BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

Minimum wage laws create higher costs for employers which will have one of two implications on the economy. 1) The employer must pass that cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, thus decreasing demand causing decline in the economy, or 2) The employer is forced to make cuts, the employees most likely to be cut first are the low-skill minimum wage employees, thus creating higher unemployment rates and directly harming those that the laws were intended to help. Either way minimum wage laws have a negative impact on the economy and as support for them increases, more drastic rises in minimum wage show potential to devastate corporate America, which we all depend on whether we like it or not.
Taking Liberal Arts courses in College are a waste of time

Who wants to develop there art skills if there major is business? What skills do art and music help develop that will help me in my field? I don't understand the relevance of me going to college to become an accountant and having to take art. If i wanted to be an artist or musician I would have majored in one of those categories. Taking classes that don't develop your skills in your field are pointless. I think you gain enough skills from taking these classes in high school that you shouldn't have to repeat it in college. If you didn't have to take liberal arts classes that don't involve skills that will give you the edge in your major, students would save a lot more money because there would be less classes. You go to high school to gain skills in all possible core classes, you shouldn't have to go to college and repeat this cycle. Why take college algebra when i did the same things when i was in 8th grade? It's a waste of time and a waste of money.
Taking Liberal Arts courses in College are a waste of time

In order to understand why colleges make you take these classes you are first going to need to step out side of your own reasoning. These colleges and associations that they receive accreditation from establish these standard curriculum requirements in order to transform students from children just leaving high school with relatively no understanding of how the real world works into an ideal functioning member of society. These institutions feel that for the complete transformation from childhood into adulthood to occur the student should receive an education that exposes him or her to the ideas and creations of people and cultures outside of there specific field of study. the goal of an undergraduate program is to train you in your field of choice obviously but also to develop your all around skills and understanding of the world you reside in and the people who determine the curriculum at these institutions feel that art and music and any other core classes are necessary to do so.
Taking Liberal Arts courses in College are a waste of time

Yes i understand taking philosophy and communication would help in the accounting field but what about music and art? I do not believe that taking an art and music class will make me a more rounded student and if so isnt that what high school is for? You take liberal arts classes in high school to become more well rounded, i dont think i should have to take art and music classes in college since i already took them in high school. If you pay to go to school you should be able to take the classes that you are interested in or that will help enhance your skills in your particular field. You go to college to major in a subject so you can get a job in that field once you are done with college. You shouldn't have to go and take courses that you are not interested in, have nothing to do with your major, and dont help yu with any skills that will help you get a job once you are done with college.
Taking Liberal Arts courses in College are a waste of time

The purpose of making student take liberal arts classes in not to learn the particulars of which artist drew the mona lisa or specifics like that but instead to make the student a more well rounded person who can function and adapt to the circumstances of the real world. I myself am an accounting major and would love to be able to take just accounting classes but the fact is that those classes only educate you on the more technical aspects of working in accounting, while the general education classes such as philosophy and communication help you develop the other skills that are needed in order to be successful. It i great to understand the tax system in its entirety but if you haven't developed a good understanding of ethics and reasoning then you most likely will fall short in the professional world.
Taking Liberal Arts courses in College are a waste of time

I believe that taking liberal arts courses that colleges mandate is a waste of time. If i am majoring in accounting why should i have to take an art class and music class? I feel it is a waste of my time and a waste of money to take courses that most people had to take in high school. I can understand if you are a certain major and one of those liberal arts classes helps you master a skill you will need in your field, but like i said why should i have to take art if i am an accounting major. When will i ever need to know what kind of binder is used in oil painting? That has nothing to do with my accounting field and is pretty much pointless.
Who would win in a battle between goku and kratos

I'll be clear. I am not a DBZ fan, but I know enough about it to see why he would win this fight. I call it the Superman Dilemma. Goku has the power to casually destroy planets. He became immortal by the end of the series, at least immeasurably powerful. It's not which is better, its simple measures of power. Goku is far more powerful, and would simply boot Kratos into space with his first kick.
Who would win in a battle between goku and kratos

I believe that kratos would win in a fight against goku because he beat all the other Greek gods and took there powers. What ever you threw at him he would just take and throw it right back at you He defeated Zeus , Poseidon, Hates, Hermes, ever single opponent you threw at him. He even defeated himself in ghost of Sparta and even killed his own brother Kratos is a force of destruction that can't be beating.
Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

You say that most successful people in the world are from rural areas. While this may have been true hundreds or even decades ago, it is not true today. In urban areas there are schools, a large producer of successful people. People in urban areas do not get "everything in just a blink of their eye. " In fact, it requires much more money to live in an urban area than in a rural area. People who are smarter, better educated and have succeeded by earning money are able to live in the city while living in rural areas does not require as much intellect or mental ability. Living in rural areas and farming requires physical ability, but society today does not need strong people, it needs clever people, for example the people that live in cities today. Yes, it is healthy to live in a rural area. However, that fact is becoming more insignificant as people living in urban areas can have their illnesses treated quickly while in rural areas diseases have nothing stopping them. See the source in my last argument for malaria statistics in urban and rural areas. Also, the increasing number of machinery that is used in rural areas is making it easier to work in rural areas and rural people are thus working much less. Cities possess much more potential for advancement than farms. Why are urbanised countries such as the United States doing so much better than farming countries such as Africa and South East Asia? Simply because machinery, genetically modified crops, the internet, computers, and almost every single technological advancement that we use today (this website included) has come from an urbanised area or created by someone who has been educated in a city.
Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

I think most of the successful people in the world are from rural areas. Despite being poor, they are capable of doing much better than people of urban areas. The people in urban areas are very lazy because they get everything in just a blink of their eye. This makes them unfit and they get attacked by many problems like obesity and diabetes. While the people in rural areas are hard working. Thus, they are always fit and healthy and rarely get attacked by diseases. By this, I want to say that a country can progress only when it's people are healthy with healthy mind. Because well said, A sound mind works only with a sound body.
Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

Voters, I suggest you vote for me due to lack of sources and correct grammar offered by my opponent. None of his/her points offers any scientific evidence as all. 1km of of rural areas do not exactly provide us with massive amounts of oxygen while cities create scientists, teachers, leaders and other positions that benefit society while rural areas offer none of this. I never did say that food could be processed in urban areas, I simply said that genetically modified crops that produce more oxygen and clean atmosphere can be grown in urban areas. You claim that urban areas have more mosquitoes. Research done by the Us National Institute for Health (www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536341/) shows that in Ghana malaria parasite rates are much higher in rural areas then in urban areas. Urban areas allow for much more treatment of diseases because the authorities have access to a lot of people. However, in Rural areas there are much higher infection rates because of lack of treatment. It is much more expensive to provide treatment and medicine to people who live in rural areas.
Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

Hmm... When talking about 1 km. of rural area over 1 km. of urban area, I think then also rural areas are more beneficial. There is a lot of pollution in urban areas at every corner I guess.. At contradiction, rural areas serve us with fresh environment. My opponent said that food can be processed in urban areas too but due to unhealthy environment and pollution, the food becomes unhygienic and could cause many diseases in the stomach. Since, there is no pollution in rural areas, the food is fresh and healthy.Therefore, there are fewer diseases in rural areas. Secondly, In urban areas sanitation is a big problem. In case of rainfall, the water gets collected on the road and becomes a home for mosquitoes. On the other hand, rural areas have no problem of sanitation because the area is spacious and provides easy way to pass the water.
Rural areas are more beneficial than urban areas

Yet oxygen constitutes 20% of the Earth;s atmosphere, over 1x10 to the power of 18 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#cite_note-2). By the time lack of oxygen becomes any real problem, developments in genetic engineering shall allow urban grown plants to efficiently create oxygen and take in carbon dioxide(www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2014/09/plant-engineered-more-efficient-photosynthesis). Oxygen will never be a real problem. Currently many governments and organisations are trying to reduce pollution. www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/may/04/china-labor-pollution-smog-labor-under-the-dome www.wilsoncenter.org/event/path-to-win-the-war-pollution-environmental-law-reform-china www.who.int/topics/air_pollution/en/ www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-pollution-prevention-act More can be found by simply googling: "Air Pollution reforms". In the very near future pollution will probably drop thanks to such reforms. You say more people are moving to rural areas. That is not true at all. A UN report (esa.un.org/unpd/wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf) has shown that urban population exceeded that of rural population in 2005 and that rural population and now beginning to drop. More people are living in urban areas. You say that our whole life depends on rural areas. While we may rely on food for life, I made this clear in the first round (I assume that I was right because you did not contradict me) that we were not talking about ALL rural areas against ALL urban areas. While rural areas as a whole may be more beneficial (depending on your definition of beneficial) there is A LOT (www.newgeography.com/content/004088-rural-character-america-s-metropolitan-areas, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096) of rural space against a tiny amount of urban space. If you were to remove from rural areas the surface area of a city there would still be 95% or so (see above sources) of rural spaces left. 100 kilometres squared of urban gives more benefits than 100 kilometres of rural space, because there is already a lot of rural space and if we were to take away 100km squared it would not make much of a difference in food production. Urban spaces provide much more potential for growth. A large concentration of people means that there is a large concentration of ideas, and new technology that can benefit everyone can be spread extremely easily. A large concentration of people means that there must be some form of government, (there are no Senates or Parliaments in rural areas) leading to better organisation of infrastructure and taxes. Next I shall outline my other arguments and debunk my opponent's arguments.
The Catholic faith has the most logical arguments of any other Christian religion

argument 1 My opponent fails to show me where in the bible is says all sin is equal of severity. The only thing i can take from the bible verse he gave me is that: if he breaks one law he breaks all the laws. Of course this is true even in modern society. If you steal a penny you still break the law as if you had murdered someone, but the severity of your punishment would be different. I will quote a site. "What James means when he says that whoever fails on one point of the law is guilty of breaking all of it is not that all humans are equally guilty if they sin once--then there would be no difference in the levels of punishment people would receive, yet Jesus says there will be (Lk 12:47-48; cf. Mt 10:15, 11:22-24). What James means is that anyone who breaks one point of the law is guilty of breaking the law itself, of breaking it as an entity. To give an analogy, anyone who breaks one part of a plate is guilty of breaking the plate. He may not have broken every part of it--smashed it into pieces--but he is guilty of breaking the plate as a whole." Furthermore in 1 John 5:17 he says "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." Other verses in the bible talking about purgatory are: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). "In which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,"(1 peter 3:19) "Will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32) "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). "In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin" (2 Macc. 12:43"45). "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27) credits http://www.catholic.com... Argument 2 I did not say sex should always result in impregnation, but that the family should be open to this result just as one should be open to receiving the nutrients of the food that this person has just eaten (contraception makes this openness impossible). I also did not say sex could not be used for pleasure. I said that the person must be open to impregnation as impregnation is a natural result of sex. I was explaining how old the Catholic Church was to show how other religions "stem" off of it. Of course our age does not matter but it is the "steming" off that does. Sorry if I have misinterpreted anything. Thanks for the great conduct.
The Catholic faith has the most logical arguments of any other Christian religion

1st round will be debate acceptance. (I'd really rather my opponent to be of other religion than Catholicism or to have no religion at all) Last round will be comments about the debate. no further debating after round 4. This is only my second time debating :D my apologies beforehand if I do something wrong or make the debate unchallenging for my opponent. I will try my best. Thanks to whomever accepts the debate. I hope that we may learn from each other or at least come to an understanding as to why one believes what the other does!
The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended

Actually, about 600,000 people were killed by Saddam in almost thirty years. The violence in less than five years has killed 87,741 civilians. This does not include deaths of coalition forces. Back-of-the-napkin calculations give us about the same number of civilian deaths after thirty years. A panicked has their panic confirmed by the security measures that have been taken so far. Although 9/11 showed security to be inadequate, our response was to panic (the goal of a terrorist), which caused such measures to be taken. WE would have done better to frame out security measures as "we now see problems", rather than "Oh no oh no oh no! What will we do!". What we did is exactly what "they" wanted. Also, the invasion of Iraq has made much of the world dislike the US-- which gives terrorists justification.
The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended

1) Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was, perhaps, not a great place to live, as Saddam Hussein was murdering innocent civilians, but he is no longer in power, and innocent civilians are still being murdered. We've instated a government, and the people have voted. Now we need to rebuild and get out. 2) The increases in airport security are best described as "security theater". There remain numerous holes in security (a commonly discussed scenario is simply setting off a bomb before the security checkpoint, where numerous people will still be killed and many people will be scared-- the point of terrorism). The security there is serves the purpose of creating an illusion of response ("security theater") and being vary annoying and wasting time (the fact that people, even if only jokingly, advise friends and family to arrive days early, when an hour was all that was needed on busy days, is testament to this). 3) Personally, cameras everywhere make me (and many others) feel less safe. Who watches the watchers? Who can say with certainty that ex post facto laws will never exist? Who can say that wearing an orange hat will not someday become a retroactive law carrying the death sentence (unlikely, I know, but it's just an example)? Furthermore, there are private security cameras covering major cities already. How does installing more help? 4) Then why was Iraq invaded? Wasn't the reason for that because Iraq had nuclear weapons? That evidence certainly wasn't irrefutable because it WAS refuted. Then the reason was changed to "Saddam is a bad person". Saddam was removed from power, captured, and executed (he wasn't even tried in an international court-- the court was US run). Still US forces remained. The excuse was then that we needed to stabilize Iraq. Well, the way to do that is to REDUCE forces and change their mission-- to rebuilding Iraq. 5) We do need to capture terrorists (and give them trials), but more terrorists will always come up. Even if Al-Qaeda ceases to exist, there are other terrorist organizations. If we eliminate all terrorist organizations, then people who have similar ideas will form new ones. Do we really want to play Whack-a-Mole on an international scale, except that each round costs a few million dollars instead of 25 cents, and every time we miss, innocent people die?
The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended

The War on Terror is winnable for the US because you misinterpret what the War on Terror is. The War on Terror began on September 18, 2001 with the Authorization for Use of Military Force. This authorization officially marked the beginning of the War on Terror, and is the legal justification for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The direct purpose is to hinder terrorism domestic and abroad to ensure the safety and security of American citizens. To say that the War on Terror is "unwinnable" is to say that Americans will never be safe. I do concede that Americans will never be COMPLETELY safe, however, it is plausible to instill safety for American citizens. The War on Terror officially ends when this is accomplished. The US is taking the wrong approach for winning the war, but it is revertible to victory. The following course of actions would allow the US to win the War on Terror, thus making the War on Terror "winnable": 1) Stabilize Iraq and explore the possibility of three separate states based on the Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Establish either a federal government over one Iraq or a central government over three states. 2) Greatly improve the funding given to airport security for all airports receiving international flights. Also improve airport security for all other airports. 3) Install security camera systems on the streets of several major cities such as New York City, LA, Chicago, etc. 4) Don't invade another country unless there is irrefutable evidence to invade. 5) Continue to capture al-Qaeda operatives and other major terrorist leaders to shut down their organizations and cripple their ability to operate and assemble. Terrorist organizations can be stopped from harming the US by: 1) Preventing them from acquiring WMDs, Nuclear weapons, etc. 2) Cut off their money supply (example: Eradicate opium production in Afghanistan that funds the Taliban) 3) Improve domestic security These tenants and plans are all pragmatic and can be accomplished Secondly, to be brief, the War on Terror should not be ended because of the negative implications involved. Withdrawing troops, redeploying forces, and surrendering key strategical advantages would not change anti-American sentiment, and would only forfeit any advantages currently held by the US.
The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended

The goal of the war on terrorism is to eliminate terrorism from the world. The problem with this approach is that there is no way to eliminate an idea-- it is like eliminating capitalism or environmentalism or communism. Although it is possible to reduce the number of people who believe in an idea, it is not possible to eliminate that idea, and therefore no way to truly win the war in terrorism. Because it costs money and lives to support the war on terror, it should only continue if it can be won. But since it cannot be won, it should not continue.