BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raising minimum wage

P1: The economy does not grow because wealth is distributed evenly. P2: Wealth is created by an industrious society with members who pursue entrepreneurship, employing many people at a competitive wage. P3: The minimum wage stunts small businesses by sucking up their resources, and stunting their growth. P4: Having a higher minimum wage so that other classes could spend more is bad because those people may not necessarily spend their money, choosing to perhaps save it. P5: The minimum wage would be useless if the economy was less regulated with things like a minimum wage because competition would drive wages up when the demand requires it. Therefore we should not raise the minimum, and perhaps even get rid of it.
Raising minimum wage

P1. Our economy thrives when all classes are thriving financially, raising the minimum wage will not only benefit the lower class, but it will encourage them to spend money and thus help other businesses.. P:2. The opposing side can argue that raising the minimum wage can hurt small businesses, However, as earlier mentioned raising the minimum wage will stimulate the economy and the money that the small businesses would be losing would be compensated by the money their earning from the increase in spending that comes as a result in the raise of minimum wage . Therefore, raising the minimum wage will have a domino effect on the rest of the economy and benefit both businesses and it's employees.
Raising minimum wage

P1: Fair wages are better than set wages. P2: Forcing businesses to pay a minimum wage would be unethical because it could require businesses to pay a wage that makes their business unsustainable/profitable. P3: People own businesses to be profitable. P4: Profitable businesses are good for the economy, ultimately providing good paying jobs, so the need for a minimum wage is diminished. P5: The government should care for the poor on its own regardless of minimum wage. Therefore, we should not raise the minimum wage since it is bad for employers who are good for the economy in the long term.
Raising minimum wage

P1: employees surviving at minimum wage are also often the same people who must rely on additional support of government run social programs to support themselves and their families on such a small amount of income. P2: raising minimum wage means some of these people would be able to better support themselves without leaning as heavily on social programs and this would ultimately mean lower taxes or a reallocation of those funds to support other needs. :- therefore, social programs should reduce the expense to a minimum I believe the free market should determine its value and the government should worry about the personal issue like raising minimum wage. .
Raising minimum wage

Those premises do not support your conclusion. P1: The market should determine the value of labor and wages through natural means. P2: Interfering with the market, by setting a minimum wage, could have negative effects like job loss on the economy, because it would force employers to pay wages beyond the market's demand and their own resources, causing them to lose money and be less profitable ultimately stunting the economy. P3: If the market was left alone to be as it is without interference the results would be fair wages for all. P4: Fair wages are better than set wages, because they properly pay people for their labor's worth. Therefore, there should be no minimum wage.
Raising minimum wage

P1: A family of four with two working adults earning minimum wage would be living below the poverty level. P2: By putting more money in people's pocket there will be more spending in the economy. P3: inflation rises every year, but has been raised, just three times in the last three decades. :.- therefor the minimum wage needs to be 10.74 in order to account for inflation over the past 40 years. http://blog.adeccousa.com...
Competitive Jumprope is a sport

Have you ever heard of speed? If you haven't, this event requires you to move your feet as fast as you can for however long the set time is- 1 minute, 3 minute, 30 seconds, ect. Jump rope also moving every part of your body -example- http://youtu.be... (if you cant watch the video from here then go to you tube and search "competition Jump rope 2013 then click the first vid) in this Youtube video you will see some of the competition performances that I do every year including- freestyles, speeds (1 person) , dubledutch singles (3), double dutch pairs (4) pairs freestyle (2) double dutch speed (3-4)- and so on. jumpers unlike football or soccer, practice all year round, preparing for competitions in the summer and late spring. jump rope is very exhausting and moves every part of your body. so yes you do move around. you use your hands to move the rope or ropes which takes a lot of effort. moving your feet fast enough for your WIRE rope takes a lot of determination. So there.
Saitama is stronger than Goku.

What does being alien have anything to do with it? You can't say that a cat can't defeat a dog because it's a dog. The fact is that they were created for different purposes to begin with. Saitama is a gag character and his whole point is that he can defeat anything and anyone in 1 punch. There are no power levels with involved with him. But if one were to put numbers on it then his level would always be high enough to walk all over the opponent no matter the strength or speed, otherwise the whole meaning behind his character loses its meaning.
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

Con has not refuted my arguments. Instead he argues that I actually forfeited the debate. This is not so. My exact wording is "If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist." You say that you grant evil exists, excelent, but I am not required to grant that God exists. That would be the case it it read "If you grant that evil exists, I will grant that God exists" Having said that, even if I did concede that God exists, my argument still holds to prove that he does not exist, and we than have an internally contradicting universe. This would mean that I would have been incorrect in granting his existence in the first place. This is the same logic I used in my argument. I granted Gods existence in the scope of my argument. Based on pro's concession, within the argument I could then take evil as a given. I then showed showed how, within the scope of that argument, God does not exist. From outside of the sandbox I am able to say that my granting God's existence caused a contradiction, and was therefore incorrect. Even if I did grant that God exists within the scope of the whole, my argument still works in using evil to show he does not exist. The only problem is that two contradictory things are true. Consider the following situation: Premise: Using math, I can prove 1+1=2 (Assuming the validity of algebra) I grant that 1+1=3 1)1+1=3 2)0=0 (multiply both sides) 3)4=4 4) 2*2=4 5) 2+2=4 (definition of multiplication) 6) 1+1=2. I have now proven 1+1=2, even though it contradicts something that is granted as being fact. In the sandbox 2=1+1=3, simmilary, in the actual sandbox, God exists, and God does not exist. I than made the mistake of going further and explained that because this is impossible, I must have made a mistake, and the only questionable act was the assumption that God exists, therefore that was false. Basic proof by contradiction. If anyone has a problem of me assuming algebra, I can prove 1+1=2, without. (However, if I am granting that 1+1=3, the proof would switch the order of the natural numbers to start 1,3..... so not the best example)
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

Pro conceded that God exists. Now Pro wants to take it back. Trouble is there was no condition stated that says Pro can take it back. Remember Pro made an offer to me. I accepted that offer. Pro says "If I were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist. " I grant that evil exists, as such Pro grants that God does exist. Definition of Concede = to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right. With Gods existence now conceded by Pro, The resolution that "Evil proves God does not exist" is negated. I suggest next time Pro just say they are assuming God exists to make an argument rather than making offers to their opponent.
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

I think that my previous argument was less clear then it could have been. Con has granted the conditional that. If God exists, evil exists. I than proceeded to prove that if God exists, evil would not exist. This mean that if God were to exists than evil both would and would not exist. This means that my initial assumption that God exists must be false. I no longer need or care to have a stance on evil existing for this debate. To clarify in the context of my argument. I grant that God does exist in point (1). I can than take the existence of evil as a given, which I stated in point (12). I than note that (11) and (12) are contradiction, and proceed to explain that our initial assumption must be false. Consider this simpler proof by contradiction. In order to better mirror the debate, I will include a hypothetical concession from 'Con' that, if 6=7, then the Pope and I are 2 different people. This is analogous to Con granting that: If God exists, then evil exists. 1) Assume 6=7 2) 6-5=7-5 | subtract 5 from both sides 3) 1=2 | simplify 4) The pope and I are 2 people. | Because we are assuming that 6=7, 'Con' has granted this to be true. 5) I am not the pope. | If I was the pope we would be the same person. 6) The pope and I are 1 person. | 1 and 2 are the same thing aren't they? 7) I am the pope | Otherwise we would be 2 people 8) We have a contradiction (5), (7) 9) Our initial assumption that 6=7 must be false. At this point I no longer need or care to have a position on my being the pope. My concession that God exists began at point (1), and ended at point (14)
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

Pro says "Con has granted that if God exists, evil would exist. " Let it be noted I did try to ward of Pro going down this "granting Gods existence" path, seeing he has still pursued it I shall accept his offer of granting Gods existence. Definition of Granted = to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. [1] Pro says "If I were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist. " I grant that evil exists, as such Pro grants that God does exist. Definition of Concede = to acknowledge as true, just, or proper; admit: He finally conceded that she was right. [2] With Gods existence now conceded by Pro, The resolution that "Evil proves God does not exist" is negated. Vote Con Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

Con has granted that if God exists, evil would exist. I brought this point up only because of past experience with this debate. By definition, god contains the following properties: Morally good, all powerful. If any of his other properties were to contradict these he would be internally contradictory and not exist. Therefore, if I can show how a being with those 2 properties was inconsistence with Evil existing, I would show that God is also. I intend to argue by using a proof by contradiction. 1) Assume God does exist. | If this assumption leads to a contradiction, it is proven to be false 2) God is morally good. 3) Evil is morally bad. 4) It is morally good to remove evil, all other things being evil 5) Because God is omnipotent, he could remove evil without affecting anything else, even if it means micromanaging every particle in the universe. 6) Therefore all other things are equal. 7) It is morally good to remove evil. 8) As a morally good being, God would want to remove Evil 9) As a omnipotent being God would be able to remove evil. 10) God would remove Evil 11)There would be no evil 12) Evil exists | Because we are assuming God exists, con has granted that evil exists. 13) (11) and (12) are a contradiction 14) Therefore our initial assumption that God exists is false As a side note, now that I have disproven God, I am no longer making a claim on the existence of evil.
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

"Pro says "Evil is morally bad. " Granted. Pro asks me "If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist. " So your going to grant me that God exists ? , don't I kinda win by default there ? I will grant that evil and/or morally bad objectively exists if you grant that this means there is an objective moral standard. Hopefully this sorts out any concerns.
Evil proves God does not exist [5]

Before we begin this debate, I think that it is important to clarify something up front. If i were to grant that God does exist, would you grant that evil does exist. Using God as the moral authority, we see that based on the 10 commandments, killing would be evil, and people kill. While i believe that this can be derived using a definition of evil that is not reliant on God, i do not feel that is necessary to this debate. I do however have to say that the above can be a meaningless definition, so i will add the following restriction: Evil is morally bad.
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

I have presented facts to prove 9/11 was an inside job. The U.S government was warned 40 times of Osama Bin Laden flying planes into buildings in New York. There was insider trading done on the two airline companies whose planes were part of these attacks. Also, months before 9/11 shoot down orders were put in the hands of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush. It used to be in the hands of the colonels of the Air Force bases. Then on 9/11 these colonels couldn't shoot down these planes. In fact an aid warned Cheney of the plane that was going to hit the Pentagon when it was 50 miles out and then again when it was 30 miles out. Cheney then told the aid the stand down order was still on. We still have to see clear evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon too. You accuse me of disrespecting victims too. Many of the victims families believe the government did 9/11 too. We have never indicted Bin Laden either because we have no hard evidence to prove of him doing this. The first source below also has many experts who think it was an inside job. Witnesses won't say it was an inside job because if they did the government would harshly punish them. Sources: http://www.zerohedge.com... http://www2.gwu.edu... http://www.9-11commission.gov... https://m.youtube.com...
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

Since my opponent has forfeited this round I'm going to bring up a couple logical points. Theorist attach to the theory that claims that bombs, missiles, or even military jets. Lets address that there is no evidence of any of these claims. No eye witnesses has seen any of these things, there has been no forensic evidence that these weapons always leave behind. So I guess I'll ask a couple questions as well. 1) where is the explosive evidence in WTC? The red gray chips found in the debris was not nanothermite because it had no elemental aluminum 2) There is just no logic to this theory, its almost comical if it didn't disrespect so many victims. Why would the U.S. government use a missile if there are hundreds of people that can see, also there is no proof of a missile or anything but a Boeing 757 3) 95% of flight 93 was collected, along with the black box data I welcome anyone to present better evidence as my opponent wasn't all that competitive thank you
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

I can't really say anything else to besides to watch the footage in which the east penthouse collapses first, if you truly believe that WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds then you are in denial of fact and video footage. As for 9/11 commission report its main focus was on the terrorist attack targets, so yes you are right they didn't motion WTC 7 but if you actually read the report you would know why. If your looking for a report that does address WTC 7 then just look at the NIST report. And actually according to your scientist like Dr. Steven Jones of the 9/11 truthers movement there is still material and structures that were not pulverized and could be seen at JFK airport so that is just delusional. I hope you know that Jesse Ventura gets paid for what he does, and him and Danny Jowencko are the ONLY DEMOLITIONS IN THE WORLD WHO THINK THE WTC WAS DESTROYED USING CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Let me also state that Danny Jowencko never performed a demolition in his life. Please name any other experts in the field that say thermite was used because that is just untrue. And I don't know what else to tell you, fire has been a primary collapse factor in plenty of buildings, how about the engineering building? And I do claim this, but that's in terms that there was even molten steel at the scene which was never confirmed because the molten 'steel' looked just like molten aluminum was never tested and there was very little amounts of this molten material found. This is the fist time our air defense system encountered something like this, simultaneous crashes of planes, NORAD was scattered across the board. Its like your house has just been robbed then your brother dies then you lose all the money on your credit card, which one do you address first, and how? Nothing like this have ever happened to you. Ok sure lets say that my theory isn't already scientifically proven but my "theory" has evidence yours does not see how we differ? And Bin Laden never said this 40 times that's just a lie
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

Just count it's 7 seconds, but I challenge you to this. Find a skyscraper that has fallen like that. You can't do it because it has never happened. And yes the 9/11 commission didn't mention the WTC 7 building falling because it didn't even bring it up at all. Yes there was debris left over but how did all this material get thrown and pulverized. And by the way Jesse Ventura who was a navy seal and a part of the underwater demolition team in the military thinks it was controlled demo. Many other experts thinks thermite was involved too. You bring up WTC 5 too which was more damaged then 7 but it didn't collapse. You claim iron and steam can make molten steel. Iron and steam get put together all the time in an everyday household and that doesn't make molten steel. There has to be temperature upward of 2700 degrees to melt steel. Here are some more reason not mentioned yet that contribute to my theory. Please explain to me the failure of our military too. Our planes were no where to be found. There was also insider trading done before the 9/11 attacks. The treasury announced they had lost over two trillion dollars on September 10th only for the story of 9/11 to diminish it. We never indicted Bin Laden. The government won't answer any of our questions on 9/11. We have been in Afghanistan for 13 years now. You think the best military in the world could defeat Al Qaeda in way less then 13 years. The US has lied about wars in the past. We water boarded the people associated to 9/11 which produces false information. Just watch someone get water boarded. If you were water boarded you would admit to 9/11 too. We were warned 40 times of Bin Laden hijacking planes and flying them into buildings in New York. One more thing. You keep saying none of my claims have been proven and your right it isn't proven, but what the government told us about 9/11 isn't proven either. It is simply a theory.
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

No, it Dian t fall in 7 seconds. I encourage you to watch the FULL video in which the east penthouse collapses. This collapse clocks in around 16 seconds. To believe otherwise then you are just misleading yourself. And there is absolutely no proof of explosives at the scene, and I think you mean the NIST report, not the 9/11 commission report as they are same. And again I liked to stress the fact that neither NIST, the 9/11 commission report, or I ever state that the steel was melted. I beg to differ my friend, debris that was left over was not all pulverized, you can see this if you simply look up 9/11 twin towers debris, you see a lot of intact debris that was not pulverized, and if that doesn't help, the engineers and architects that support the 9/11 truthers also state this. It even caused conflict between them. And what kind of explosive are you suggesting did this? But ok if you don't think Windsor tower is legitimate then look at WTC 5 or the engineering building collapse No, first off I hope you know that molten steel is not a sign of a controlled demolition, but of course you do, you've done legitimate scientific research on this yes? As for the chemist side of things iron and steam were big contributing factors to this molten steel which may I remind you was not as much there as conspiracy theorist claim there is. When you put iron and steam together the reaction is very exothermic. Also the spraying of water done by the FDNY was just feeding to this fire, like a fuel source. But this is all in terms of that TONS of iron was actually found, which it wasn't. You say that the fire was molten steel yet it was never tested and looks just like molten aluminum, so I guess your just going off of looks? These calls were made 15 minutes in the flight, they weren't that high up too to not make a call. And wait a minute he was in the bathroom and saw smoke? What? How did he see this in the bathroom? And a missile would destroy the plane and leave a trail of debri
The attacks on September 11th of 2001 were not commited by the United States Government

1. The only way to drop 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes and considering the way they fell is explosives. WTC 7 fell in 7 seconds. Just look up the video and count, it's 7 seconds. The only way to bring WTC 7 and the other 2 buildings down like that would be explosives. Look up the Windsor Tower fire. The whole building burnt but the majority of the building stayed standing. According to the 9/11 commission report WTC 7 fell because of fire. The temperature the fire was burning at could not melt or damage steel. The debris that was left over too had to be because of explosives. The debris left over was all material that was pulverized. Their had to be some energy to cause this. 2. Yeah just look at the Windsor tower it only partially collapsed. The fire burned the whole building for 20 hours and it didn't collapse. 3. That chemical reaction was caused by the controlled demolition. Controlled demolition creates a chemical reaction. All the things that were thrown and the debris at ground zero points to a controlled demolition 4. You couldn't make from calls from airplanes in 2001 so the cell phone calls are made up. There were also so many more phone calls from flight 11 then any other plane. There was also a call in which some guy claimed to be seeing smoke in the bathroom of flight 11. The FBI seized this call and the operator was told not to discuss this call. 5 . There was also no military planes in the air. Where were are planes that day? The law was actually changed in 2001 that the bases had to contact someone in the government to be able to deploy planes. This person supposedly didn't answer. In my opinion this was a huge failure. So why wasn't anyone fired? 6. Why wasn't their a 9/11 investigation ASAP. It was done over a year after 9/11. I would launch a legitimate ingestion on September 12th. Also we only put 14 million in for the investigation, but spent 40 million for the investigation of the Clinton affair and 75 million for the Challenger disaster.