BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It's WAY too EASY to get FIRED

Thanks for the advice, I'll do my best to keep it easier to read. Regarding "letting go of employees without actual cause", I can assure you that most Americans are not in favor of employers being able to do that, nor are they in favor of their employer looking for a more "promising worker" to replace them. As for it "getting difficult to pay the worker due to low funds circulating in the company itself" I'm not talking about employers that are SO small they have THAT little of payroll budget, I'm talking about Big Businesses and Large Corporation firing employees. As far as "when something illegal is going on" you are giving employees who make Five to Ten dollars an hour WAY too much credit if you think they know "how to report it to the authorities" And while you may think they "should" pay the employee atleast 1 month pay "even if it's to make them go away" I can assure you THAT is NOT their Corporate Policy, they ONLY do that for employees who KNOW to ASK, and even THEN unless the employee has them "dead to rights" they many times won't! While you may think "the court should be on the case of employees that are let go without cause anyway" that is absolutely not the case, because without witnesses or proof, how do you expect an employee versus a big and powerful business is going to come out on top in a "he said, she said" scenario? They aren't. The Business almost always wins. After all, if you made 5 to 10$/hour and didn't have a penny in the bank (because at those wages who can) you just give up and move on. You know you're NEVER going to win that case, and even if you did, WHO can afford to devote DAYS WEEKS MONTHS fighting a multimillion dollar employer with ZERO in the bank? No one! Have you ever called "the authorities", what is their name? What do you have it in your mind that they'll do? If you call them and tell them my manager or supervisor told me they fired me because I was Black or Gay or Jewish or whatever, guess what? They'll say WHAT PROOF do you have? You won't have ANY because NO CO WORKER will EVER back you up EVEN if they DID hear your employer say bigoted things to you or about you! So I'd be careful about being too hard on the Minimum Wage earning NO PAID TIME OFF receiving employee. Do not jump to the conclusion that they did NOT "care" about getting fired just because they didn't report it, in SOME cases they COMMIT SUICIDE over it because they feel its the SAME ALL OVER and they had NO chance of winning. Thanks for listening, I hope you have a nice weekend
It's WAY too EASY to get FIRED

I accept. I am unsure of what is actually being debated, so I am going to assume that we are debating the topic as of whether or not it's alright to be fired so easily and whether or not the reasons behind it are fair/logical? Please correct me if I am wrong as your description of the debate is very vague. I will be debating from a legal stance, so if you're offended by anything, please do not take it personally. Although it is easy to get fired in America, there is usually a decent reason behind why people are fired, ranging from multiple warnings being given (and the employee not listening to them), ticking off the boss, and sometimes going as far as breaking the law in the workplace. Written warnings and written firing papers are often given by the employer to the employee. If the employee had any issues with the warnings given or why they were fired, they could easily take it to court and/or bring it to some sort of legal team. Most of the time, the reason for the warning/being fired is valid and won't be investigated further unless the employee was illegally fired (and was given no written explanation) or if the reason for being fired was completely unreasonable. In those cases, the employee usually gets some sort of compensation. In the end, the majority of people fired were fired because of their own actions, correct? I await my opponent's argument.
The Democratic Party

There have been more republicans than democrats in the white house, but this is only because the ideology of the parties wills it so. Republicans are richer, and therefore have more power in the American society. Most republican presidents have been involved in some scandal, such as Nixon. Democrats stand up for the poor. you blatantly mock them. Democrats despise the military, who kill thousands of harmless foreigners, you cheer them on. What am I telling you for? it's like talking to a rock.
The Democratic Party

you see, in the old days, the republicans were the good guys and the democrats were the bad guys, but today, that has switched completely. You, of course deny this. You believe that the ku klux klan still exists and such, probably in keeping with your immense love of the past. Today, democrats are the ones who support the poor, and since most minorities are poorer than white people, democrats therefore support minorities. Trump, on the other hand, a devout republican, is a racist, sexist block of cheese who says that "laziness is a trait of blacks". really, which one seems more racist to you? Gun control is important. Your argument, "guns don't kill people, people do," could be used, if, say, there were riots in which people were killed with slingshots. the facts stand, though, that guns are the most popular weapon among people who kill other people. I can think of a very humorous anecdote: A republican comes into a room and finds that his son has shot himself in the head. the republican says, "good boy, Jimmy! you're exercising your constitutional rights!" Republicans also support guns because they are far wealthier, and therefore more at risk to be robbed from by the poor. which brings me to your argument against the poor. You see, the more we take from the rich and give to the poor, the closer we are to equality. The more we take away from the poor and give to the rich, the more unequal we are. it's simple arithmetic, really. You republicans refuse to give money because, naturally, you've gotten to the top and don't want to give it all up. You do not drive this country toward progress. You drive us away from it. this is your ideology. Poor people are not "lazy." they are unable to make money because of YOU! don't you get it? you rob them, so, in turn, they become more and more desperate, until they collapse. Everybody can not be as successful as you. nobody can abruptly jump from being poor to being rich. This takes years. democrats support taxes, which help the poor get to where you are now. seriously, WHY DON'T YOU GET IT?
The Democratic Party

First of all, you did not really address any of my points. However, I will not hold it against you since I did not specify that you had to for the previous round. I shall now attempt to debunk your arguments. "There have been more republicans than democrats in the white house, but this is only because the ideology of the parties wills it so. Republicans are richer, and therefore have more power in the American society." First of all, this doesn't exactly argue for why the Democratic Party is necessarily a good thing. It merely states that Republicans have more power in our society. Whether is true is questionable due to the lack of sources or really any study to back up your claims. "Most republican presidents have been involved in some scandal, such as Nixon." Again this doesn't exactly argue for why the Democratic Party is necessarily a good thing. While it does argue that the Republican Party is not always a force of good, it has little place in this debate. We are primarily discussing the Democratic Party and I am frankly confused as to why you would bring up Republicans and their occasionally shady past. After all Democrats have never had any scandals taken place. Especially not somewhere as important like the White House! That would really suck...... (I am not a Republican btw) "Democrats stand up for the poor. you blatantly mock them. Democrats despise the military, who kill thousands of harmless foreigners, you cheer them on. What am I telling you for? it's like talking to a rock." Now this is an argument that actually involves the Democratic Party in some way. Most of this is really ad-hominem attacks so it is hard to sort out the main points. I will continue to treat my opponent with the same respect as before but I do urge my opponent to avoid such emotionally charged arguments. As for his arguments, he states: 1. "Democrats stand up for the poor" 2. "Democrats despise the military" 3. I apparently mock the poor? 4. I also apparently support civilian casualties? Conclusion: Time to check my nonwhite privilege....gosh darnit Rebuttals "Democrats stand up for the poor" This statement is really vague. How does one "stand up" for the poor? If you want to talk about giving out unemployment checks to the poor then yes.....the Democrats do "stand up" for the poor. If you however, believe that helping people get more money thus improving their lives is "standing up" for the poor then, the Democrats have failed miserably. Real wages (includes the factor of inflation) show that the lives of Americans have been going downhill, however it has just been slowly recovering since the Democrats lost the Presidency and Congress. "Democrats despise the military" Actually, many democratic leaders have proposed increasing our current military strength. Many encourage military careers and many wish to equip our soldiers with newer and deadlier technologies. Sources https://www.bls.gov... http://www.ontheissues.org... http://shop.wwe.com...
The JFK Assassination (debate sponsored by King La Ding enterprises)

I propose that Lee Harvey Oswald did kill John F. Kennedy, alone, and with no one else's assistance in the killing. Arguments1. The RifleOn November 22nd 1963, a rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, which was right in sight of the JFK parade, and where the shot that was the killing blow to Kennedy came from. This rifle belonged to Oswald, and there are several photographs that Oswalds Wife took, that show him holding it. . http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...Oswald's handprint was even found on the rifle in the Book Depository. http://history-matters.com...Also, no bullet fragments, besides the ones coming from Oswald's 6.5 millimeter rifle were found, so he must have did it alone. So why was Oswald at the parade, with his rifle in a building, with his handprint on the rifle, if he didn't do it?2. The EyewitnessHoward L. Brennan positively identified Oswald as the person firing the rifle at JFK. He did this just a couple of minutes after the shooting, before any news station or newspaper reported the incident. His initial description of the killer was extremely similar to Oswald. Buell Wesley Frazier saw Oswald take a long package into the Book Depository, where the killing blow to Kennedy came from. Buell later said this: "I saw him go in the back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. " The majority of witnesses claim that the shots came from the book depository. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com...Many Witnesses saw Oswald shoot, and saw him leaving the building from where the shot came from. He isn't innocent.3. Oswalds PlanOswald left his wedding ring and about all the money he had at home for his wife. This shows he didn't plan on coming back. I leave my argument here and wish PRO luck.
The JFK Assassination (debate sponsored by King La Ding enterprises)

This is the full King La Ding proposed debate resolution: R1 does not have to be used for acceptance. King La Ding proposes, while may not be the first to propose, that Lee Harvey Oswald clearly was either not alone or not involved in killing JFK. In my brilliance, I can prove this to anyone who dare disagree. The idea is, the JFK assassination is a clear conspiracy perpetuated by a shady third party! Disclaimer: Being destructionized by being absolutely decimated in this debate does not warrant a legal lawsuit or extradition to any foreign land.
"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

If you would rather your kid watch Goodfellas than Fresh, then you can make that choice simply by choosing it. If I had a child who was young I would not take them to see this movie. If I had a child that was 14, 15, 16, or 17 and wanted to see this movie, I would have no problem taking them to see it. Unfortunately I would not be allowed to make that decision if the movie was rated NC-17.Yes a young child can be disturbed by graphic scenes, but since the movie is rated R I already know that I wouldn't take a young child to see it. The issue isnt about young, disturbable minds seeing this, no decent parent would take their 5 or 6 year old to see it. This is about the restriction it would place on the parent that wants to see it with there mature teenage child. Your assertment is for the specific rating of NC-17, and I have proven that the movie should not be rated NC-17. Perhaps it should be rated more severly than R due to its graphic content, but it should most definately not be rated NC-17.So I will assert for the last time, Fresh should not be rated NC-17. No amount of "inapropriate content should render this movie or any movie, not allowed for children under 17.
"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

None of those assertions discredit mine. The movie should not be NC-17. No amount of violence, brutality, or drug dealing should render a movie un-watchable for a child to watch. If the parent decides the child may see the movie then they may.You talk about a 12 year old selling drugs, that can and does happen in real life. Just because it isn't something you are used to, does not mean that it is inappropriate. if the movie showed a 3 year old selling drugs, it still should not be rated NC-17Any one can decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate, just because you or even a majority of people think that violence is not appropriate does not make violence inherently inappropriate. That decision should be left to the individual viewers.Your assertion is that the movie should be rated NC-17. Should the movie have a more severe rating than R? Perhaps, but until they invent something that is not restrictive like NC-17, and still more severe that R, they should keep the rating R.On a side note:Ratings should only exist as a way for parents to measure the content of what their children are watching, and what an adult individual decides to watch. As soon as a rating comes up that restricts that freedom, there is a problem.No amount of violence, brutality or drug dealing should be too much for kids to watch, but certain things should not be exposed to kids. I would rather my kid watch GoodFellas than Fresh. Because the nature of the business is a little more natural in nature (greed does exist). But at least, it doesn't involve children (and yes, there are times when movies rate based on questionable actions involving teens and children). This movie involves children in drug dealers. Not only that the nature of the murders are just plain disturbing. A kid's mind can be disturbed very easily. I know I was by certain things I saw. Examples of movies that are just R alone for questionable stuff involving children, according to official MPAA reasoninghttp://www.imdb.com...;http://www.imdb.com... http://www.imdb.com...Like I said, it's not so much the violence itself (I don't have qualms about the murders later on the in the movie, because anyone would agree, the punks deserve it), but the murders involving innocent children, all for jealousy-related reasons. I can't even see that scene anymore. Now, that's not the reason I want it to be NC-17. I do this with kids in mind. I know kids would not be ready for something like that. This is a movie that portrays gang life in very intense and graphic detail.
"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

None of those assertions discredit mine. The movie should not be NC-17. No amount of violence, brutality, or drug dealing should render a movie un-watchable for a child to watch. If the parent decides the child may see the movie then they may. You talk about a 12 year old selling drugs, that can and does happen in real life. Just because it isn't something you are used to, does not mean that it is inappropriate. if the movie showed a 3 year old selling drugs, it still should not be rated NC-17 Any one can decide for themselves what is and is not appropriate, just because you or even a majority of people think that violence is not appropriate does not make violence inherently inappropriate. That decision should be left to the individual viewers. Your assertion is that the movie should be rated NC-17. Should the movie have a more severe rating than R? Perhaps, but until they invent something that is not restrictive like NC-17, and still more severe that R, they should keep the rating R. On a side note: Ratings should only exist as a way for parents to measure the content of what their children are watching, and what an adult individual decides to watch. As soon as a rating comes up that restricts that freedom, there is a problem.
"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

A rated R film requires a parent or guardian to be present with anyone under the age of 17 in the theater. A rated NC-17 film does not allow any one under the age of 17 in the theater. To say this movie should be rated NC-17, you are asserting that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it. Who are you to make that decision? Who is anyone that is not the parent of the child in question to make that decision? The decision should be left to the parents, thus this movie, and all other movies should not be rated NC-17.
"Fresh" (Samuel L Jackson) should have been NC-17, not R

I believe context is what matters here. There was a lot of content that was too harsh for just even a hard R rating. One of them involves innocent kids in senseless shootings, all because jealousy is provoked, when the kids mostly never did anything. The urban violence in this movie is extremely intense. There is one violent scene that is extremely and viciously disturbing. Add to that the intense use of drugs and the graphic depiction of, all people, a 12-year-old selling drugs. You also have some sex and really pervasive language.This movie is harsher than even the most R-rated of movies. Even "Silence of the Lambs" was not as disturbing as this one.IN many respects this movie is a more grim version of "Kids."
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

The ontological argument is as follows:A. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.B. Beings that exist are greater than beings that do not exist.C. Therefore, God exists.A justification of the leap between B and C is included below in the form of a proof by contradiction:1. Let God not exist2. I am a being that exists and can be conceived.3. According to (B), I am greater than God.4. That I am a being that can be conceived and is greater than God contradicts (A).5. Therefore, God must exist (since there is a contradiction if God does not exist).QEDPro mentioned how the "the argument can still be put forword by saying that the magical box prevents any OTHER Gods from existing." However, the ontological argument implies that there is only one God. This does not preclude the possibility of God taking on different forms. For there to be multiple Gods, (A (aka point 1)) could have been phrased as follows: Our understanding of a God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.Given that there is only one God, Pro's argument does not result in any contradictions; God would have no problem preventing any other Gods from existing, since he is the only God. Of course, if God prevented himself from existing, then as soon as God ceased to exist, another existing being would become God so that at any point in time, there always exists a God that "is a being than which no greater can be conceived" as explained in the previous round.
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

I don't think that Con has replied to my argument though. Even if you consider the magical box a God, the argument can still be put forword by saying that the magical box prevents any OTHER Gods from existing, and thus the argument stands.A. Our understanding of the magical box is a being than which no greater can be conceived.B. Beings that exist are greater than beings that do not exist.C. Therefore, the magical box exists.D. Therefore, other Gods do not exist. I'd also like Con to clarify the leap between B and C.
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Pro's logic is incorrect. Since God is defined solely in terms of power (our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived), the magical box he describes that "is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent[,] has all possible power[, and] has the amazing ability to prevent any deities from existing" is a manifestation of God. Now, God (aka the magical box) can either choose to prevent himself from existing or to allow himself to exist (this is his amazing ability). If he prevents himself from existing, then the next greatest being will be God; otherwise, he is God. Either way, at any point in time, there will always be a God that "is a being than which no greater can be conceived." Also, Pro notes that "the Ontological argument states that no GREATER being can be conceived, but it doesn't say anything about a being of equal power." However, this is irrelevant, since by definition, God is all beings for which no greater being can be conceived. Indeed, each individual omnipotent being could be considered a manifestation of God.
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

I do see a major flaw in your argument.i) The illogical leap between B and C Imagine this. A magical box that is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent. This box has all possible power. It also has the amazing ability to prevent any deities from existing. The Ontological argument states that no GREATER being can be conceived, but it doesn't say anything about a being of equal power. We can therefore use the Ontological argument in favour of me.A. Our understanding of the magical box is a being than which no greater can be conceived.B. Beings that exist are greater than beings that do not exist.C. Therefore, the magical box exists.D. Therefore, God does not exist.I'm interested to hear Con's response.
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

Since some commentators found the ontological argument in Pro's speech confusing, I will use this round to clarify it. Points 2, 4, and 5 are redundant. Removing them, the argument is as follows: A. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. B. Beings that exist are greater than beings that do not exist. C. Therefore, God exists. A serves as the definition of God for this debate. B serves as the definition for the word "greater." Finally, point C is the logical conclusion of A and B. To avoid confusion, I have used "exist" to mean what Pro referred to as "exist[ing] in reality" and "not exist" to mean "exist[ing] only in the mind."
The Ontological argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

I will be arguing that the ontological argument is flawed. I'll be using the following one: Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived. The idea of God exists in the mind. A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality. We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God. Therefore, God exists.