse. passing on is a hard thing to deal with. me personally, I wouldn't want to live forever. if you believe in God and the bible, if it is time for you to go, you will go. I never put any stock into final destination. nobody can prevent their death. if he calls you home there is nothing you can do to say no. and why would you. our lives are like dust in the wind compared to an eternity in heaven you know. there is no pain there at all. if I had the choice to live forever on earth, and see wars and death and sadness and loved ones die or to go when I am supposed to and see my creator. the one who spoke the universe into existence, plus answer all the questions I have for him I would choose to die. while your life on earth may be good or bad as a Christian I believe that you can endure anything for a little while right. while I agree that it may be in his will for us to cure all sickness. I don't think that there is a way to leave your body and still keep your soul on earth. I don't think of death as an end of all ends then there is nothing else. I think of death as something happy. because they will see me again. my uncle who is almost unable to walk will be able to run and jump and be perfect. so will I. I will see all of my family. of course. I'm not saying this to persuade you or tell you this is right and nothing else is. and I'm not trying to offend you if you are not a Christian. but I am saying this is what I believe. heaven is the ultimate reward for me. back to the emotions thing. if I had to give up my humanity to live for ever on earth I would never agree. you should never give up your humanity. that's to one thing you should always hold on to. there would be no social mobility. our thoughts and actions could be controlled and I've never been one to let people tell me what to do and expect it to be done if I don't want to do it. you don't have to answer if you don't want to if you don't mind me asking are you a Christian? just me harmlessly asking, not trying to offend you, promise
uploading of the mind

It is not really an issue with overcrowding, since with all those pros that people will receive, they probably will lose ability to think emotionally, ergo no love, no spontaneous growth of population. Population will grow only if it is required. Of course you are right, that no technology currently exist (at least it's not known publicly), but over past 20 years there was a rapid development in informational technologies, so I am optimistic, that soon it will become possible. Maybe I will be alive then :D An regarding issues with Christianity... well, it's a hard question, but maybe that's what our purpose is?
uploading of the mind

this is not me trying to beat you over the head with a bible if your not a Christian. if, however you are then maybe this just slipped your mind but to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord. I had the same question as well. while for me, this line from the bible is enough for me, you also have to figure out the problem we would have with overcrowding. if you believe in natural selection this would also prevent it from happening. I admit that if it were possible I would certainly use it. it could No used to allow scientists longer periods of time to research new forms of medical treatments and medicines but die eventually. the soul lives within the mind, if you believe in a soul but that's not the pain hahn, how is one to know if the uploaded you is the real you, there would be no way to prove it. bottom line on this idea is that eventually the earth would be overcrowded, and governments would have to begin t kill off people. like on the movie the giver. they would be released. your mind could be blocked to certain things too. and also venerable to caber attacks. really this is a good idea but the technology does not exist that would allow a fast transfer of trillions of gigabytes of data your brain possesses. your brain remembers everything you have ever seen, felt, touched or heard so even though you can not access it it is still there, locked in the subconscious. you would be able to access that with an uploaded mind. but think of the storage device needed to hold all that memory. in today's time it would most likely (just a guess here) take up about four stories of a large building. a warehouse containing an uploaded brain. and lets not forget this. while the brain is contained in our head, nobody can use, hack it. if it were uploaded it would be verbal to attack, not by organic virus but by caber virus. and if an electromagnetic pulse went off, boom, everybody in that area is out like a light. if you need maintenance or learn another lets say thousand years of information you would have to increase your storage. it may require a system shutdown and whose to say you will still be here when you are rebooted. its a noble idea, curing all illnesses. if there were no risk I would try hard to do it. but being a Christian I cant believe it could happen. but if it could I would like too. my uncle has multiple sclerosis. and is close to being paralyzed. I would use this to save him and cure this illness. but sadly like I said, by the time he was uploaded in today's time and with our current tech he would already be dead. I'm very sceptical as to if this will ever be tried
You can find everything you want on google

If you had read the last paragraph of the last argument you would of had a convincing argument.First of all, I don't know why anybody would want fake government photos. Second of all that proves that you can't find everything you want on Google. If you can't find an actual picture of a fake animal than you can't find what you want.You sure did show yourself in this debate.Thank you for debating with me. This was fun.
You can find everything you want on google

You truly did not give any proof in your last argument. If it is a test, the student probably wouldn't know what questions are on the test. A real photograph of a fictional animal would only please me in that case. How would you exactly get top secret government photos if you were to take them? As you can see you have to do much better if you are going to succeed in this debate. Don't try to rely on my sources. Think of your own. If something I say that is completely false then may you bring it up in your argument. I am not trying to be mean, I am just saying the more of your own sources you have the more likely you will win.
You can find everything you want on google

1) OK, I'm 14 and my name is Derek. I work at a movie theater. 2) Assume your a student trying to find test answers. That's not to hard if you know the question. If you want to see secret government pictures, that relies on people taking them, if they weren't posted on the internet know one could find them. If you want to find an animal that doesn't exist, that's way to easy with Google. Look: https://www.google.com...
You can find everything you want on google

Agreed Google is the BestFirst:To start, I would like to introduce myself. I am 78 years old and I am from southern California. My name is Dr. Phil M. Reritz I work in the medical field as a birth doctor. (at least I used to (I retired today)) I will admit I am a little crazy. Second: You can seek many things that Google has to offer. You can't always find exact information on a specific subject.Third:Examples: You are a student and want to find test answers (not gonna happen) You want to see top secret pictures from the government (not gonna happen) You want to find an animal that doesn't exist (not gonna happen) The list is endless Lastly:To conclude my argument for round 1, (I have already stated this before) You can't always find exact information on a specific subject. I would now like to show you this funny video of people being fools :Phttp://www.youtube.com...
God Exists

I entirely disagree with con's analysis of my arguments. Not to sound rude or cold but it doesn't matter what your personal opinion of my arguments is. Vote pro if you don't want people to eat your babies. This is both an appeal to emotion and the worst strawman ever. Satanists are the ones who eat babies; not atheists and this shouldn't even be a factor. CONCLUSIONPro said he disagreed with my analysis but gave no reasons or explanations. Therefore my rebuttals stand. Because con has to prove that God exists and there is a good possibility that the arguments he presented aren't accurate to reality pro has not fulfilled his burden of proof.