BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

Ok: So Pro presents a plan. But is it a workable plan, And relative to a capitalist society of nearly 330million people. As yet Pro has not presented any evidential or statistical back up. Also: Pro as not addressed any of the issues that I raised in round 1. Preventing me from gaining a clearer understanding of their own personal agenda. 1) Does Pro really see a mood swing in the American public, Away from out and out capitalism to a more human centred socialist attitude. 2) Which other societies does Pro think are comparable to the U. S. A. In terms of both, Population size and social mindset. 3) Notwithstanding the ambiguity posed by the concept of an average minimum wage. Pro is seemingly advocating a system of more for less for more. More income for less work for more people. How is this system funded? A simple mathematical analysis of Pro's proposed system would suggest a possible 30% increase in wage costs: 90 workers X 40 hrs X $9 min = $32. 000 weekly wage bill. 120workers X30hrs X $12 min = $43. 200 weekly wage bill Is this sustainable? Is Pro confident that productivity is likely to rise by 30% at the same time? Assuming that there is a market or need for a 30% increase in productivity. This also does not take into account all the other cost implications associated with a 30% increase in workforce. 4) Overtime is more relative to the employer than the employee and overtime is not necessarily guaranteed. Therefore the overtime issue is quite variable and certainly not simplistic. Fluctuating productivity needs, Demand a flexible approach by both workforce and employer. Workforces cannot easily be increased ad hoc when increased productivity demands it. Increasing minimum wage would not always be relevant to an existing skilled workforce, Who may be already paid at a rate commensurate or above the new level anyway. This would therefore seem to imply that current overtime systems could not easily be adapted to suit Pro's demands. 5)And let's not forget that Pro's initial demands were "30 hour work week and higher minimum wage". So why is Pro now backtracking? Suggesting that some people should work 40 hours and some people should only work for 30hrs. This has all the typical hallmarks of New Socialism rapidly crumbling back into the old time worn, Hierarchical realities. As George Orwell implied. All people are equal but some people are more equal than others. 6) Or perhaps it's simply the case that certain sectors of U. S. Society are just getting too selfish, Overdemanding and lazy!
30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

So my argument is that a 40 hour work week makes life generally difficult for the average person. Sure, We as a society have somewhat adjusted to it, But the stress of work piles up greatly and if a person has kids and works 40 hours a week, Then they have no free time. What I'm purposing is that we lower the work week to 30 hours and then raise the average minimum wage by 33% to directly compensate for this difference. 30 hour work weeks are much more manageable, Especially for people with kids. Now I'm not trying to give employers the short end of the stick here. I believe that, When done right, Employers can benefit from this arrangement as well. Overtime. With the minimum wage raise, The need for overtime pay will not be as important as it is now. We could take a number of different measures here. We could lower the amount of overtime pay that people receive so that employees who still want to work over 30 hours can do so. Another solution is to use "batter up" system where the employer is not allowed to offer more than 30 hours to any employee until they've attempted to use everyone who is under 30 hours. In this system, There would be no mandatory overtime and workers would be protected against being forced to work over 30 hours. Another option could be to classify jobs based on their labor and production and divide them into 30 hour jobs and 40 hour jobs. 40 hour jobs would be ones like factories that require a big labor force and already pay sufficiently. This would allow people to have the option to work 40 hours while allowing families to have options as well. Employers will benefit from this due to the fact that they will have bigger and more reliable staffs. Their employees will also have more financial stability which will reduce the need for the employer to provide certain benefits as incentives. We have international examples of countries picking up policies similar to this one that are geared towards not overworking employees and it has been quite successful. I say we take some of that economic wisdom and apply it to the USA.
30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

Job sharing is good in principle and job sharing works well in specific situations and job sharing is already fairly commonplace. But is job sharing or the unemployment rate really the issue here? Are we not referring more to modern demographics and modern socio-political systems? Nonetheless: We get up and we go to bed. Take out the time required for functional necessities and you're left with time in which to do something somewhere or nothing somewhere. I would suggest that the notion of overwork, Especially in Western societies is based more on conceptual assumptions and leisure aspirations rather than on physical output. For example: I would love to be able to spend as much time as is feasible, Cycling and hiking. Two pastimes that are far more physically demanding than my work. And let's not forget that in Western societies, Quality of life and achievable aspirations are inextricably linked to financial income and financial security. So; what does Pro wish to do with their available time?
30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

If all perceived social problems could be solved easily. We would already be living in a Socialist Utopia. Similarly if all perceived social problems were self contained and money supply was uninhibited we would already have solved any perceived problems. And everyone would be a millionaire. And so who would be doing all the "back breaking" work then? "That is my position": And there was me thinking that Pro's position was a belief that people get overworked and that the solution to this perceived problem was as simple as imposing a 30 hour working week coupled with a 33% rise in minimum wage. Why is it therefore "strawman" to question all aspects of Pro's reasoning. Pro's argument is as much about their personal social philosophy as it is about their understanding of the practicalities of the labour market and monetarism. Demand necessitates overtime but demand does not always necessitate overtime. Continued demand might necessitate shift working or even expansion but these are separate considerations. And forced overtime is a separate issue altogether, That can be addressed legislatively if needs be. In a capitalist system the sustainability of Pro's plan is paramount: I proffered a simple mathematical example of the possible consequences of Pro's plan. A greater workforce would be needed to meet existing production levels, Couple this with a 33% increase in minimum wage and productivity would have to be increased by a similar amount just to cover labour costs and that is assuming that there is a market for higher productivity. Although inextricably connected there is nonetheless also a clear distinction to be made between private responsibility and fiscal responsibility. Therefore factoring unemployment and public assistance into the above equation is inappropriate. In conclusion; Nationally and globally money supply is both limited and restricted. This helps to ensure social stability. Therefore throwing money at perceived social problems is never really an option. Legislative implementation of Pro's plan would certainly lead to an overburdening financial responsibility on certain employers. Which would inevitably result in loss of jobs. I would therefore suggest that Pro's plan would ultimately be counterproductive.
Vladimir Putin is on the verge of becoming or creating the next Hitler.

To conclude this debate, I see no real evidence for Putin becoming the next Hitler. Although he may be power hungry, he doesn't have the power to impose Russian dominance throughout the globe due to opposition from NATO. It is clear that he is nowhere near 'world conquest' as you said. Overall, I believe the argument put forward in favour of this idea was rather weak, and doesn't prove the point put forward at all.
Vladimir Putin is on the verge of becoming or creating the next Hitler.

I see your point, and it is true that Putin has taken the country by force. However, that doesn't mean he has the support he needs to keep Russia stable. The problem is that Putin can only do so much with the power he has. Russia may be a large nation, but it can't contend with NATO when it comes to military power, so he won't be able to expand that far before facing a large amount of opposition.
Vladimir Putin is on the verge of becoming or creating the next Hitler.

Putin is nowhere near on the verge of world conquest. He can't even annex Crimea without facing massive opposition from the west. Not only that, Putin also faces massive internal issues within Russia, and it's clear that he doesn't have great support. Hitler, on the other hand, had clear support in Germany during the 1930s, and had the power to remove opposition very easily. The main issue for your argument is that Russia no longer has the power and influence it once had in the past, and thus doesn't pose a great threat to the world. It doesn't have the military capability to achieve world conquest. In fact, I would argue that no one nation exists that could achieve anything close to world conquest, not even the USA. Lastly, I'd like you to give evidence for the USA being on the verge of collapse. Although there is much distress within the country, I don't see it falling apart any time soon. To conclude, I don't see in any way how Putin can assert himself as a higher world power.
We should treat the obese like animals.

1. " not many people like being an animal" All human beings are animals, so how the human species interacts on a regular basis is the same as if we treated them as animals. We are all animals, and therefore we already are treating each other as such. 2. You would not make a satisfactory monetary base to keep said facility open. If i wanted to see a fat person waddle around and eat i would just go to my local McDonald's. 3. this would do nothing to curve the fat population of the world. For one it would never be allowed and therefore this debate is already irrelevant. Also, there is no proof to show this statistic. You cant put every fat person in the world in a cage. For example in America you would have to put about 80%, not real stat, but everyone is fat anymore, in a cage. THat is a majority of your targeted market already gone. Conclusion: this would never be allowed, and could not support itself when it comes to money. It violates human rights, and has no effect to curve fat population
We should treat the obese like animals.

i) It would motivate them to be normal Not many people like being an animal, so it would motivate the fat to get off their bum, eat some greens and do some exercise, because as we all know, fat people are the size they are because they eat too much and move too little [1]. ii) You could make a whole load of money off of it Everyone goes to the zoo, right? Right! This stunt would make a load of money and everyone would be happy. It would be a great thing to do! Who doesn't want to see the wild burger-bellied waddler? iii) You'd make lots more money off of itAs the comments section of this debate already demonstrates, the notion of treating the obese like animals is rather controversial. This means that if it were pulled off in real life, it would be controversial as well. You'd probably get animal rights protestors blabbing on about how its cruel and unfair. However, this would only make the event more popular, as Banksy has demonstrated [2]. Banksy painted an elephant pink ("elephant in the room") which made the animal rights people shout at normal people, making them want to see it and thereby getting Banksy more dosh. iv) No more fat peopleWith all these people coming to see it, the burger-bellied waddlers would be really motivated and get off their bum and eat some vegetables. This means no more fat people, which is a good thing. v) The public wouuld make a whole load of money off of itYou've been framed is a television programme in which you get to see hilarious things such as stupid people falling over and wacky things like that [3]. If the public were to bring their cameras to events like these, the footage they get would surely be wacky and hysterical enough to get their clip featured on the television and to receive £250. Wahoo! ConclusionI think I've provided a good case supporting my side of the debate. Sources[1] . http://www.nhs.uk...[2] . http://www.guardian.co.uk...[3] . http://www.itv.com...
We should treat the obese like animals.

There I was, on the plane, when suddenly, a pizza-polishing fat bum moves his grossly overweight gluteus maximus over to the five seats next to me. He then lowers said body part down to all five of the empty seats next to me. He is still crunching on some fatty food and then says to me in a rather polite tone: "Wanacrisp?" (It's hard to decode Fatzonese) I stare at him as if he had just killed someone (he had, the flight attendant who was sitting next to me). I see this crisp-crunching pile o' fat and begin to deny the notion that it's human. This must mean that these people are animals.Then an idea came to mind: We should treat the obese like animals! Documenting their entire life, throwing their food to them through buckets and taking them for a walk! Imagine a file on your average slob, giving the information that everyone wants to know.Name: Rob the slobSpecies: Burger-bellied waddlerOccupation: Chip shop customerWeight: 256 lbsHeight: 1m 32cmAge: 22Mother's name: Penelope "No, I'm not still pregnant" FudgeMother's occupation: Circus fool: "Watch that fatty fly!"Father's name: Fat PatFather's occupation: RetiredThat would be great, wouldn't it?So that's what I want to debate today, whether we should treat the obese like animals. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.
is mathematics import. why? do you disagree or agree

Con has committed bad conduct by plagiarizing a comment from the comments posted in the debate comment section below. However, I will refute this.Without math we would have nothing.You can still read without math.Math is probley one of the most important things that has ever been inventedMath wasn't invented.My arguments were dropped.Vote Pro. Con has not met the burden of proof.http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu......
is mathematics import. why? do you disagree or agree

I am assuming that Con means you think mathematics are improtant.Con has the burden of proof because he is affirming the resolution. every job comes back to math so that why you should know mathematics.This is not true. Every job doesn't come back to math.Examples:ComedianCustodianPhotographerMetal SmitherArtistScribe These are all jobs that do not require skills in mathematics.Besides, do you really think you need to learn Calculus to be a chef. Math is not important because we live in a world where we use our right brain in the work force.The right side of our brain basically controls our creativity.In the work force now, there is a need for more right sided thinkers (people who are creative) than left sided thinkers (people who stick to facts and numbers).Because of that, math is not important and/or has a lesser importance than critical thinking.http://designshack.net...http://www.oprah.com...http://www.techrepublic.com...
Resolved, that the College Board be dismantled under anti-trust laws.

The College Board is an examination board in the United States that was formed in 1900 as the College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB). It manages many different standardized tests used by academically oriented post-secondary education institutions to measure a student's ability. The SAT, the most well-known of these, along with the ACT, is a test widely used for admission to universities in the United States. The College Board is headquartered in the Upper West Side of Manhattan, New York City.[1] The current president and CEO of the College Board is Gaston Caperton, the former governor of West Virginia. In addition to managing tests, the College Board works with programs that claim to increase achievement by poor and minority middle and high school students. Funded by grants from various foundations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the College Board Schools operate autonomously within New York City public school buildings. A similar program named EXCELerator began a pilot program for the 2006–2007 school year at 11 schools in Washington, DC, Jacksonville/Duval County, FL, and Chicago Public Schools.[2] Both of these school reform programs use the SpringBoard and CollegeEd materials as part of their programs.
Hulk can beat Thor

Thor's Powers- Thor possesses a very high resistance to physical injury that approaches invulnerability. Thor also possesses keen senses that allows him to track objects traveling faster than light and hear cries from the other side of the planet. Thor has the ability to travel through time. His stamina allowed him to battle the entire Frost Giant army for nine months without any sustenance or rest; Thor has also shown the ability to regenerate wounded portions of his body, including entire limbs or organs, with the aid of magical forces like Mjolnir, Thor has superhuman speed, agility, and reflexes, enabling him to deflect bullets with his hammer. Like all Asgardians he has immunity to all Earthly diseases and some resistance to magic. However, exceptionally powerful magic can overwhelm Odin's enchantment that transforms him between Asgardian and mortal forms. As the Norse god of Thunder, Thor can summon the elements of the storm (lightning; rain; wind; snow) and uses Mjolnir as a tool to focus this ability, although the hammer cannot command artificial weather, only natural. He can cause these weather effects all over the world and destroy entire buildings; by whirling his hammer he can also lift entire buildings with the wind. As the son of the Earth goddess Gaea, Thor has shown some control over the Earth. Thor is a superb hand-to-hand combatant, and also skilled in armed combat, excelling in the use of the war hammer, sword, axe and mace. Thor possesses two items which assist him in combat: the enchanted Belt of Strength, and his mystical hammer Mjolnir. The first item doubles Thor's strength and endurance while the second is used to control his weather abilities; flight; energy projection and absorption; dimensional travel; matter manipulation and the most powerful of his offensives, the God Blast (which taps into Thor's life force), the Thermo-blast, and the Anti-Force (which counteracts another force). Using Mjolnir by throwing in the desired direction and then holding on to the handle's leather loop, Thor can also fly at supersonic speeds in Earth's atmosphere and travel faster than light in space. When Thor has to transport companions and/or objects to a destination by himself, he has a chariot drawn by two huge mystical goats called Toothgnasher and Toothgrinder that can fly nearly anywhere he desires almost as easily as with Mjolnir. He can throw an object out of Earth's atmosphere using his strength, and throw his hammer to Asgard from where it will return. When Mjolnir was damaged, Doctor Strange bound Thor's soul into Mjolnir, meaning that if the hammer were to be broken again, Thor may also die. Sorry for the inconvience, but I'm running out of time and I will present the rest of my argument in the next round.
Hulk can beat Thor

Thanks for accepting, and my case is that Hulk was basically a mutation that has super strength, and is invulnerable to anything. Also Hulk basically can not die by just anything, I believe he has a certain weakness ( I can't say for sure), while Thor, though he is a god, can die by simple things, such as a hard blow to the head, a stab to the chest, or ( without his hammer) for say a bullet.
The next president won't change America.

This debate is a bit unfair but you choose the title. In the history of presidents, there has never been a president that has not changed or altered the social/cultural or economic areas of the Country. I merely have to suggest one way in which the President will alter the previous Presidents influences. For one, any Republican who gets elected will differ completely from the social democratic policies of Obamacare and more than likely take a more pro-Israeli stance than Obama has. No doubt the Obama Administration has slightly kept support and contact with the Israeli State, but Republicans across the board have sworn to keep their loyalties with Israel. Trump, and Cruz and Ted Bush, the main opponents in the Republican Party have given overwhelming support for Israel and the continued 'Islamic Threat' in the Middle East. To think that Obama's track history will be continued on by Republicans is simply incorrect. Hilary will be the first female president, ushering in far more cultural and social interest in Feminist and social issues than Obama could possibly do/done. Regardless of whether you agree that this should happen, it is clearly the case that it will be a huge factor. So much is placed on this that women have been discouraged from voting for her by other women on the basis of her sex. Already, the New President whomever it will be will change or alter some core aspect of the U.S. Even on more general statements. Foreign policies will alter based on external factors. The new President will have to adapt to a changing and growing Russian and Chinese economy, the New President will have to adapt to currency exchange and the National Debt which will require an alteration in the approach of Obama. The Middle East and Northern Africa are a constant varied turmoil of inner politics and emergent factors that will be addressed in their own way as the time allows. It is trivially true that the next President in their 4 years of Term will change the face of the U.S. in some way, what is not debated is this fact, what could be debated is the positive or negatives of these facts.
atheism

yes. thank you for accepting: atheism: The position that there are no deities. How can one know with certainty that god doesn't exist. There are big debates and arguments on the existence of god, there are philosophy professors who believe in god. How can one claim to Know with certainty that there is no god. To take a definite position on such an important and unclear matter is in my opinion foolhardy. Even if you have arguments against god. There are counter arguments and great geniuses who devote thier life to debateing this. it cant be clear. The agnostic approach is therefore more appropriate for such a matter. It is the approach of open mindedness and objectivity.