BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New Federal and State employees should not receive a pension.

I'll start at the bottom: As regards to the $10 million or "one penny and have it double itself everyday for a month", I'm going to assume you actually mean have the total double every day for a month (otherwise, if only that penny doubles itself every day, you just get a new penny every day, but as this is an old puzzle that's usually phrased a little differently, I'm assuming you mean that). February would net you $1,342,177.28 ($2,684,354.56 on leap years), while any thirty day month would net you $5,368,709.12, and only a month with 31 days would really be worth it, because that would get you $10,737,418.24. So the answer is "depends on the month". (And to math geek out a bit, if the answer to "which month" is "random month", then it would be worse to take the penny than the $10 mil, since you have a 58.3% chance of <1 mil increase, but a 41.6% chance of a losing at least $4631290.88, or more in the case of February, and the profit/loss of that is not something I'd take). I'm not sure how this relates to the debate at hand, unless you're thinking of "tricking" employees into taking a worse deal. I'd rather government try to stay away from tricking people, myself. However, if your position was "Offer higher wages OR a pension, and see if you can get rid of the pension by attrition", I wouldn't object, but I also wouldn't think it would work. I think most employees wouldn't give up their guaranteed pension unless they got a HUGE increase in salary. About pensions: While the Burden of Proof rests on you for why things should be changed from their status quo, if we're going to shift to the concept of pensions as a general concept: Pensions exist to take care of employees who are retiring. They're there so that, when someone is too old to work any more, they're taken care of by the employer to whom they gave their youth. The same Labor movement that brought about the concept of the 8-hour workday, and increased pay for overtime, brought about pensions. Unfortunately, only part of the Labor movement's advances were enshrined in law; this gave employees a false sense of security, and when the Unions were weakened years later, anything not required by law started to be stripped away. That is why pensions aren't as common as they used to be. That is why, until the recent changes in law, insurance benefits were being eroded. I, for one, do not want to see a regression of the country. At the same time, I understand not wanting to intrude too much into private business. But the state should do what we expect a good employer to do, and we should expect a good employer to take care of its employees. When they retire they should be able to know that they won't be forced into eating dog food, living in a cardboard box, or working at Wal-Mart at age 109.
New Federal and State employees should not receive a pension.

A question to clarification's response: Yes, as it was their choice to serve our country, I am sure that they were not in it for the pensions. In regards to my first paragraph, it was simply just my thought process on why we should no longer have pensions. And essentially, this is an argument against future government issued pensions, not the current pensions in place. I am new to the subject, but if you do a good job in rebutting, I may change my position, because that is the point of a debate, to convince others that one's reasoning is better than the others. I am really sorry for not clarifying that this is for future pensions. I may have gotten a little carried away with the whole, "placing higher value on these citizens than the rest of the country." thing... Well, the government shouldn't abuse their workers... It is not like they aren't being paid for what they do. In some cases, federal and state workers should be paid more, just not while they are inactive in duty. It is true that the burden is on me, but this is just an opinion... it is not like I am planning to take my opinion any further... I just like debates :) Once again stating, for the new employees, they should be aware that there would not be any pension for them, however, what should be done for those workers is a higher salary when they are active in compensation for a lack of pension after they work. It may sound counter-intuitive to give them raises in exchange for the pension in terms of saving money for the federal government... the raise would theoretically be a lower sum of money compared to the pension... but no one would really notice that in the first place because of the larger amount of money they would be making during their tenure. Also, people should be accepting of this because there are many people who unfortunately do not make it to the age of retirement or be able to collect a pension that would break even the amount that was already given upfront. It is also a psychological trick! Answer me this... would you rather take Ten million dollars, or get one penny and have it double itself everyday for a month?
New Federal and State employees should not receive a pension.

Well to begin i would like to clarify in once more that I do not support federal and state pensions whatsoever... While I was sifting to the expenditures of the federal government... I noticed that the government spent approximately 231 billion dollars this year... out of hard earned tax-payed dollars on the pensions of federal and state workers... It to me is a travesty that we pay these people for doing jobs that they are currently not doing anymore. I feel that it is just plain wasteful to spend such a frivolous sum of money to these people who aren't working anymore. It may be implied that I do not appreciate these people and the work that they have accomplished... but that is what they were payed to do when they were doing the jobs that they did. It doesn't make sense to me that these people should be payed for the rest of their lives based on what they did in the past. Although these people probably worked to the bone for at least ten years (required eligibility to receive a pension), they should not be taken into special care by getting a pension... there is an overwhelmingly large amount of people in the workforce that can't retire with the large safety of a pension... They should not be treated with privilege because they are working for the government... federal and state level jobs should be treated like any other job... It is almost like the government is placing higher value on these citizens than the rest of the country.
scwak

The resolution we are debating seems to be "Do you believe in Scwak?" As terms have not been defined, I will define them. You- The citizens of America Scwak- a deity which manifests itself in the form of a three headed Chris Christie. Arg. 1 The majority of america is Christian. None of the denominations of Christianity believe that God takes the form of rotund politician with three hot-tempered heads, so we can safely assume that most of America does not believe in the Scwak. Source: http://religions.pewforum.org... Arg. 2 Approval ratings for Chris Christie are at an all-time low, so we can safely assume that most people wouldn't chose to see their god as Chris Christie. People with theistic beliefs tend to look favorably upon their god, so most wouldn't believe that their god is Chris Christie, and most don't look favorably upon Chris Christie. Source: http://religions.pewforum.org...
isn't time the world order got restarted?.

I'm sure you understand that the renaissance was basically the resurgence of Greek, Roman, and Arabic literature, art, mathematics, and most importantly ideas of social structure (ie. the resurgence of democratic and republic ideas of governance). So, what is your definition of a "world order" getting restarted, and what new ideas would be brought from a 21st century renaissance? you made a moot point: corruption, terrorism, rape, and fraud have been apart of every society since the dawn of man
isn't time the world order got restarted?.

my dear friend the motion is isn't time the world order got restarted we are dealing with the future.there is no need to go to deeper meanings of socialism and capitalism.it is advisable to stick to the topic. Waking up every day morning to read about corruption, terrorism,rapes,frauds,i'm sure every soul must have felt that the limit has come.When I meant restart i meant a 21st century reconnaissance .it time more and enough to change our present thinking style drastically.everbody is fed up
isn't time the world order got restarted?.

You postulate that the root cause of all major world crisis, may it be financial, economical, or political, are based on either Capitalism or Socialism. - This is false. Before Capitalism and Socialism, there was Feudalism. Feudalism is a completely different way of running society, and is neither Capitalism nor Socialism. There were plenty of major world crisis under Feudalism: financial, economic, and political crises included. Furthermore, Russia is not a socialist country. Your turn.
isn't time the world order got restarted?.

I guess everyone is fed up with this capitalism and socialism. isn't there an alternative to them. because i believe to an extent the root cause of all major world crisis may it be financial or economical or political are based on them.if they were absent the world would have been a better place. it's time we thought something alternative to them. The developing counties are forced to take sides with either USA(capitalist)or Russia(socialist). it is indeed time for a change. a world of onlygood
apples vs oranges

Wow. I hope that you are young and/or this is one of your first debates. On DDO, in debates, someone brings up between one and three arguments, and then the contender rebuts those and gives between one and three more arguments. But, whatever. I'll play your game: I don't need evidence. Everybody knows that oranges are more nutritious than apples. I've never heard of orange pie, and I thought that we were talking about the fruit, not what you can make with it. Anyways, apple pie doesn't even taste like apples that much. That's a myth. It's fun to peel and take out the stuff in oranges. Who even takes apples to teachers anymore!? And if they do, it doesn't win favor because then they have an apple sitting on their desk all day, and by the end of the day, it's bad. 4th 'Apples' doesn't rhyme with 'rhyme with stuff'. 4th We are talking about the fruit, not the companies. Those are my rebuttals, and here are my arguments from my brain, which means I can think of them without having to look things up. Oranges come in less variety, making them easier to choose from. This is easier on the brain. Oranges must be so good, they even named a color after them. Oranges are round, making them fun to roll around. Apples are less rollable. The Cuties" Company named their oranges Cuties. Apples are named.......what? I can't think of any huge apple companies right now, but there's a big orange company. Apples can have bruises, making their taste unpredictable. Citrus is much easier to predict. It's fun to spit out the seeds you find in oranges, but it tastes bad to go to the center of an apple. Plus, apple seeds aren't good for spitting. Oranges are unmistakably better than apples. Side note to Pro: I'll be going camping and won't be back positively into Internet service till Thursday. Please wait as long as possible to post your argument. I'll put it in comments when I'm back into service :-) Thanks!
apples vs oranges

Thanks for your acceptance, Con. oranges *can* be better than apples in some ways. This isn't what con must prove though. Con must show why apples are better than oranges. He must show why an orange is preferable to an apple and I must show why an apple is preferable to an orange. Being able to name just one aspect of the fruit that's better than the other doesn't meet the burden of proof for neither him nor I. My opponent says that oranges have higher levels of vitamin C and oranges offer better nutritional value overall. Let's investigate to see if this is true. It's pretty well known that oranges do have higher levels of vitamin C. Apples still contain vitamin C but to a smaller extent. My opponent hasn't proven that oranges have better overall nutritional value than apples so I'll wait for him to provide evidence of that. Now that I've responded to my opponent's case, here is why apples are better than oranges. The following facts are taken from http://www.smarter.org... Apple pie is preferred roughly 2:1 over orange pie. Apples keep doctors away. Oranges don't. Apples don't have a gross navel. Oranges do. Apples win favor with your teachers. Oranges don't. Apples you can eat without peeling. Oranges need peeling. Apples rhyme with rhyme with stuff. Oranges don't. Apples don't have stringy stuff. Oranges do. Apple.com made $63.5 billion in revenue in 2010. Orange.com only made $44 million that same year. The answer is clear. Apples are better than oranges. Over to Con.
apples vs oranges

I accept. Oranges can be better than apples. Oranges have lots of vitamin C, and, when I look at the chart I have hanging in the pantry of vitamin-rich fruit, apples aren't even on there. If someone has something like a vitamin C deficiency, they can have oranges, while apples can't do that. So my first argument is that oranges have multitudes of vitamins, while apples have little vitamin nutrition.
"Are we humans exactly like stones thrown in a river?"

"-The "river" doesn't just give you one choice, it might give you multiple choices to branch off in a different direction of the "river". Just think of the little streams that branch off of rivers to be the choices you can make during a situation."Yes, it does, as the thrown pebble heads in only one direction. "-If we had absolute free will we wouldn't end up in that situation with the bear, would we?" We can, depending on what one person chooses to do, as we have free will.
"Are we humans exactly like stones thrown in a river?"

-If we had absolute free will we wouldn't end up in that situation with the bear, would we? -The "river" carried the human into that scenario. The river represents the direction the person is going to in their life. That direction ended up being the encounter with the bear. -The "river" doesn't just give you one choice, it might give you multiple choices to branch off in a different direction of the "river". Just think of the little streams that branch off of rivers to be the choices you can make during a situation.
"Are we humans exactly like stones thrown in a river?"

My opponent has forfeited Definition of simile. : a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses) In the title it states. "Are we humans exactly like stones thrown in a river?" Since the word "like" is in the title, you are using a comparison. The comparison is humans and stones thrown in a river. Next I will explain why this comparison makes sense. Main argument: -This comparison makes sense because, when we are born we are like stones thrown in a river. -At birth we might get swept along with the rivers currents and go with the flow all the way to the vast ocean. Then find your way to land and settle there. In some we might not be so fortunate, we might sink to the bottom of the river bed and never go anywhere in life, but there is a chance that we could get picked up at the bottom of the river by an "opportunity". By being the stone that has been picked up by chance, we could be something in life. We could be the stepping stone of an important building. Maybe one could be used to build a monument. Where ever the river ends you up in your life, it represents the random luck we get from birth.
"Are we humans exactly like stones thrown in a river?"

Rules1. I must argue in favor of the resolution that we humans aren't exactly like stones thrown in a river.2. First round for acceptance.3. BoP is on me; As much as you can prove why we are like humans, if there is at least ONE difference, I win (Hence the resolution ("Exactly")).4. No trolling.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.
The United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French System

Obviously, you are not taking this debate seriously. However, I will continue the debate. 1. You have given me no valid points or contentions to follow up or critique. 2.You don't support evidence 3. This isn't about what you think, I posted this as a Public Forum Debate-which means it's not based on values and your opinion doesn't matter. It's the opinion of the experts that actually matters. So Well, going back to your one line sentence rebuttal against my case. People who have health care when they can't afford is causes the rest of the United States to pay for it, people should get their own jobs and pay for their own healthcare. If we were doing the French Healthcare system then everyone would be forced into getting the same healthcare which is terrible. The doctors and lawyers and hard working American citizens who already get health insurance shouldn't be forced into a French Health Care System. This also brings up the issuse of: cancer, and other related ilnesses. If a person has a very bad case of cancer, or some critical illness, they could only get the care provided by the Universal Healthcare plan, which most times deprives them of what they actually need, or what could save them. This can mean that even if the person makes 10000000 per year, they still can't get the acurate care that they need because the government won't allow it. This makes it more prevelant for people to start moving away from the United States into other countries to recieve the healthcare that they can get, and the healthcare that they can pay for, and the healthcare that can even save their lives. Just because people "want to feel special" as you say...doesn't mean that people need to have a French Health Care System. Already, the government provides welfare, and if a person a sick, an emergency room can't turn people are away because they can't pay. It's plain to see that my argument clearly is strong, and yours doesn't even hold a bit of merrit. Questions, Comments?
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

con says "Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct." they said the same thing to Galileo they said the same thing to the impressionists they said the same to atonal musics if people did not have the courage to be incorect you and the rest of you would still be worshiping the phallus-you would still be in a cave
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

I originally thought you to be some form of troll debater, but now I see you can't keep up to standard with others. Well, Mister Durden, we call it correctness because... it's correct. Hundreds of years of discovery and experience has created a standard for everything that defines quality and perfection. What is the topic of this debate? Is it, The Aesthetics of Incorrectness is good? Because that would defeat the purpose of it. Is being wrong right? is what you're saying. If being wrong is right, then you're not wrong, and if you're not wrong, you're not right. And if you're not riht, you must be wrong, so you are actually right, but if you're right, then you're-brrrghhhgggrrhghrgjrhghrr IT NEVER ENDS! But besides the logical side of this, the source seems to attack the way people are limited, but it is damn stupid. Here's some examples; "Could a scientist argue that science was a form of magic, or witchcraft, or getting further from a correct view of reality? Could a Catholic priest argue that Arius, and Docetic, the Nestorians, and the Monophysites were correct, or the filoque incorrect? Could a philosopher argue that philosophy was foolish and philosophers fools? Could a feminist argue that Freud was right and women are driven by penis envy? Could an American president argue that capitalism was wrong? Could a psychologist argue that the illogical thinking of children and psychotics be the normal and the idealized logical thinking of adults and the psychologist be in fact abnormal?" Yes, but you'd look like a damn fool since you had no proof. "So why should we listen to academics , like the ancients listened to their oracles.?" Well, we should listen to academics because they've studies for years on a subject and have gained an authority on the subject from their experience. It seems you believe that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Incorrect. The man with a degree in dentistry does not argue with a fool who removes his own teeth with string and a door. You have a habit of slapping the word tyranny on something as evidence that it's bad. Here's how that sounds; Correctness is detrimental to society because... because thin of the word detrimental; it means not good. You are all mouth and no brain here, but I learned that already, didn't I. And my facts here are backed up by either evidence or logic. Even the part about your inability to master the idea of using evidence and just spewing out words like they were going out of style. Want to know how I know that? Because I research everything when I accept a debate. And I know that 92.86% of your debates have resulted in a loss, because you were asked to supply evidence and you never did. If this is too personal, by all means, tell me and I'll formally apologize. But this debate isn't reasoning or logical for you; it feels more like resentment, hatred. You defend obscure poems and poets, with no evidence, but defend them nevertheless. I guess one could consider that noble in some regard, but you can't play Tyler Durden and Robin Hood at the same time. That's enough until you reply for now, so I'll be waiting, Shakuntala. Duncan.
A new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness"

Here is a new Aesthetic "The-Aesthetics-Of-Incorectness" http://www.scribd.com... quote the world has grown itself a straightjacket. It has become enslaved to notions of corectness. The mediocre abide by notions of correctness .... The avant-garde the starters of revolutions the nonmediocre break with notions of correctness, We must throw off these straight jackets of conformity. we must embrace independent thought. we must in effect rebel against notions of correctness. We must push forward the accepted boundaries and disregard the preaconceptions of corectness. We must look out side our taken for granted systems of correctness. We must let our thinking run free. we must let our full potentials be reached without being castrated by notions of correctness. Break the contraceptive of correctness by a vigorous intercourse between incorrectness creativity and thinking. Conjoin creativity with thinking with the conjunctive incorrectness in an act of inspired copulation. let the creative saps rise fertilize our minds with alternative ways of doing thinking. Give birth to new creations new ideas. Abort notions of correctness, Gestate and grow, Blossom forth in the fertile soil of incorrectness. Rise up turgid, Swollen with the surging freedom of incorrectness. Ejaculate forth "down with correctness" in the paroxysm of inspiration. Spurt forth new creations. Consummate the conjoined by the article of copulation in a conjunctive frenzy of creative fecundity