BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Walmart's cashier's pay should be raised at least 1$ per hour in the USA.

Claim: Walmart cashiers are paid between $7.58-11.42 an hour in the USA. Warrant: [1] Impact: There is no way that $7.58 an hour is enough pay. You can't live on that type of wage in the USA. Claim: Walmart pays cashiers so little they need food stamps to survive. Warrant: "Paying Workers Poverty Wages When Walmart pays its workers so little that they need food stamps to survive, they"re also investing in a steady profit stream" [2]. Warrant: Same story different media outlet. [3] Impact: Excessive use of welfare drains the entire nation's resources. This is unfair for Walmart to profit at the nation's expense. Claim: Walmart drains the USA resources Warrant: "Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance" [4]. Impact: For the good of the nation, Walmart cashiers should receive a pay raise of at least $1. Pro contends there is no way that wages for Walmart's cashiers should remain the same in the USA. Walmart's cashier's pay should be raised at least 1$ per hour in the USA. Thanks for reading. Links 1. http://www.payscale.com... 2. http://readersupportednews.org... 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4. http://www.forbes.com...
Markan Priority vs Matthean Priority

[Knowledge of New Testament Studies is presupposed for this debate] [This debate is about gospel priority, not two-source hypothesis or stuff like that] My dream is to be a biblical scholar, and i want to put to the test the knowledge that i have of NT scholarship in this place, debating in a not well known (for the laity) but important topic in NT studies, that is, gospel priority. -The topic is about gospel priority, stick to it. -Be polite, no need for bad words or disrespects. -Do not misrepresent any position, be honest. -Let the best position wins! Intro: Should we take for granted that the Gospel of Mark was the first one to be written, or should we take a new look to the classical position that the Gospel of Matthew was first? In this debate, i will argue for two points: - That recent scholars in the subject are correct in making the assumption that Mark's Gospel was the first to be written. - That tradition has been misread/given to much importance in order to make a good case for Matthean priority. [Looking for someone who wants to defend Matthean Priority!] [I will unfold my argument(s) until round 2!]
Death Penalty

1)In defense to my misunderstanding, Con stated "150 deaths", implying 150 dead. 2)Con's arguments were the complexity and cost of the death penalty. For the complexity, no source is cited, so is invalid. Also, the cost of life sentence (average: 50 years) is undisputedly more than the death penalty (average: very quick). So, this argument is also invalid. 3)Minimizing pain is self-explanatory; its boundaries are common sense. 4)I am sorry for the late links, here they are . http://www.heartsandminds.org... . http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... 5)I have nullified Con's arguments above. Thank you everybody!
Death Penalty

As a conclusion I would like to clarify the debate: 1) Pro obviously doesn't know what homicides (murder cases) are. He thinks suspects sentenced to death penalty are equal to total deaths which is absurd. 150 people were sentenced out of 22,000 total deaths. 2) Pro ignored previous rounds where my sources clearly stated that $11.5 million is for an entire year of life sentences. 3) Again, Pro's defense has showed the subjective view of "minimizing pain" which isn't given specific boundaries. 4) Pro has NO sources which questions the validity of his statistics and "definitions" including the supposed "1.5 mil" life in prison. 5) Pro has only defended his argument but ignored Con's supports thus conceding to them.
Death Penalty

Con has several logical flaws: ReRebuttal 1:The word humane is indeed, subjective, but the range of its interpretations is not very large. A standard definition would be "minimizing pain" and getting a lethal shot does indeed do so. Also, if Con states that death penalty is not the easiest way to kill some one, than what is? ReRebuttal 2:The amounts that I stated were of a single person. One person, on death penalty, costs 90000 while life in prison would be 1.5 mil. So, it is actually Con who has interpreted incorrectly. Also, Con says than 150 deaths result from 22000 homicides. This is impossible. Homicides are killing of people, so how, from 22000 killings, there are only 150 deaths? This is incorrect. Both my arguments remain valid.
Death Penalty

Pro has supported my position (Con). His argument contains several flaws: Rebuttal 1: The word "humane" is a subjective term and justified only in one's belief. There is no definition for how "humane" something is. In addition, modern society does not include hangings which make the argument obsolete. Rebuttal and Support 2: Pro has supported my argument in that death penalty is overly expensive by interpreting statistics incorrectly. Although each penalty costs over $8 thousand, there are usually only 150 deaths resulting from 22,000 homicides. Pro compares a SINGLE penalty cost to an ENTIRE YEAR of life imprisonment costs! $1 billion could be saved over 5 years if life sentence replaced the death penalty. Sources: http://tiny.cc...
Death Penalty

There are many reasons why the death penalty is a much easier, cheaper, and overall, smarter way to deal with those criminals who, as an undisputed fact, need something harsher than a simple decade or two in jail. 1) First, the death penalty, contrary to the believe of some, is actually a relatively humane way to carry out an execution. We can all agree that the death penalty (like a lethal shot) is much more humane than a public hanging, or even a private hanging for that matter. 2) Also, the death penalty is a much less costly way to deal with criminals than a life sentence. A life sentence costs on average $1.5 mil while the death penalty costs $90000 per person. So, the death penalty is 17 times cheaper than a life sentence.
Death Penalty

There are 2 points that strongly support my debate: 1. First and foremost, the Death penalty is an extraneous situation in which long and complex judical court processes proceed. There are other means to kill a person which would be much simpler than the death penalty. 2. The death penalty costs around $137 million every year with around $90,000 for each prisoner destined for death. This is exorbitant compared to other methods such as life-term prisoner condition (costs $11.5 million) or even putting a bullet through one's head (to put in straight terms). Therefore, it is a waste of important resources. Sources: . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc... . http://tiny.cc...
Being Gay is Not O.K.

you are right, i didn't follow the code of conduct of this debate, my reason for doing so is that I have absolute truth and I decided to put it out into the open. Keep in mind, I don't debate to win, I debate for truth. Your argument is a great one to why we should a condom. Do you happen to know the statistics of protected homosexual sex? Your also creating a decent argument of why only woman should be gay. I still disagree wholeheartedly for logical reasons, but your statistics only imply that. In my opinion, you have technically accepted my argumental position thus making this a true debate. Now because that's just my opinion and I fully intend to crush your ego, in order for me to proceed, You must absolutely consent that your original rules no longer applies. Now my argument for being morally superior to you is finding an objective non-religious form of Morality, again sourced below. if its not objective or has religious subtext to, then prove that theorem wrong. Because I am morally superior to you based on my theorem, I say being gay is ok. You want me to explain why, then consent that you can lose. We'll see if your brave enough to accept. Oh by the way, my goal is not to save the US, but the entire world. The US' survival is dependent on that, so I'm starting with this country. And I will prove that you do not have this country's best interest at heart. http://www.debate.org...
Being Gay is Not O.K.

Posting a previous debate as an argument is against the code of conduct, I do believe. If you do not want to debate by my terms, simply do not debate. But seeing that you have accepted, I will make my opening remarks. Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Morality is a Social, and religious construct determining what is right from wrong based on particular outcomes. If a certain action is destructive, it will more often than not be deemed "immoral in a society". For example, The Bible says nothing of vandalizing public property, but as it is destructive, it is hence viewed as immoral. Though, Ignoring the Religious aspect of morality, we can find plenty of evidence that being Homosexual is in fact destructive and harmful to his/her sexual "Partner". According to the Center for Disease Control, Homosexual men are 50 times more likely to get AIDS. Also according to the Center for Disease Control, 1/6 Homosexual men in their lifetimes will be diagnosed with HIV, which has decreased nation wide by 19%, but at the same time has seen a 6% increase with Homosexual "couples". According to the standards of society, this is a public health crisis, not a campaign for Human Rights. This is proven correct after examining the fact that (according to nichd) nearly 50,000 people are infected with a sexual disease each year. That is approximately One out of every Eight Americans currently infected. Also according to nichd. gov, there are annually 12,333-15,000 Deaths related to sexually transmitted diseases per year, 82% of which (according to the CDC) were Homosexual, and the remainder amount was largely made up of prostitution, and out-of-marriage affairs. Additionally, According to Bell and Weinburg (Page 308), 83% of Homosexual men claim to have had more than 50 Partners in their lifetimes, half of them being strangers. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from . http://www.frc.org...) Con will have the Burden of proving why it is not immoral to spread an epidemic for personal pleasure, why it is morally O. K. to have more than 1 sex partner, and why practicing unsafe habits could be considered by society to be moral. Moving on to personal experience, My own siblings are Gay, and I have seen them go from Heterosexual to Homosexual, and back again in one occasion. Scientifically, no substantial proof has been found to say that a child could be born Gay. Therefore unless Con can beyond reasonable doubt (Supported by scientific evidence) prove that an individual is born Gay, the notion that "Gay Rights" is "Human Rights" is irrelevant. Source(s): . https://www.nichd.nih.gov... . https://www.cdc.gov... . https://www.aids.gov...
Being Gay is Not O.K.

Resolved:Being Gay is Morally incorrect, and is in it's essencse debaucherous and unhealthy.First Round:AcceptanceSecond Round:Opening Statements (Do not touch on the opposing argument yet)Third Round:Rebuttal (Rebut each-others opening statements)Fourth Round: Crossfire and Final statements (Answer any questions brought up by the rebuttal, and get in your last words)The Burden of proving the benefit of the doubt in this situation is on myself, and therefore I will make the first argument, and Con wilkl have the last say.Religious points, and Scientific points may be made. Morality is also acceptable if you can explain why this is wrong or right definitively, as in the absence of Religion, there is no set morality standard.
Superman can defeat Batman in battle

Firstly I would like to revisit the title of your debate which is "Superman would defeat Batman in battle," which happens to be a pretty general statement. That being the case, I would like to clarify the specifics of your argument, which I will quote you on. "Obviously Superman can kick Batman's butt any day any time." This being the case, you have already admitted defeat by agreeing that at least, some of the time, Batman would be able to defeat Superman in conflict. In your second argument you say "If Bats took him on assassination style then sure, but I'm talking about an open fight. A battle. A fight where both sides know that their opponent is after them and that a fight is inevitable." which happens NOT to be the argument that we are debating here. That being said, the very same statement affirms what I have already said, that in a situation where both sides know their opponents are after them, and a fight is inevitable, Batman would most definitely have the advantage. I am not saying Superman is a meat-head, but one of Batman's super powers is that of superior mind, and extensive, even obsessive, preparation and planning against any and ALL foes he may face. That includes his allies as well. Unfortunately I must say that time and time again Superman has in fact been so dumb as to wander into MANY traps set for him. This is due in part to the fact that because of Superman's powers he does not always, nor NEED to plan for traps. Next you argue "Not only does he know all of Batman's tricks, he also knows how he thinks." This is indeed a falsity, because NOBODY knows all of Batman's tricks nor how he thinks. (not even Batman) That is just plain untrue. Batman's super power is not spooking foes with shadows but outwitting them and using psychological warfare. Superman once again has proved himself susceptible to influence upon his mind. Superman has made a career out of limiting his powers so that he won't hurt people, both good and bad. He would hold back in a battle with Batman, where as Batman is more morally flexible and would go the extra distance to beat or kill Supes if need be. As to the kryptonite argument, its effectiveness is different from author to author. It can range from slowing sapping Superman's power to outright killing him. Assuming the latter, all Batman would need is possession of kryptonite to beat superman. In fact, superman at one point even gave Batman a kryptonite ring in event that he would need to be taken down. Why give it to Batman and not any other hero? Because Batman is the most capable of dealing with the Super slugger.
Superman can defeat Batman in battle

Thanks for taking this debate. Both of your arguments support my overall point and can be used to fuel my own arguments. You say Batman has a "superior mind" but you underestimate Superman's own mind. He is not an idiot and is very smart himself. Just as Batman is constantly sizing up his opponents, Superman is doing the same. Superman is very aware of Bats' wealth and power. He is also aware of his mind. Superman would not be so dumb as to wander into a dangerous situation involving Batman. He knows his own strengths and weaknesses. You say that Superman would have the clear advantage over Batman in a fist fight. I agree but you say that Batman would never confront Superman in such a way. Well if they are in a battle but not fighting with fists then how would Batman win. You bring up fear, tactics and overall cheap shots but would those actually work against Superman in an open fight? If Batman wanted to take Superman out I agree that he would have the means to if Superman did not know it was coming. If Bats took him on assassination style then sure but I'm talking about an open fight. A battle. A fight where both sides know that their opponent is after them and that a fight is inevitable. In this case Superman would obviously win. Not only does he know all of Batman's tricks, he also knows how he thinks. Since Superman knows all of these things about the Bat I would assume that he would know how to watch his back against his trickery. As for fear, I really don't think Batman's fear tactics would work on Superman. Can you really see Superman getting spooked by a couple of shadows? Those work on ordinary criminals but not on the Man of Steel. Even kryptonite doesn't spook him that much. Lastly regarding your note on kryptonite, Superman has fought opponents using kryptonite before and he has won. It is his greatest and only major weakness and he knows that. Since he knows it's his weakness I'm sure he knows how to deal with it.
Superman can defeat Batman in battle

Superman is indeed a mighty hero revered by all, both enemy and ally. Thing about super heroes is they are always analyzing each other in event that they must one day be on opposite sides of a battle. It is true that Batman is only human, but likened to heroes such as Spiderman, one of Bat's strengths as a hero is that of a superior mind. Your main contention is: "1) Superman is SUPER (its in his name) he only has one weakness, Kryptonite, and last time I check Bats was just a normal guy." Your second point is moot. In the end it comes down to mind over matter. Batman and Superman are a prime reflection of these extremes. Of all individuals in the DC comic universe, Batman would indeed be one of the best equipped to deal with Superman. Another of Bat's greatest assets/superpowers is that of wealth. Kryptonite does indeed exist but is very rare. Batman would be able to finance a search and purchase what Kryptonite there might be, as well as mastermind and finance a means of artificially manufacturing the glowing rock. In a direct one on one fight, fist against fist, Superman would clearly have the advantage. However Batman would never directly confront superman in such a fashion. He would use his superior mind to create tactical advantage over Superman or to outwit him, whether it actually require the use of Kryptonite or not. All heroes are duly wary of superman, but all fear the bat. Fear is the very essence of Batman's ethos. All heroes size each other up, but nobody can truly predict what the Dark Knight has up his sleeve.
Superman can defeat Batman in battle

Obviously Superman can kick Batmans butt any day any time. Some people do not think this is the case so I just want to clear the air on this. 1) Superman is SUPER (its in his name) he only has one weakness, Kryptonite, and last time I check Bats was just a normal guy. 2) Superman has super powers. Batman does not. (He is smart and a martial arts genius but can that really beat super strength and flying? Come on people.) Just because you love Batman doesn't mean he can beat Superman. Sorry fans. Superman is just SUPERior.
Did The Obama Administration Cover Up Benghazi

Ok Not hard to find evidence and for the people in the comments saying the the GOP are using it as a talking point. They're not! And you wanted proof? Explain the emails found! Explain why even though Obama Knew about it being a terrorist attack but he blamed it on the youtube video! If you need more evidence then you more brain washed (If you even have one) Then I had believed! He Left our boys! But yet with the Nigerian girls they're all over it..... Explain that to me, Yes the Nigerian kidnapping is terrible and I feel terrible for those girls but if they are all over that and that's a different country they should atleast try to act like they cared about J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, then later, Tyrone S. Woods, and Glen Doherty! We NEVER Leave A man behind, But that's apparently a concept Obama doesn't understand. And you know it's bad if I a measly 12 Year old can see this but you ignorant butt can't! BTW I'm a SHE. There's your proof, And I'd like you to try to strike that down. http://www.capitalisminstitute.org... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Did The Obama Administration Cover Up Benghazi

There are a few things I would like to say (Note) I Did not forfeit I have school and A life. So I was not able to respond. First, its fine Second, My Apologies as I get flustered when it comes to this issue. Third, I have made a argument. And about the links, My apologies for posting links. And I'm just getting started. Fourth, I Provided ONE Fox News link and Send me Poof that Fox News has been proven wrong. But don't worry your not going to be able to use that as I will use congregational Hearings. Fifth, I Was using that as a example that The Obama's Care more about opposite country's then our own, As they haven't Done anything. Sixth, Don't worry dear, I'll give you the proof you request. I always love a game of connect the dots! :D Alright now to get to work! So you want me to explain the email? No problem. Juditial Watch Released a Article on the email and several other document that i was going to quote from is down currently so expect a paragraph on that soon. Dont believe me heres the link: http://www.judicialwatch.org... Alright the other was Contention that you felt i didn't do good enough to explain. Another item i will touch up on when i have time as its 11:07 pm where im at and im tired. Expect a full timeline in round 5.
The Fossil Record Supports Evolution.

"Wrong! god clearly placed the fossils on earth to test our faith." --> So it seems my opponent doesn't refute the idea that the fossil record shows a gradual and directly observable evidence for evolution. The lowest strata contains the oldest rocks and thus the older fossils, while the highest strata contain the younger rocks and thus more recent fossils. "Well you know what? You don't fool me god." --> Are you saying you agree with me o.O? ~Conclusion~ Well this debate didn't exactly go in the path I intended, once again. His only argument (if he intends for it to be an argument) is that god put in place the fossil record to fool us. Even so, he still concedes that the fossil record DOES support evolution, whether or not it was hoaxed by god.
We do not need the State to help us live our lives.

So I hereby challenge any opponent to offer me a single function where government is needed. I will accept my opponent's challenge. Protection: A government is meant to first and foremost provide protection for the people. If the government did not provide protection through things like the military and police departments, then our protection would either be nonexistent or would become a lot worse. Without the government to provide protection, the people would either be left to defend for themselves, or responsibilities would go to private organizations. If people are just left to defend for themselves, the means to defend the country from a major invasion no longer exists. Any significant force can waltz in and take over the whole country. If the responsibilities of protection should rest completely in the hands of private organizations, or "mercenaries", then that would just lead to corruption and effectively cause a lot of harm to the country. One could assume that private organizations would be at each other's throats to gain more influence over the country. This would lead to more violence within the country, rather than actual protection of the country. Mercenaries fight for money - not for the country. Law Making: Governments make laws. Plain and simple. Without any sort of government, no laws can be made. What do laws provide? Laws provide the foundations for society. For major, important laws to be passed and obeyed, a government needs to be in place. Laws are used to protect the rights of individuals (. http://www.studyzone.org... ). So again, this ties in with my protection argument. Government makes laws. Government provides resilient, powerful protection. These are just two out of many functions government is needed in. I await my opponent's response.