BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

You implied that belief based on faith alone is the equivalent to blind ignorance and said it "isn't noble because it isn't logical." Since there is no logical certainty of God's existence, faith is the only plausible reason for believing in God. That being said, you are in effect saying that those who believe in God based on faith cannot be noble. You made no mention of remainder of those who believe in God-- those who do not rely on faith but on faulty logic. Are you saying they are the more noble? Are you saying the misuse of logic is more noble than an true understanding that earthbound sciences are useless in proving or disproving the unearthly? Whether one should follow someone who makes claims to have a stronger connection with God (as in your example) is not for me to say. Millions of Catholics believe the Pope has just that connection, and they follow him without demanding real proof of that connection. But can Catholics be noble in their faith? I think you would agree that that many can. You closed by stating that "religion is not lacking nobility." Now you are trying to have it both ways. Which is noble: belief by faith because you rightly realize there is no proof, or belief by flawed logic because you wrongly think there is proof? If you believe for former is noble, you agree with my topic of debate. If you believe the latter is noble, you commend faulty reasoning. If you believe neither of these causes for belief to be noble you have effectively disqualified about 99% of humans from being noble. That would certainly contradict you statement that "religion is not lacking nobility." Pick your poison.
It is noble to believe in God without requiring proof of his existence.

It isnt noble becaus it isnt logical. youre proposing that blind ignorance is a noble cause. you call logic "the wasy way out", but truly, the easy way out is to believe what ever your parents, grand-parents, society tells you. Asking questions and using logic is the necesity of freedom. To prove this, i ask you to put yourself in a hypothetical situation: I am a very powerful leader, you are one of my many subjects. My subjects are getting unruly so i decide the best way to handle this is say "do what i say or god will punish you w/ eternal damnation". Logically, you may ask why i am speaking with god or why my connection to god is any stronger than your own. valid questions. But under your sight, you, along with everyone should believe everything i say. Now im not accusing christianity, or any other specific religion for that matter, of doing this. but theoretically, youre asking people to disband logic for the purpose of the person who imposes an illogical assumption. Religion is not lacking nobility. I do admire those who can contribute there life becuase of true belief. But belief and assuming something that has no evidence are two different things.
4 Math is greater than 1 Math

This is an extract from a theory I'm in the process of writing, and I would like to debate for the logic I've outlined. Submission Theory In this document, I, the author, have written 'the submission theory'; a conspiracy theory, but also a scientific and philosophical theory. The document will be split into partitions with numerous chapters in each partition. Introduction Humanity has been forced into submission by false academia and Governments, to varying degrees. Some aspects of ourselves are at liberty, but some other aspects are not. The submission theory is an analysis of the submission of mankind to academia and Governments. The Science of 'The Submission Theory'. Mathematics Humans have been educated an incorrect numeric system and therefore conduct false mathematics. The number 1 is symbolic of a single point; of which, are non-existent. "I have one apple". The 'one' apple that was claimed is not a single point, and therefore is not 'one' apple. The apple Is above 1. A further analysis of the falsity of 'one apple', proof that the apple is not a single point... The apple isn't void of other existence, there is always that which is external to it, otherwise the apple wouldn't exist. The apple can be sensed from a number of angles dependant on the observer. The apple had come from an apple tree, it has it's own lineage. To conclude the 'one apple example'; proof that the apple is not a single point has been presented, and the apple is above 1. The proper apple, is of the numeric value 4, void of the number 1, and following is an explanation... A square has 4 corners, there is no 1 corner in a square " to claim 1 corner is to reduce a square to 1 corner of a square. A square has a face, equal to it's corners. The face of a square equals 4. The symbol of "4", in it's current state, is equal to 1. Therefore, we cannot understand 4, because we use false symbols. We were educated to work with the number 1, and this education does not allow us to understand a number 4 that's void of the number 1. What you may refer to as 'one apple', is truthfully of the number 4. It may be difficult for most humans to understand, for they are influenced by the numeric value 1. The apple of the numeric value 4, described in the square example, has four extremes; to perceive the apple's side completely requires four angles of perception. It requires four angles of perception to perceive the top and bottom, or 'polar', of the apple. The apple's polar are two sets of four extremes. The side of the apple is extended to the polar. The polar sets are perceived by two full tilts relative to a neutral side perception, or rotation around a semi-tilt through the neutral side set. A single, or hybrid set, can be perceived at a time. At any given time a face set is perceived, composed of polar and side. In other words, an angle of perception is perception of a full set. Face sets, side sets, polar sets and hybrid sets, all equate 4. Again, 4 that's void of 1. The apple itself is cubic, a cube composed of a complex of the numeric value 4. The polar, side, face and hybrid sets together form a cube and not a square. To be continued.
4 Math is greater than 1 Math

To conclude this chapter, spheres are cubic. We require 4 sets of 4 angles to sense a sphere's complete side and polar. Hybrid side and polar angles, and face angles of side and polar, are of the numeric value 4. A 4 void of number 1. We can rotate or tilt a sphere, seemingly sensing it from innumerable angles. Rotation and tilt occur from neutral face angles, and are transitions, to side or polar, meaning that there are 4 sets of 4, not innumerable angles, that can be fathomed with 4 mathematics. A cube has a polar, or top and bottom, and a side (front and back; left and right). This is simple. Relative to our perception there are four what I claim to be side, and two of what I claim to be polar. You abstract tilt with rotation, or vice versa, and make neutral the complex-opposite-process of side and polar (the logic makes the claim). One side is a side for there are three other similar - one polar has only one other similar, that which is opposite to it. The two-polar sector and, and four-side sector, represent 'pole' and 'rotate' logic; polar sector is less significant, side sector is more significant. The simplest format of polar is a pole and of side is a equator. The pole and equator are in harmony in this universe, they are cubic-opposite as I explained prior. To achieve harmony the equator rotates around the pole,a process of opposite ends of rotation, masculine and feminine. The rest of your arguments are mere puns and do express logic as cleanly as cubic logic. Senses are more absolute than evidence; as a commenter mentioned in the comments, we can disagree or agree with evidence {i.e. we are above it if we want to be}. Sense is above knowledge, that is saying, knowledge is below sense; that doesn't mean sense is without knowledge. It is our advancement from the past to our current self. You must sense evidence before you can know it, it cannot be presented to you if you have no sense. When you see evidence, you have the choice to accept it or deny it. Intelligence is the functionality of choosing correctly., we are intelligent if we work with the numeric value 4, correct mathematics that surpasses incorrect mathematics. We are unintelligent to work with the numeric value 1, since all of 1 mathematics is encompassed in 4 mathematics, plus more. Sense is above evidence for 4 mathematics is true mathematics. We are evolutionary, we have evolved from, inter alia, stars - we can find evidence for stars; however, our species is above the stars. The pressures of the universe shaped us, we became beings from what had come, and stars came prior to humans. In this universe, our minds are above stars, but related and opposite.
4 Math is greater than 1 Math

My opponent has not disproved my theory of 1 is equal to 10. Therefore it still stands. Then my opponent tried to say that actually a cube has six faces instead of four. But my opponents logic before stated that a sphere has only four faces. Like I said before a sphere is a circular square. And if by that logic then a cube would have four faces is what my opponent said before. But we all know that a cube has six faces. By my opponents logic I have one dollar. Technically since it is a 3D shape it can be perceived at different angles. Therefore it, by my opponents logic is actually four dollars. Now I will try and by a four dollar drink with my dollar. It will not work. Therefore the theory does not work. Then my opponent says that senses are more absolute than fact. So say that I sense with my ears that Taylor Swift music is being played on a gramophone when it is actually Adele. You see here that senses can be wrong whereas facts are not wrong because facts have already been proven to be right. The my opponent says that metaphors like a mind is like a star are true. Technically that isn't a metaphor it would be simile. I too could say that the mind is like a data chip and the heart is a battery.
4 Math is greater than 1 Math

The greater 4 math encompasses all of the good aspects of any lesser math, therefore, when you stick up for current math because it's good for people, your argument is void. A greater math that tells not only of use but of method; of discipline and virtuosity; of memory and of imagination, and all of the human psyche. Sense is superior to knowledge, but resolve is superior to sense, which is a combination of knowledge and experience. Knowledge is understanding of 4 mathematics, sense is our true ego, and resolve is a hybrid. The sky had allowed the three, and the four create one set. When you claim our sensory ability is lesser than evidence it's false. There are 4 sides and 2 polar relative to a neutral side perception {i.e. if you're looking at the face of a cube, a distinct top and bottom are observed}. The fact that they look the same doesn't mean that they are the same, it's the sense of it that has this effect; and it is worthy. Metaphors such as, the mind is like a more advanced star, and the heart a more advanced Earth " are true. Eyes are part of a stars and planets family, the light of stars give the effect of perception " humans are more advanced than stars and planets, their perceptions are the light, but to some degree are beyond it. Your perceptive ability evolved because it was heavily influence by light.
4 Math is greater than 1 Math

By my opponents theory a sphere actually has four faces. That is because of the different points at which you look at it equal to four. The four that my opponent has come up with is made up of ones. Therefore by my opponents logic, having one sphere is actually more than one. My opponents theory is flawed because we all know how many faces a dice has. Six. Whereas here my opponent claims that a sphere only has four. But a sphere is technically a round square and a sphere should have six faces if my opponents logic on perception is counted. Therefore I have proven that my opponents theory is flawed. Then my opponent claims that since his theory is right saying "I have one sphere" is actually like saying he has more than one sphere. That is not true. Although the faces of a sphere by my opponents logic should be six, that does not mean you have more spheres. Have means that you possess something. And object that is tangible and real. Therefore you cannot have more than one sphere if all you have is one sphere. You can have more faces than one on a sphere but saying you have one sphere is does not mean you have two spheres. Now I shall preposes that 1 is equal to 10. 1 has the quantity of one. 0 has the quantity of zero. Therefore put together there is only two ones on either side of the equation. The quantity on either side is one considering that the quantity of zero is nothing. That was through an equation. Now I shall prove it though exponents. 1 is still the quantity of one. Therefore 10 to the power of zero is equal to one. I have proved that 1 is equal to 10.
The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would promote a strong economy.

Nobody has been able to disprove me thus far, and apparently redbrave70 thinks he can assert all kinds of assumptions. Well unlike him, here's my FACTUAL assertion. . The legalization of Marijuana in the United States would promote a strong economy. 1. The distribution/use of alcohol is FAR more dangerous than the distribution/use of Marijuana. 2. The alcohol industries and tobacco industries have both flourished in any economy, why wouldn't the Marijuana industry flourish? 3. Marijuana is already being distributed all over the United States, why not use it to help the economy? 4. There are an average of 0 Marijuana related deaths in the United States every year, however, there are 435,000 tobacco related deaths each year plus and additional 85,000 alcohol related deaths each year. This is 520,000 more deaths, on average, a year than deaths resulting from the use of Marijuana. 5. Not everybody would have to use Marijuana or buy Marijuana related products for the industry to flourish. The tobacco and alcohol industries flourish, and neither can boast 100% of American's behind them. 6. The Marijuana industry would employ at least 200,000 Americans. I know this because we have already seen this trend in the tobacco industry. (. http://www.corpwatch.org...) These are just some of my main points.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

Excelling in college is not the only way to succeed. My brother is in college but hasn't finished yet and he already has a nice apartment, dependable car, and a reasonable amount to spend week to week just from waiting tables at a restaurant. A friend of mine is married to a guy who never went to college and was making rock bottom wages at a Petco when they first started dating. After she got pregnant he went to Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning(HVAC) school and is making a quality wage now. They were able to move out of their apartment and get a house. My Dad never went to college. He was in the Navy for a while and then got a job at a paint store and worked his way up to manager. My family wasn't rich but my brother and I had a nice house to live in, my parents had a dependable car to drive, we ate good food, and took fun vacations all without my Mom having to work. My Uncle didn't even graduate from High School. After he got married he went to a trade school and now he's an electrician making great money. I've never gone to college, a trade school, or the military and I make a lot more than the minimum wage. My opponent says "This country was founded on hard work, and that was what was always rewarded." I say that hard work is still rewarded and that society functioned a lot better when people were self reliant and didn't have a "What has my government done for me lately?" attitude. My opponent also stated "I don't understand why someone that goes to college and then becomes a hedge fund manager is more hardworker than a ditch digger that breaks his back eight hours a day" Just because people, such as CEOs, don't do physical work, such as construction, doesn't mean that they don't work hard or that they slimed their way into a life of luxury. A manager's contributions are worth a lot more than the rank and file's because their decisions create more wealth than other workers create. AFL-CIO president John Sweeney makes more than $200,000 a year and his salary comes from union workers who don't make anywhere near that much. Ford Motor Company wouldn't have been worth anything without Henry Ford's assembly line. After Michael Eisner took charge of Disney their net worth climbed from $2 billion to $42 billion. T.J. Rogers took over a company called Cypress Semiconductor, which was in debt back in 1982, and turned it into a billion-dollar company that now has 2,500 employees.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

As far as Wyoming and Oregon goes, once again Wyoming's population is a fraction of Oregon's. Fewer people means it is easier to get a job. Wyoming also has several staple industries in mining and drilling. Michigan's minimum wage is $7.40/hr but the unemployement rate is 12.6%. That is higher (actually the highest in the country) than Oregon, which has a higher minimum wage. Indiana has an unemployement rate of 10% and a low minimum wage of $6.55/hr. Massachusetts has a high minimum wage $8.00/hr and their unemployement rate is 7.8%. As you can see, the rate of the minimum wage doesn't have as big of an impact on unemployment as one might think. There are many factors that lead to the unemployment rate, that state of local industry is one of the biggest factors. People who are merely a warm body do not deserve rock bottom wages. Not everyone is cut out to go to college. People are not created equal, but they should be given equal opportunity to suceed. Some people are smart and can excel in college, get good jobs and earn good wages. Some people aren't so smart and they become janitors or construction workers or frycooks. That doesn't mean that they are worthless and should be paid as such. If no one took those jobs our society wouldn't function. Also, I don't understand why someone that goes to college and then becomes a hedge fund manager is more hardworker than a ditch digger that breaks his back eight hours a day so that we have paved roads to drive on. Am I suggesting that we pay ditch diggers millions of dollars? No, I am not. What I am suggesting is that we show some respect to those hard worker folks that help make our wonderful country run. We can do that by paying them a decent wage to live on. This country was founded on hard work, and that was what was always rewarded. Lately, we've been rewarding people for who they know or what kind of slick moves they can pull in a boardroom. How they can pull the wool over the country's eyes for a few years and then collaspe an economy. It seems like we did a lot better when we rewarded the warm bodys that man a shovel or a broom. It's not glamorous work and it doesn't take a genius to do it, but someone has to do those jobs or our country would sink down the tubes.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

People who are merely a warm body, doing menial tasks, in a job that doesn't require a high school education, that takes little to no skill to fill, deserve to be paid rock bottom wages because they are contributing next to nothing to society. Hard working, responsible people, who make short term sacrifices to get educations and acquire skills that make them valuable to society are rewarded with the sky high wages that they deserve. My opponent says that the supply of workers will always be out of pace with the demand of companies to hire people. It's actually the minimum wage that puts the demand of companies to hire people out of pace with the supply of workers because as the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. Wyoming has one of the lowest minimum wages in the country at $5.15/hr. Their unemployment rate is 4.5%. Oregon has one of the highest minimum wages in the country at $8.40/hr. Their unemployment rate is 12.1%.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

Supply and demand works just as well with things people need as it does with things people want because in both cases people have choices. Businesses need workers to survive. Because people seek work for the means to purchase both needs and wants they are going to demand/expect as much above the bare minimum to survive as they can get. This forces employers to bid up wages to get and keep employees. Businesses will be shooting themselves in the foot if they pay unethical wages because when people are allowed to work wherever they want, they are going to go where the money is. At the end of Round 2 my opponent stated that "The best reason to keep the minimum wage is to keep the quality of life we enjoy intact. If we eliminate the minimum wage then we will devolve into Yemen or Zimbabwe." Singapore doesn't have a minimum wage and they have a higher income economy than the United States with less unemployment. Canada has a higher minimum wage than the United States and they have a lower income economy than the United States with more unemployment. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita http://www.nationmaster.com...
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

My original point remains the same: A carwash is a choice you can make. You don't have to get your carwashed. You could keep your car dirty or you could do it yourself. A job is something you must have. Supply and demand is always offset by the fact that demand is driven down because the goods that are offered are luxuries. This situation is not present in job searches where a person needs a job to survive. The main point here is that many employers could afford to hire more employees if they were willing to make slightly less profits. However, the greed of employers forces them to hire only the bare minimum of employees in order to do business. This results in lower quality of products, which encourages consumers to shop foreign goods that are of higher quality. So what would happen if we abolished the minimum wage? Let's examine some of the countries where the minimum wage doesn't exist. Zimbabwe has no minimum wage and eighty percent of their people live below the poverty line. Yemen is another country without a minimum wage but they are in a better situation, only around half of their population live below the poverty line. I could go on, but I believe that everyone gets the point. Think about Korea or Mexico or Vietnam or any of the other countries where people work for pennies a day and live in abject poverty. When there is no minimum wage the quality of life plummets for the workers and raises for the owners of business. The casam between the rich and the poor is huge in those countries. This is because employers leverage the need of the people to work by offering them the bare minimum to survive. This is neither an ethical or a smart way to do business in this country. If anything our minimum wage should be raised in order for our citizens to be able to live a better quality of life. Many would argue that this would hurt the profits of those companies, but I disagree. If employers paid more than their workers would be able to afford more of their goods and would thus support the company. As a side note, the lack of a living wage has also led to the degredation of the family unit. In order to support a family most couples must both work. That means that there is no parent at home with the children, forcing parents to use daycare, a nanny or latchkey. This also means that parents don't have the time or energy to prepare a home-cooked meal in most cases. Not only does this destroy valuable bonding time for the family, but it also forces parents to buy fattening fast food that has caused an epidemic of childhood obesity. Employers know these things are happening but they don't care as long as their profits continue to go up. The best reason to keep the minimum wage is to keep the quality of life we enjoy intact. If we eliminate the minimum wage then we will devolve into Yemen or Zimbabwe.