BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum wages should be raised

Honestly, minimum wage is fine where it is. If you come at me with how many homeless people there are on the street, I just say "That's their choice." I know that, sometimes, they can't get a job for various reasons, but if they can't get a job, they aren't important. Minimum wage should not be raised. This would also raise taxes, cause inflation, and make everything cost more, then repeating the process all over again. It's a vicious cycle. Eventually all people will not have enough money. Everybody will run out of money. Society will collapse. It will basically be the purge. And just because of that one dollar raise in minimum wage.
Con accepted this debate

1) "Which then puts him in the quandry of breaking his own rules by arguing over what 'accepted means." Read the rules more closley, only you are punished for doing that. 2) "While my opponent's remark is cute, it is an invalid attemt to not accept the debate. How so?"It is invalid because you are asking that question. 3) |" Argument over what 'accepted means' will result in :in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).Since you make an argument over the definition of accepted, the rules would have it that I automatically lose the debate. -----------------------> But wait there's more....Thanks for helping me While con claims he did not accept the debate as a reason to not be bound by the rules that only apply to people that have accepted the debate, he fails to see that this is circular logic. Also, he has accepted the debate because he is arguing with me. I'm kinda done with this debate. It's exhausting, because I'm trying to prove the obvious that everyone has decided not to see.In conclusion, con accepted this debate. That is my argument. Dylan out.
Con accepted this debate

Let us examine Pro's rules again....In the resolution, 'this debate' means the debate that you are currently reading, and no others. Any arguments based on :1) The uncertainty of which debate is being discussed2) The uncertainty of Con being conscious, or fully aware of his or her actions while accepting the debate. 3) Argument over what 'accepted means' Will result in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con). Any thing I missed will be decided in my favor of winning this debate.BOP is shared ONLY by con. I share none of it. If you accept the debate, you are Herby bound to everything stated above. Failure to comply with the above rules means automatic loss for my opponent (con), and said loss will be resolved by voting all 7 points to Pro (me, dylancatlow). Pro remarks that making an argument over what 'accepted means' is against the rules but then goes on in R1 [See bolded words below] to say, "Con must have 'accepted' the debate in at least some form, because to write the above comment requires pressing a button called "accept the debate" or something along the lines of that." Which then puts him in the quandry of breaking his own rules by arguing over what 'accepted means'.Cross-Examination of Round 1- While my opponent's remark is cute, it is an invalid attemt to not accept the debate. How so?If con wins this debate or loses, he or she must have accepted by definition. That is an argument from 'The Definition of Accepted' which violates your definition rule.I have no BOP, so con must prove he or she didn't accept the debate while at the same time debating. Also, per the rules" Argument over what 'accepted means' will result in :in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con).Since you make an argument over the definition of accepted, the rules would have it that I automatically lose the debate. -----------------------> But wait there's more....Here's More-Since Pro said that not accepting makes you unbound from the rules, he can't contend that his making an 'argument from acceptance' results in a win for him because;Pro said only accepting the debate makes you bound to the rules, since he is Pro he couldn't have accepted the debate making him unbound to the rules therefore his making the automatic loss argument remains invalid because, neither of us are bound to the rules.I just realized that all the rules are invalid unless Con accepts the debate. Indeed.But Con must prove that he or she didn't accept the debate.Yes, but under the rules, which I am not bound to follow, you claim that I have the BOP, but since I didn't accept the debate I am not obligated to carry a BOP. Con must have 'accepted' the debate in at least some form, because to write the above comment requires pressing a button called "accept the debate" or something along the lines of that.This is an argument from 'what accepted means', this has been addressed in my article, "Here's More" [See Above]. Con must prove that 'con didn't accept this debate' while all I have to do is provide one exmaple of 'con accepting this debate'.See the counterargument that is two above this.
Con accepted this debate

In the resolution, 'this debate' means the debate that you are currently reading, and no others. Any arguments based on :1) The uncertainty of which debate is being discussed2) The uncertainty of Con being conscious, or fully aware of his or her actions while accepting the debate. 3) Argument over what 'accepted means' Will result in automatic loss for my opponent in this debate (Con). Any thing I missed will be decided in my favor of winning this debate.BOP is shared ONLY by con. I share none of it. If you accept the debate, you are Herby bound to everything stated above. Failure to comply with the above rules means automatic loss for my opponent (con), and said loss will be resolved by voting all 7 points to Pro (me, dylancatlow).
Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

1) My opponent said that me not wanting to be alone or me wanting to be a hero could possibly be the case.I was not saying that it could possibly be, I said it is the case that my reason is " I would anyway die at some point. Human race without me has a chance to survive by evolution (trough technology)"I do have great knowledge of myself, and I am qualified enough to say what the situation is.2) The reason why I picked Ghostryder, rather than some other Christian is because he said he believes everyone will be resurrected. I meant to post a link to video where he says so, but it appears to be deleted.Proof for video being deleted: http://postimg.org... (comment bellow).Freud is Jew from Germany who lived during the Third Reich. Of course he is going to hate people.I thank my opponent for making another example of how people are not always selfish: "What will happen to our families when we die?"Since it is the case with me, I am guessing that it is with many other people as well.- My ego is not limited to my body. I regard myself as part of the human race, and part of the universe. That is why I care about them even when my body or story of my body does not exist within them.
Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

1) If I had a choice - Either I die instantly, or all other humans die instantly - I would choose me. This is not selfish. As for explanation - I would anyway die at some point. Human race without me has a chance to survive by evolution (trough technology) Since only things that decide human behavior are emotions and mind, and if something is done to satisfy emotions, it is by this definition selfish; Only things that I can argue for are decision made from reason. Here is one more case. If Ghostryder (rapper) had a choice to either 1) lose 5000 euros 2) steal 5 euros from innocent person (without ability to atone), knowing that he would get away with it, he would choose the first option, because stealing is, in his opinion immoral.
Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

RulesMy opponent will begin his argument round 1Round 2 is arguments and rebuttlesRound 3 is rebuttles and Con's conclusion. Round 4 is Rebuttle and conclusion by Pro. Con will end round 4 by stating, "No argument as agreed upon. "No swearingNo SemanticsBurden of Proof is equally sharedViolations of these rules will result in a forfeiture of that person. The definition of selfish that we had agreed upon. selfish-to sattisfy one's self/personal needs or feelings. human-of or pertaining to the social aspect of people (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)acts- to do something; exert energy or force; be employed oroperative: (. http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

I'm going to appologize ahead of time as my bolding doesn't seem to be working on my kendel. Contention 1: Opponent's Contentions Subpoint 1: The world or I What I was refurring to by my attack on my opponent's knowledge is that he's not a scientist and cannot clone himself to extend human life. He knows that he himself cannot do it so he chooses to kill himself. My opponent has dropped the rest of the contention so it prooves that he is selfish by choosing the world for the three reasons that I had brought up: 1. He would go insane and kill himself. 2. He will be remembered as a hero 3. He is protecting the gene pool. Subpoint 2: Rapper My opponent concedes on this point, so extend it across the board. Contention 2: Humans are animals My opponent continues to try to discredit Freud, but he has works in his field dating as early as 1886 ( . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) The argument still stands as my opponent hasn't tried to refute this point, but only try to discredit the author of these works. So please extend this point across the board. Hobbes and De Cive may both only be premises, but the they are still valid arguments. My opponent has never made an attempt to refute either so please extend these arguments. My opponent says that people do not fear death because of the unknown, but that is false. One of the branches of thantaphobia (fear of death) is fear of the unknown and not knowing what comes next. ( . http://phobias.about.com...) My opponent says my anology is false, but yet it still applies to the definition that I have given as my opponent has stated. My opponent is wrong as it does apply to my opponent's as well. You see that his ego extends and that is why he cares the way he does, but it still applies as an ego is ones's feelings and persona which still fit under the definition. In conclusion, we can see that my opponent has dropped most of his and my own points. We can see at the end of the debate that all acts under it's guildedness they are all selfish.
Resolved: All human acts are selfish.

"Con is doing this, as he admitted last round, is that he does not have a great amount of knowledge (no I'm not insulting Con)." doesn't make any sense, either grammatically or in context.Since it could be the case that Ghostryder wants a greater reward in afterlife, and I can't discredit that possibility, this argument is rebutted.Mein Kampf was published in 1925. Book that was celebrated by masses and explicitly says Jews (and Marxism)are enemy number one. Freud did a great work, but his work is biased by his bad life experiences.Thomas Hobbes part contains no argument, it is only bunch of quoted premises.De Cive part - No argument. Only premise.fear - an unpleasant emotion caused by the threat of danger, pain, or harm.( https://www.google.me... )I challenge my opponent's premise "people don't want to die, because of fear of the unknown" by asking for proof.There are many reasons why human would not want to die, fear of the unknown is only one of them.Here we have some gibberish. What symbolism? What can be verse in the same way?My opponent's analogy is false because in his example we are talking only about my body. This make the key difference.As selfish is defined as "to satisfy one's self/personal needs or feelings.", in my opponent's example it is selfish, but in mine it is not, since it extends beyond personal.Despite the fact that I care about thing other than myself, my sense of self does not extend my actual self, which is only my body.
Generally republican ideas and ideals.

You haven't in my mind clarified the topic to a satisfactory extent, as republican stances upon current political issues are not anything to do with republican ideals, these are to do with how the hierarchy is laid out and how laws are passed or when, why and who gets a vote or whose votes are equal, and whose votes are worth more ... abortion, gun laws and public programs are individual proposed legislation and is nothing to do with republicanism vs tyranny. I say this as "Republicanism is an ideology centered on citizenship in a state organized as a republic under which the people hold popular sovereignty. Many countries are "republics" in the sense that they are not monarchies." and Tyranny is " cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others. : a government in which all power belongs to one person : the rule or authority of a tyrant." This would make a good debate, though if you want to discus the current republican parties policies, you could open a debate with the headline of the policy, and have it's individual properties debated. though both Tyrannys and Republics may in turn introduce similar laws and enforce similar ideals, the debate would be whether power is ever held by more than one person, or if it is more self-affirming and constructive to a population to put it's faith in one man/woman, bringing a community together under one single ideal/person/tyrant rather than a group of people who may at any time change their allegiances or disseminate into civil war ... I suggest we continue this debate as tyranny vs republicanism. Or we begin a series of new debates each dealing with a single current republican party's policy ??
Generally republican ideas and ideals.

Good evening to you as well, I think I understand what you are trying to say and asking for. I hope this clarifies it for you. I"m not so much wanting to have a debate on the party as a whole and for you to have a stance against or for it simply because that is what it is, but for more of the smaller ideas that seem to make it up, such as their typical stances on topics such as abortion, gun laws, public programs, and so on and so forth.
Generally republican ideas and ideals.

Good evening Debater, I accept your headline .. however I ask that within your opening argument you clarify the title .. as one cannot be opposed to republicanism simply for it being republicanism, there is merit in everything. However if you fail to clarify the title I will be taking the side of: Generally Tyrannic ideas and ideals .. and will be bringing my pop-up book of Adolph Hitler quotes into the argument with me ;)
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1.What nature does a baby have, that would deserve it a life of suffering? The problem is, God is all-powerful. He has control over this. 2.Again, God is all-powerful. This means that if God offers only a painful life, it is God's malevolence or lack of caring that would then lead to such a life. And who said God is good news? That's actually the thing we're debating.3.It doesn't seem to me that a child being born at the wrong place in the wrong time to the wrong parents is at all the child's fault. In any case, God is God. He should have the ability to reduce 870 million starving people [1] to zero. But He doesn't. Regardless of your circumstances, I find that cruel.4."our life may be pained, but it's really of extremely little consequence in the bigger picture" (round 1)"everything can have significance to God even if on a greater scale it is of little worth" (round 2)If lives are significant, then God should not make innocent people suffer. If lives are insignificant, God should not have reason to care.Whether God cares, or doesn't care, whether He exists; they're all questions that can't really be proven either way. But what we know for sure is that God isn't doing anything about humans. So I guess you could say God doesn't exist, at least in the way the holy books mention.References:1: http://www.worldhunger.org...
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

1. if we only have as much of God's light as our nature allows, it will allow for problems, and pain. 2. we do not know if that person was forced or not. they could have chose. and in any case, if they are as great as one might think, they would want to be able to spread the good news and reduce suffering. if they didnt want that, maybe their worth isn't as worth noting. 3. most people wouldn't want to not live instead. some might rather not live, as you indicated. as suggested, those who live despite their wishes, can benefit from this life, and again these situations highlight that God's light only can reflect as much as our nature allows, and we for the most part have limited nature, and light, and thus pain etc. 4. everything can have significance to God even if on a greater scale it is of little worth.
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

I will begin by addressing your four points.1. You claim that we are born in the condition where we belong. You claim that we are sinful, by nature, and we can will ourselves to become morally good and responsible. However, I fail to understand how one can deserve to be born with a fatal disease and die at a young age. What would a child do to deserve such a tragic existence? And what forgiving, loving God would will such a life into existence?2. "If they were so great, they would want to be put into an existence with the possibility of pain, so they could spread the news of God's love and help bring the problems to an end. "But why would God force such an individual into a painful existence? If he/she is to be of an innocent and kind nature, God could simply let him/her live a peaceful life, could He not?3. If you were to ask me, I would rather not live than live in suffering. For years, I struggled with an anxiety disorder, during which I believed that I would rather die than live like that for the rest of my life. But anecdotal evidence is not sufficient. We can quantify how many would truly live a pained life. For example, many people develop mental disorders throughout the course of their lifetime. Between 20% and 25% of all adults have, at one point in their lives, suffered from major depressive disorder [1]. Of those, over 1 in 10 will commit suicide [2]. In addition, even chronic back pain was correlated with a 13 percent increased risk of committing suicide [3].4. I am familiar with these theoretical speculations (they are not theories in the scientific meaning of the word). The speculations refer to objective reality, the scale of the universe, and the concept of time. What these scientists are saying, is that the universe is so vast that the existence of a life is insignificant. Some hypotheses claim that time travels at the speed of light, in which case processing of the environment at a certain rate (as humans do) is what makes a minute feel longer than an instant. Essentially these speculations could be used against your argument of a caring God, for life is of such little consequence in this universe that God has no reason to care / no reason to create a universe with the time-scale it has. My main argument is that God's primitive form of punishment and reward is not consistent. God allows manipulative, dishonest bankers to live extremely luxurious lives while innocent Christian children in Liberia have trouble getting an education. I think you would agree that God has the ability to make things better for the innocent now, instead of waiting for the afterlife to punish and reward. Therefore, God, assuming He exists, does not care about the human race due to the extent of suffering among innocents, and luxury and happiness among morally reprehensible people. References1. . http://www.webmd.com...2. . http://www.webmd.com...3. . http://www.reuters.com...;
problem of suffering, and God - a loving God can still exist

it is often argued that God doesn't exist or doesnt care, due to the problem of suffering. here i am mostly looking at suffering of people who did nothing to cause it, and not at issues with evil acts. mostly natural suffering like being born in pain or dying in pain due to disease. i admit this is a tough philosophical problem. here are some ways i reconcile this with a loving God: -first, it's important to note that i do not argue that we are being punished for being sinful, as some traditionally argue. 1. we are born in the condition where we belong. we are sinful, by our nature, so we only have so much of his nature to sustain us. without all of it, there are problems, including pain. we are imperfect pictures. we can will ourselves in God's light and move on into a better picture. 2. for the least innocent, it might be seen as maybe permissible to allow pain. but for the most innocent, how could God allow that? id argue that if they were so great, they would want to be put into an existence with the possiblity of pain, so they could spread the news of God's love and help bring the problems to an end. this doesn't really address extreme situations, that's in the next point. 3. if you were to ask almost anyone, would they rather never live or live a somewhat pained life, almost everyone would say live anyway. there is an extremely small fraction that would say never live, especially for extreme situtations of suffering. but i could only chaulk that up to demonstrating that we are put here to conincide with the level of God's light in us. without it all, we have problems, and pain. 4. if you look into physics, there are theories that say our life is fleeting, and in reality could be seen to have occurred in the blink of an eye. i've looked into the theories and it makes sense, if the theories are true. this points out that it's almost a dream, that our life may be pained, but it's really of extremely little consequence in the bigger picture. this is my weakest argument, cause it is still of some consequence. i concede my biggest weakness is that God even allows any of this stuff to begin with. which is why i still struggle with the point. but, God can only allow for what coincides with our inherent nature and free will decisions.
Should Self-Defense be a subject in school

I accept.__________ GreetingI'd like to thank my opponent for surfacing a quite interesting idea. I wish them the best of luck.To give you an explanation on my reasoning for going into this debate, I am currently an 11th grade student in High School. This implying that I will be knowledgeable on this topic, it being my current evnviorment.__________Opening ArgumentTo set things off, I should like to show you a recorded survey on fights in high schools of the United States from 1991 to 2013. (1) Now, some may question why I would bring up a graph of high school fights in this debate. The reasoning is quite simple: ideas.When I say "ideas" in this way, do not suppose I speak in poetry. The reason I say "ideas" is because, as teenagers, we constantly flow with new ideas. Though this seems grand, it can also be negative.Upon an electoral class of self defense being brought in to a school, men and women will apply, hoping to learn how to defend themselves in most unfortunate situations. However, upon gaining enough knowledge, one now has a choice of morality. Are you to use your knowledge for the security of you and your community, or are you to use it to rise in status, pumbling any individual who dare stands against you?Now, it would seem strange, being able to use a self-defense class to become hostile, however it is very probable. I, myself, took a self-defense class for 10 years at the American Academy of Martial Arts and Fitness. This class combined Taekwondo, Ju-Jitsu, and Karate (Let the record show that I did acheive brown belt, the final belt before 1st degree black). Over the years of having taken the class, I learned, as well as witnessed, the easy choice to use what I had learned to harm others. Permitting such a class could easily compulse a hostility, as well as a feeling of power and athority, in one's mind. Such dangers cannot be risked in a school.__________(1) http://www.childtrends.org...;