BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism is more rational than Atheism.

Well, in that case, Welcome to DDO! It's fun, at least for me. Hope you'll be succesful here.. Now getting to the point, I have 3 points I want to make-1-Pascal's Wager. It proves it is safer to believe in God. Don't ask "Which God?" because you're just contrasting the safety of believing in God to 100% Safety, when Atheism is 0%. This is also not disproved by reverse Ad Populus- Just because lots of people use it does not mean it's wrong.2- The Universe, at one point was created. If something can, at one point, be created out of nothing, then God can be created out of nothing as well, Making him possible.3- If #2 is wrong, then the Universe must be Eternal- Meaning God can be eternal as well, making him possible. So if Atheism is 0% Safety, since it doesn't really make your chances of burning in hell or any other divine punisment any lower or divine reward any higher, And Theism DOES make your chances of reward higher and punishment lower, then that means that it is logical to believe in something possible that's safer than not doing so. In other words, Theism is more rational than Atheism because you have a better chance with Theism, and Atheism is really not safe at all. You're exposed to any kind of possibility, and have no chance.I await your response.
Theism is more rational than Atheism.

I'm here to prove why believing in a God is more rational than doing the opposite, and I challenge an Atheist to do the disprove my points and make their own. I only have 1 rule that I ask you to follow:1-No argument from ridicule (AKA don't mock me or bring the (spaghetti Monster here. ) Thank you, please don't make the arguments too big (Although this isn't a rule, you can make them as big as you want. It's just something I ask of you. )Please don't accept if you're not going to follow the rule.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

As this will be the final round, I must be frank. Bias gets in the way of truth, if you are in the right then it will show and likewise with me. I have shown how each of my points connected to form a picture, this picture illustrated the fact that it is the moral and ethical education that is derived from rigorous study that affects wealth, thusly connecting the countries wealth and it's education. I have shown that it is the innovations of a few that affect the majority, thusly connecting the moral and ethical education of a few to the wealth of a country. I have shown that the converse to be true as well. I have shown that it is the quality of the job's that affect the number of jobs, thereby affecting the economy, and in turn the wealth of the country. If I have left anything out I welcome another debate with PRO as this has been more than fun. Thank you for the opportunity to debate with you.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

*Pokes* You're allowed to be biased towards your OWN argument for goodness sake. I guess I'm a little confused about how your second point helps your side when you re-frame it this way. One of my key points is that we falsely attribute economic success to countries with a highly educated populace. Your argument would seem to back this up: Rich countries effectively buy more educated people, the presence of more educated people did not make those countries rich. I certainly hope you are correct on your final point for the sake of all of us, but as things are now, it does nothing to suggest educated countries are faring economically better.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

Your rebuttal to my first point is excellent. I agree that it is more on the part of the one's who view who have never contributed to improvements that are the reason for the ill perception of the unemployed. That is neither here nor there though. I am confused, how can an economy falter when it cannot not even be agreed what a good economy is? A good economy for some would still be a bad economy for others. Therefore, wouldn't the judgement of the quality of an economy be subjective? Yes, you can measure an economy based on metrics such as GDP, but does that measure the quality or sustainability of the economy? I do not appreciate predictions based on gambling. Your rebuttal to my second point ignores what I wrote. The scheming of one may put the rest in Hell. Therefore it is the education of one that causes hell for all others. There is a reason intellectuals flock to the least oppressive country at any given time. At least, any scholar that does research on topics that may be uncomfortable for the entities to hear. Take the oil business, the research is constantly accused of being bias, this is in due in part to buy-offs on the part of the companies and researchers. Your rebuttal to my third point is good.Overall, the education of a country is connected to the wealth of the country, the higher the education one has, the least likely there is for acquiescing for money on the part of the scholar. When, in the future, education becomes more rigorous then it is now, as is evidenced by trends from Greece to Modern times, then I would think that there would be less weakness in morals and ethics, and less "faltering" of the economy. I hope I have addressed all of your points thoroughly and without bias.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

I don't really WANT to disagree with your first point in my heart. I think we have long surpassed the need for everyone to be gainfully employed due to the progress reached through our innovation and ingenuity. But that is not the world or society we live in. So long as we still exist in a country that looks down on anyone not employed, lack of employment will continue to be a problem, one that education will, as you have perfectly illustrated, only exacerbate. As the quality of workers continues to rise and mechanization will replace more and more bodies in jobs, economies will falter. To the second point, yes, I am exactly positing that there is no correlation between our booms and busts and the level of education before or after they occur. As a point of interest, every country I've ever spent time in laments and whines that that THEIR students are falling behind. Even when Japan was sitting on the ostensible top of the education game a few years back, their headlines were filled with endless concern of their failing students and lowering test scores versus the rest of the world. To me this illustrates that A: Our perception of education is bad, and B: even when education is good, the outcomes of an economy seem far more at the mercy of other economic forces. The impact education may have has yet to be convincingly measured. As to your latter point, I don't think studying others to learn how to meaningfully trade with them is a matter of "education" so much as something we do with instinct or intuition. I'm not saying that education hurts these skills, but it is by no means the source of them.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

In response to one, imagine one person with a dream of atoms, he is the only person in a thousand mile radius that wants to do this, would he not have an ambition to do this, and in turn meets others who feel the same way? Would the government not see the benefits of something like this? NASA can claim sole responsibility for the upgrade of the tools used on a daily basis. The power drill that runs without a power cord was made so astronauts could work on the space station without worrying about recharging the tool or getting tangled. The invention of one object created less jobs focused on the need for men and more on the quality of men. This is where education pushes, for higher quality and not quantity. As the education of a nation rises, the number of jobs will decrease as the sophistication of the jobs increase until an equilibrium is reached for that generation. Eventually there will be no need for jobs and in turn no need for businesses. In response to two, are you supposing that those students, be them in high school or college, where not the reason for either bust or boom? Who is responsible then? Can it be any one person? Suppose it is one person, then does the education of that one person dictate the gain made by a whole nation? Or, business relies on dice rolls, there is a reason that Brownian motion is best described by the stock market’s rise and fall. While some external factors can be identified it would be foolish to suppose the education of someone who has only the want of money is representative of the whole population. In response to three. Of course, that’s supposing that humans prefer bartering over learning, but you can’t adopt a system to gain without first observing what that person wants, or studying that person. Yes then, the want to gain came from the observation of having nothing.
Improving Education Will do Nothing To Solve Economic Woes

My premise is simple: While there may be correlation to the wealth of a country and its level of education, there is no proof that the latter causes the former. 1. It is often argued that getting more people educated will create more jobs, but how? There is no job cheaper laborers overseas cannot acquire, so we cannot make a workforce so skilled that it can't be undersold. 2. We often complain about what a wreck our educational system is, yet regardless of where our position in relation to other nations is in terms of math and science scores, our economic booms and busts aren't influenced. Terrible scores in the 80's built to a massive economic boom in the early 2000's. Ostensibly great grades in the 60's saw economic downturn in the 80's. 3. The correlation between high level of education and a robust economy is only due to the fact that richer places in the world can afford high levels of education. The money is the real answer to the chicken-and-egg question, not academia.
Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels

So last argument, fossil fuels do have there negative effects, i.e. carbon emissions and oil spills, but so do nuclear power plants. A. Nuclear waste takes over 20,000 years to decompose, and it can't be avoided since it is the natural byproduct. B. Oil spills can be avoided and since we aren't attempting to greatly raise our level of fossil fuels, as well as not having a hard time producing our current requirements, the needs versus safety factor is not a factor. C. Carbon emissions are a gradual effect that is focused mostly in highly populated areas, but have less affects on areas where little to no oil/gasoline/natural gas is used. D. Where use is high, native animals aren't greatly affected, where as nuclear waste areas can't be inhabited within some area and it destroys most wild life in the immediate area. E. Fossil fuels are easier to acquire whereas nuclear elements such as Plutonium and Uranium need high levels of care and can't be relied on to drastically increase output without a sharp rise in death in those mining areas.
Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels

I don't know if it would be fair to give an argument this round since he/she didn't, so I will make it brief since I want to be fair yet not be handicapped because of his/her lack of readiness. If we were to rely on nuclear power alone, we would need to increase energy output by 10% of it's current output each year from 2010 to 2050 to reach 2050 energy output needs. There are many problems. A. Mining of Plutonium would need to increase which would lead to more accidents because of a need of resources and, as seen throughout history, needs trump safety. B. A nuclear reactor would require $4.85 billion, which is a lot, considering their are 437, and to raise the energy outputs by 10 percent yearly would mean building roughly 45 plants yearly. C. It takes 5 to 7 years to build a plant. D. There are only 67 nuclear power plants under construction. E. If we were to do the math, and assumed that 1/5 of these plants will be build yearly, only 13 plants would be built every year. Also, we would have needed to start building an extra 32 plants yearly starting in 2010, to have been on track.
Nuclear energy is better than fossil fuels

Fossil Fuel is better because of its easy transportation and many more uses. You can't have a car run on nuclear power, unless it is from the electrical by-product, which still isn't portable since we have no way to charge a car off of the electrical by-product without an outlet. On the contrary, you can have spare gasoline and a 5 gallon container can fuel a car for 100 miles, even if it is a truck that has horrible mpg. On the area of economic efficiency, a South Carolina estimate showed that the cost to build 2 nuclear reactors would be $9.8 million dollars, as seen in this link, http://www.psr.org.... A 2003 estimate, states that an oil rig would cost $650,000,000. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $838,400,000. If we made 2 of these off shore oil rigs, the price would be $1,676,800,000, that is nearly 1/6 of the price.
minimum wage should exist

"first to clarify. minimum wage does keep people poor, cause all they are making is minimum wage. but it does lift some out of poverty, and it keeps them less poor than they would otherwise be. This is completely unsubstantiated and doesn't address the contradictory findings of the peer reviewed study I cited. ". again, just look to the mcdonalds example. they have always paid the minimum wage. that means if it was still three dollars, that's what theyd be paying. the fact people are getting closer to eight dollars shows that it makes a difference. " Not only is this some unsubstantiated spit balling my opponent is doing, but it's also untrue. Only 13 percent of Mcdonalds workers make minimum wage. . http://fivethirtyeight.com... These made up statistics of my opponent also fail to take into account things such as inflation and also assumes the salary mcdonalds would pay if no minimum wage existed. This assumption is completely baseless. "con also says people don't make more money, then goes on to explain how it affects the employers due to the fact they make more money. he's contradicting himself. " Nope, this is a strawman argument. I explained that small businesses are hurt by minimum wage laws because they can't afford to pay somebody above market value, and that this is very harmful to the middle class, and than I also explained how minimum wage laws cause increased unemployment, because employers won't pay somebody above their market value. "con goes on to state some drawbacks of the wage. i don't dispute there are disadvantages. i just again state that it's better for nine people to be paid decent, out of ten with the tenth person not getting a job, than for two people to be paid decent and all ten having jobs. " I showed how the minimum wage has no affect on poverty so your example would be more accurately stated if you said "It's better for 9 people to get a salary that keeps them below the poverty line and 1 guy to not get a salary and starve than it is for 10 people to get salaries below the poverty line and all 10 being able to feed themselves. " "con says big business supports minimum wage. i would like to see some evidence of that. mcdonalds surely doesn't support the wage, and if they did, itd be a humanitarian decision, and not a bottomline business decision. " Walmart supports it and so do many others. It's no secret that if they put small businesses out of business than they can increase their market share and make their investors even richer. . http://www.heritage.org... CONCLUSION My opponent has failed to address my arguments that the minimum wage harms a disproportionate amount of black people. He has failed to address the missed opportunities poor people have to face due to low paid internships being illegal. My opponent has made up facts, while I have used peer reviewed studies to make my case.
minimum wage should exist

first to clarify. minimum wage does keep people poor, cause all they are making is minimum wage. but it does lift some out of poverty, and it keeps them less poor than they would otherwise be. again, just look to the mcdonalds example. they have always paid the minimum wage. that means if it was still three dollars, that's what theyd be paying. the fact people are getting closer to eight dollars shows that it makes a difference. con also says people don't make more money, then goes on to explain how it affects the employers due to the fact they make more money. he's contradicting himself. again, just look at the history of mcdonalds to see they are paid more 'than they are worth', that is, they are paid the minimum wage instead of less. also, for the most part, employers pay as little as they have to. that means they dont 'cut back on labor'. minimum wage causes unemployment cause for example i can't pay someone a dollar an hour to pick flowers for me, not because of cutting back on labor as much. for example, if you can pay someone eight dollars an hour to flip burgers, you could also pay them three dollars an hour to do it. they're not going to think 'gee i can hire twice as many people given it's half the cost'. no, they are going ot hire the minimum needed. admittedly some employers may fall into that mindset and it might make some difference, but that's the exception not the rule. con goes on to state some drawbacks of the wage. i don't dispute there are disadvantages. i just again state that it's better for nine people to be paid decent, out of ten with the tenth person not getting a job, than for two people to be paid decent and all ten having jobs. also, for hte most part, poor people don't work and wouldn't work 'two dollars an hour for three months'. they work it for a significant amount of time. and, some people work it for their life. whether they do it for long or not though, it should be a decent wage no matter the time. con says big business supports minimum wage. i would like to see some evidence of that. mcdonalds surely doesn't support the wage, and if they did, itd be a humanitarian decision, and not a bottomline business decision.
minimum wage should exist

"minimum wage might cause a slight increase in umemployment, but its worth it. if one in ten people dont get a job, but nine people have decent wages, the wage level is worth it. i'm not sure where your cut off it for where youd think itd be worth it, but surely we all have a cut off id think?" My opponent admits that increasing the minimum wage does nothing to bring people out of poverty but does succeed in increasing the unemployment rate. He mistakenly thinks that people make more money as a result of increased minimum wage. This is entirely untrue. As you can see from a bunch of different economic theories such as efficient market theory or Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value people essentially get paid what they're worth.[1] They don't magically become worth more because the government puts a gun to both their head and their employers and forces them to make a different agreement. Businesses can only charge as much for their products as the market demands. The law of supply and demand has never been nor will ever be proven wrong or inaccurate. In order for a business to keep their profit margin the same, they'll have to cut back on labor. This means there is going to be more people below the poverty line without jobs and unable to feed their family. There are more little kids having to go hungry right now, because the government is infringing on the right of 2 parties to come together to decide what they are willing to both pay and be paid for labor. MISSED OPPORTUNITIES Minimum wage laws actually take away a lot of the poor's ability to escape the poverty trap. Good jobs require experience to get a lot of times. People will often work for free to get this experience, so that way they can end up later on getting a good job. This is known as an internship and is massively beneficial to a lot of people. Poor people may be able to force themselves to survive on $2.00 an hour for 3 months to gain some experience for a well paid highly sought after job, but unfortunately since an employer is prevented from paying below minimum wage this poor person will continue to be poor their entire life. So despite my opponent thinking it's okay that some poor people lost their jobs and can't feed their family, it's actually quite devastating not only to them, but to society for missing out on such a large amount of talent. SMALL BUSINESS Besides the massive amount of jobs opportunities missing from the market that would otherwise be there. We also have the minimum wage being used as an aggressive attack on small businesses (aka The middle class). The reason why big businesses support a minimum wage and several increases is because it kills the small businesses[2] that can't afford to hire people at a larger salary like they can. What we have is a nation killing the middle class and small business as well as preventing poor people from feeding their family and being able to take on more opportunities through a higher paid type of internship. sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.bizjournals.com...
minimum wage should exist

"This study by economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway shows convincingly that minimum wages, because of inefficient targeting of the poor and unintended adverse consequences on employment and earnings, are ineffective as an antipoverty device. The report relies on an impressive array of empirical evidence showing that, however one views the data, in the United States, state and federal minimum wages have not reduced poverty."[1] you did not really state how poor people are still poor. are people on the minimum wage still poor? yes, yes they are. we are keeping them from being even poorer though. that's the whole point. does it cause the poverty? that study you cited doesn't indicate ether way, but at best we should conclude that it doesnt cause poverty, it just keepts people in poverty.... but it was poverty they were in already to begin with. minimum wage might cause a slight increase in umemployment, but its worth it. if one in ten people dont get a job, but nine people have decent wages, the wage level is worth it. i'm not sure where your cut off it for where youd think itd be worth it, but surely we all have a cut off id think?