BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

I don't believe that restaurants should be forced to pay their employees minimum wage or give them benefits such as healthcare or dental insurance, due to different reasons on both topics. The average gross revenue for small businesses is usually less than $50,000 a year. From any source I could find most restaurants make quite a bit more gross income than small businesses, so let's say double the amount and say that on average restaurants make a gross income of $100,000 per year. Strictly from the businesses perspective the cost of minimum wage would be catastrophic. According to Statista the average fast food restaurant has about 16 employees. If you were to divide that by 2 that would likely give room to tell how much small restaurants have. With them paying only the federal minimum wage, and their employees work 40 hours a week, it would cost the small business $111,360 a year to pay their employees. That alone would be enough to put the restaurant out of business and that doesn't even include other expenses. The reason other small businesses don't go out is because most of them don't require many employees and are usually run by 1 or 2 family members which is practically impossible for a restaurant. The second problem with paying them the minimum wage is it actually hurts the worker more. Most of the time the employee makes more money when getting tips because the employers give them about $4 in most cases and they usually get another $6 by tips in an hour meaning they get 10$ an hour easily. As for employee benefits, let's look at healthcare which for a single individual is usually at least $6,000 that is $48,000 for a restaurant with 8 employees for the base medical expenses. That leaves little room for any other expense and would prove to be quite harmful to most restaurants.
Tips at restaurants should be done away with for minimum wage and employee benefits..

In my opponents first sentence he claims that his calculations are not based on the average,which means his data and his calculations are inconsistent. He just still gives me statistics which are wrong. In his round 3 arguments, he just attacks me personally, which I do not really mind. He provided inaccurate data and yet he has the nerve to call my sources inaccurate. The employee is not benefiting at all which he claim's they are, in his 2nd argument. They would be better off with health/dental insurance over better wages. He also claims that I have a lack of knowledge on healthcare but fails to state why. His lack of knowledge and his minor anger has driven him to a "ramage-ish" argument over a good factual one
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States

I agree with most of your opinion. it might be true if we ban assault rifles, some people might go against a law and try to change it by force. and cause of that force, people will get hurt. and as long as there is this weapon called "assault rifles" people will get hurt more; within one shot, people can die. besides think about how much you can save by not buying any assault weapon. it will probably cost a lot. and with those money, we can do so many things. lastly there is something I want you to remember. people's lives are more valuable than anything else
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States

Once again, my opponent's opinion is understandable but his argument is flawed. First of all, Assault rifles will not "create criminals", a criminal is going to be a criminal whether or not a certain type of gun is legal. If anything, banning assault rifles would only leave these types of guns in the hands of criminals because responsible citizens would not possess them unlawfully. Secondly, these people that you claim "try and get what they want by force" would be more dangerous if assault rifles were against the law. Any logical mind knows that banning these weapons will not eradicate them from our streets, it will only create a black market for them and the people getting what they want "by force" would have to buy them illegally, which I assure you would not bother them in the least. Once these types of people have these weapons, they would be able to use them more effectively and small store owners/home owners would now only be able to protect themselves against criminals with weapons that don't compare in effectiveness with the assault rifle. Lastly, my opponent almost makes my point for me in the end of his argument. He states that we have not made a law that forbids inexperienced drivers, which we never would be able to do, and for that reason there will be deaths because people like that get behind the wheel. In society there will always be irresponsible citizens whether or not assault rifles are legal. One could argue that if we were to ban assault rifles because of the fact that irresponsible people use them and it leads to death then we should also ban alcohol because people abuse it and then drive, killing thousands per year. While it is a sad fact that people in our world aren't responsible and it leads to death, it indeed is a fact, and it doesn't warrant the banning of assault rifles.
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States

innocent people getting hurt was just one of many reasons why we should ban assault rifles. assault rifle will create many criminals. there are many people who tries to get something they want by force. and assault rifles are best weapon to help them. if this happened, there might be a murder and eventually people will die or get hurt. if we don't ban this now, some people won't be able to live peacefully. and yes it is true we haven't banned inexperience driver to drive just because they are bad at it. but it sometimes caused very bad result. just like inexperience driver problem, there will be a problems from having assault rifles for people.
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States

My opponent claims that assault rifles should be illegal for these reasons: 1. "Innocent people might get hurt." 2. "Some people who are not good at shooting rifles still use them. They might not aim well and the bullet might hit someone or something else." My argument will be strictly against his reasoning for the banning of these arguments. First of all, the fact that "innocent people might get hurt" is a universal problem with guns and numerous other things in our world today. If assault rifles were to be outlawed because "innocent people might get hurt", then all guns, including pistols or any other type of weapon,would have to be outlawed at the same time. Second, just because "people who are not good at shooting rifles" shoot them, that does not mean that there is any reason to outlaw them. Should we outlaw cars too? One could make the same exact argument against cars.. That inexperienced people often drive them and this could lead to people dying in car crashes. Neither of your reasons present a clear discrepancy between assault riffles and all other legal weapons that proves they should be outlawed.
Assault Rifles should be banned in the United States

in my opinion, assault rifles should be illegal now. there are many reasons for that. one of them is that innocent people might get hurt. it might be ok if experts use it, but in fact, it's not. some people who are not good at shooting rifles, still use them. they might not aim well and the bullet might hit something or someone else. even after you heard my opinion, would you still want to it to be legal?
Resolved: The deployment of THAAD is in South Korea's best interest

Hey debaters, This is the public forum topic. I am currently a policy debater, but I decided to have a little fun and have a go on this topic. Rules: 1. Format Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Constructives(no rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals/extensions Round 4: Summary Round 5: Final focus 2. No hate speech or abusive language The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If one side explicitly concedes or violates any of these terms, then all seven points will be awarded to the other. By accepting this challenge, you agree to these terms.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

First of all, God creates moral law, he doesn't force us to do it. That is because the Bible refers to humans as having free will. If he forced us to follow the law, then free will would not exist which would contradict the Bible. The moral law God gives us is the Bible and it is our choice on whether or not we follow it. The example you gave in your first paragraph is flawed and I can give a few reasons. I was referring to a clear and obvious situation. Let's say someone had obviously murdered someone and everyone knew it. What you are saying is that that murder can be right and wrong at different time periods. If the murder occurred in the 1900's when everyone thought murder was bad then it would be considered morally wrong. But if it occurred 200 years prior to that when everyone thought murder was okay, then it would be considered morally right. But there's the problem, no matter what the situation is, if you take the same exact murder and switch the time period, the majority will be different and therefore think different things. While one group in a time period might think it is right, another might think it is wrong. But the thing is, murder can't be both right and wrong, it is contradictory. Now to my final point. If we are just products of evolution, what reason do we have to be moral? Why is murder wrong? Evolution is survival of the fittest, so why then would murder be considered wrong? If the majority thinks it's wrong, why do they think it is wrong? What reason is there to think that murder is wrong? Without a God in the equation, you have to accept the fact that moral law does not exist.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

In medieval times, they killed people who they thought were witches. Morally, that is (in the moral world's eyes) wrong as it is unjust and murder for something they couldn't even prove. But in those days, the majority was convinced that it was the right thing to do therefore it wasn't considered immoral. If I was around in those days and my loved one was convicted and killed for being a witch then of course I'd be upset and would find it wrong. But the majority wouldn't so generally (as seen by most people) it wouldn't be immoral. "The right thing is always the right thing no matter what the circumstances are." But it isn't as black and white as that. By definition moral law is "an absolute principle". Not every single human being in the world shares the same principles and opinions. There are many people who believe murder is wrong, but yet again there are others who disagree. Taking this back to the original point of the debate, you're arguing that moral law cannot exist without God. And (no offence) it appears as though God is doing a bad job at enforcing moral law. If moral law is being enforced by the most powerful being in the universe then it's hard to believe so. Why? Because if the most powerful being in the universe really was enforcing moral law we wouldn't have our different personal moral principles. If God really was sustaining moral law in the universe He's doing a bad job of it as not every human shares an "absolute principle". We all have our own different principles so this goes against your argument - that God must exist in order for moral law to exist as well. So if, for the sake of this debate, we were to assume that God has an irrefutable existence, He already isn't enforcing moral law. So, linking back to your main argument, moral law either can't/doesn't exist with God or He is doing a poor job at enforcing it.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

But then wouldn't it be a contradiction if murder was right and wrong. If at one time murder is considered wrong then it would always have to be considered wrong. But then if the majority decides that it is okay to murder, then it would be a contradiction. Moral law always stays the same but if it up to the majority to decide what moral law is, then murder would be right and wrong at different times which is contradictory. The right thing is always the right thing no matter what the circumstances are. If the majority decides moral law, then it the right thing could become the wrong thing at any point in time. This would again mean that moral law does not exist it is just different opinions. Consider this example. If someone murdered your loved one and at that time, murder was considered morally wrong, then by definition, that murder would be wrong. But if the majority perceived murder to be okay, then that murder would be okay. But then it breaks the law of non-contradiction. That murder cannot be both right and wrong.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

I suppose that if the majority of people believe murder to be right then universally it would be deemed as right. Because the majority of people believe murder isn't alright - that's the only reason it is universally deemed as wrong. So I guess that if the majority of people agreed with what Hitler did then it would be universally deemed as right but because we (thankfully) live in a society in which the majority of people despise Hitler and what he did, universally Hitler is deemed as immoral and evil. If someone killed my loved one under the universal acceptance of murder then of course I would be extremely angry and extremely sad. I'm human so of course I'd feel sad and even mass murderers would (most likely) feel sad if they had a loved one killed. But because humans are generally compassionate creatures the majority of us hate murder and therefore find it immoral. Out of compassion - not out of God telling us that it's immoral. "Without a God in the equation there is no absolute moral law" And there isn't absolute moral law. There is no list of what, as humans, we can perceive as right and can't. There is, however, certain things that the majority of people perceive as right/wrong so therefore they are the generally accepted viewpoints. "Just because someone's moral view is uncommon does not make it any more or less right or wrong." I suppose I can agree with you on this one. But as I have said in pretty much most of my arguments there is no 100%-defined right or wrong. But Hitler's morals are generally viewed as wrong because the majority of humans disagree with them. If most people agreed with his views then his morals would probably be generally considered as right. But most people deem them as wrong so therefore they are generally seen as wrong and immoral. "If there is no God in existence, then moral law does not exist, only moral opinion" But a moral is effectively an opinion so we can't be told what we can and can't - we just have our own beliefs. As I have said throughout my arguments, there is no set-out list of principles which are right or wrong. It is only how the majority perceives them to decide if they are generally right or wrong. God couldn't have possibly set out moral law because, if He did create everything as you said He does, then He created us and programmed us with our own thoughts, ideas, opinions and morals - therefore He couldn't possibly have set out an absolute, defined moral law because He has created us with our own thoughts, opinions and principles. Technically there is moral law as it is enforced into nations' laws but it is down to the fact that the majority (or the nation's government) perceive it to be right or wrong - not because God says so.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

First of all, we are not debating the existence of God. All we are debating is whether a God is necessary for there to be absolute moral law. Let me ask you this. If the majority of people believe murder to be right, does that make it okay? If this happened, would that justify Hitler's actions? If someone killed your loved one under the universal acceptance that murder is okay, would you at all hate them? "And let's remember that a moral is a personal viewpoint and there is no defined moral law so technically there is no 100% right or wrong." EXACTLY, RIGHT ON. Without a God in the equation there is no absolute moral law, there is no 100% right or wrong, which is why Hitler's actions can be justified. Just because someone's moral view is uncommon does not make it any more or less right or wrong. If there is no God in existence, then moral law does not exist, only moral opinion. However if God does exist, then God, being defined as the creator of everything is, therefore, the creator of moral law.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

But my argument was that there can be moral law without God because humans aren't even sure about God. Moral law is created by the compassion and experience of humans (similar to any opinion human beings have) - the majority of humans see that someone is in pain and suffering, they then feel bad. That then creates a moral because they have then defined their principle of what is right and wrong. Then before you know it, that principle is passed down generations until it becomes the standard view. I suppose that, effectively, that is then what creates moral law. Then you get people like Hitler and many other murderers with an uncommon moral view. The reason they receive hate is because his opinion/moral was unpopular and didn't fit in with the masses. (Please don't misinterpret me - I despise what Hitler did and don't support it at all) And let's remember that a moral is a personal viewpoint and there is no defined moral law so technically there is no 100% "right or wrong". It's only how we perceive it that makes it "right or wrong". A minority of people don't hate what Hitler did whereas they are outweighed by the majority. And because the majority perceive what Hitler did to be wrong it is universally considered wrong. Moral law is created by man because the majority believes something is wrong - not because God says so. "This is what happens when we leave sinners in control of morality." But nobody can control morality. A moral is someone's personal viewpoint and whether they perceive it as right or wrong. For things like murder, the majority of people deem it as wrong so therefore universally it is considered as wrong. Notice how I said "personal viewpoint"? Notice how different people share different morals? Notice how one person supports one thing whereas the other supports another? It's because morals are personal viewpoints in which WE perceive to be right or wrong. There can't be such thing as moral law when a moral is a personal viewpoint. You can't follow something telling you what is right or wrong - you can only follow what you believe is right or wrong. Law is defined as a "system of rules". Morals are something that is PERSONAL to you - if it's personal to you then it can't be under a system of rules. If you support a football team that is PERSONAL to you - there is no law saying you can't support that football team.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

This debate is solely about whether or not there needs to be a God in order for there to be moral law. This debate is not about whether there is evidence for God in which contrary to popular belief there is evidence for God. But that is aside from the point. All I am going to argue is that a God is necessary for moral law. Here is my opponents first argument addressing the issue of morality. "there are millions of Atheists with morals without being under religious influence. The Bible (and other religious books) do offer good moral teachings but many Atheists have their own moral views that are formed not on religion." So what you are saying is that because God does not exist, we are the makers of moral law. You are saying that we decide what is okay and what is not okay. If this is true then how can we get mad at Hitler for what he did to the Jews? Hilter is an atheist and his moral is that murder is just fine. Would you be mad if someone killed your loved one? Surely you would respect the moral they had for themselves. As a matter of fact, if we as humans decide that murder is okay, which a lot of people have, then what is the point of getting so angry at them for the crimes they did. This is what happens when we leave sinners in control of morality.
If God does not exist, then there is no moral law.

I'd just like to say before the debate that I mean no respect to my opponent's religious beliefs or anybody else's religious beliefs. So as con I'm debating that God does not have to exist in order for there to be moral law. Firstly, I disagree because no human can even be 100% sure that God exists. Us humans actually have no idea if there is a God or not so it's safe to assume that moral law exists without God existing. How? We can't be sure if God actually exists but yet there are millions of Atheists with morals without being under religious influence. The Bible (and other religious books) do offer good moral teachings but many Atheists have their own moral views that are formed not on religion. And the term "Moral Law" is quite vague because each person has their own moral laws and doesn't just follow some set out by God. If there was a defined, solid "Moral Law" then we'd all be following it. So God couldn't have created it because each human has their own personal morals - some people think eating animals is wrong, others don't. Actually, there is no such thing as "Moral Law" if you think of it by this way. (But for the sake of this debate I'll pretend that I do believe in it) Secondly, if God was to exist, which God? There are thousands and each have their own different moral laws. So it's quite vague just to say that "If God doesn't exist, then there is no moral law" because there are thousands of Gods each with their own moral laws. And even in many religions (such as Christianity) there are so many disputes over what God's moral law is. You get the Catholic Church arguing that one thing is right whereas the Protestant Church disagrees with it. So if God exists then He's done a pretty bad job at establishing His moral law because if He had a fully defined and established moral law then everyone would be able to understand and follow it. So if God can't enforce His Moral law then what gives us reason to even believe He'd be required for it to exist?
60's, 70's, and 80's music battle!

In this debate, Con and I will take turns posting songs from the 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. Lyrics are not needed, and songs can be from any genre. Do not talk about the other persons song, as this is a purely subjective topic. It is up to popular opinion. Voters will choose which song selection they liked more, and give it the points for most convincing arguments.
The Bible does not have contradictions

1Who was the father of Joseph? "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."-Matthew 1:16 (all bible verses will be the King James version.) Jacob is Joseph's father,the genealogy in the book of Matthew goes through Solomon,and fulfills the propecies of the old testament.The book of Matthew uses the word "begat",which means to procreate or produce offspring. "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, (being, as we supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of heli,"-Luke 3:23 In Luke's genealogy the word 'son' is used instead of 'begat'.You can be someone's son and not be blood-related.For example at the end of Luke's genealogy in 'Luke 3:38'it says,"Seth,which was the son of adam,which was the son of God."Adam is called the son of God.But they are not blood-related. Luke uses Mary's genealogy in his book,and that's is why the names are different than those in Matthew's genealogy where he uses Joseph's genealogy. 2. Where was Jacob buried? Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah,like the book of Genesis says.In the book of Acts it says"and our fathers" not including Jacob were carried over to sychem. 3. When was jesus born? Some scholars believe Herod died in 4 b.c. and others believe it was 1 b.c..Its was proven when Herod died.Since these are sources outside of the Bible,this argument is not allowed,as stated in the title of the debate."The bible does not contradict ITSELF."