BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Penny

Rebuttal: 1. I am not sure why my point is not valid. Every time a penny is used, is further stimulates the economy, making it more and more useful and valuable, if not literally worth more. I am not sure I understand con's point. The dollar is worth a lot more than the penny, but it is also worth a lot more than the quarter. Would you eliminate everything worth less than the dollar, because the dollar is more valuable? This is not an argument. 2. The argument I clearly articulated here was that the penny is still used in purchases and exchanges, which my opponent claimed it did not. 3. As you said yourself, the penny is not valuable, so I would not say inflation is at all reliant on further creation of pennies. I looked it up and could not find out whether the Government actually creates more pennies than there are, or just makes up for the ones fallen out of currency. The latter is the way it should be, but does not make an argument for completely halting production. My point about the penny some day being worth more I assume is still valid, as there was no mention of it in my opponent's argument. Other Rebuttal :D: 1. I think we can agree that businesses would round up, not down. A business would definitely not want to lose money off the new system. Also, I think 50$ is low balling it a bit. Simply on groceries, a whole year's worth of rounding up would cost you more. Even so, 50$ is no small sum, especially in today's economy. 2. I did not intend to concede this point, if that's the impression I gave you. If people were wiling to part with nickles and dimes, and since they are worth far more than the penny, you would see a much larger percentage paid with nickels and dimes. But you don't, implying people are willing to donate pennies, but not nickels and dimes. To be fair, that might change if the penny was no longer produced, and this isn't much of an argument anyway. 3. Yeah, kinda pointless. In my defense, I brought it up to show there was no distinction is argument between eliminating pennies and eliminating other types of currency. Conclusion: As the penny is a current part of our currency, I feel it is fair to put the burden of proof on con. My opponent made no strong case for why the penny should be stopped altogether, with the one clear downside being the taxpayer money used to produce the pennies. However, you'll find the money per capita it takes to produce pennies is less than the extra money it would cost the average Joe per year with everything rounded to the nickel. Thank you for a great debate, and indeed, let the best man win!
The Penny

Rebuttal: 1. My point here was that pennies stay in currency a long time, and have much more usage potential than a dollar, and certainly more than the 1.8 cents they cost. As for printing extra pennies, thereby reducing the value, that does not support stopping the production of the penny. Pennies can be, and are, created at such an amount simply to make up for the pennies that were either destroyed or fell out of currency. 2. I did not mean to say I agree with you, I was actually trying to indicate that I was going to use the same argument later. While the penny does not have much buying power, it is used extensively in currency. One often gets more pennies back from a cash purchase than any other type of money. This leads into the third part of the next section. 3. I like your point here, but you forget that our money system is cent-based. And while the penny does not have much buying penny, it still has its value, whether you want to donate it or roll it up into a neat little parcel and exchange at the bank. Also, just because the penny doesn't have much value today because of inflation doesn't mean it will never have value again. If you eliminate it now, re-starting production would be even more fiscally infeasible than it is now. Other Rebuttal: 1. The system suggested would indeed work to price things without the penny, but would be difficult and unruly, and end of costing one a lot more a year. The more you break up earnings and values down, the more accurate something's cost can be, and the less it will end up costing. 2. While in theory this is correct, that these charities will not lose money, it is interesting that more nickels and dimes aren't given, since their worth so little, and that pennies make up such a large percentage. 3. Fair enough. The point here I was making, however, is that the same arguments could be made for nickels, and then possibly for dimes.
The Penny

Arguments 1. I don't fully understand my opponents argument here. It cost 1.8 pennies to make one Penny so you actually loose the repeat use because, before there was 1.8 pennies and now There is one penny. My opponent argues that now you can reuse the penny making it worth it. Well not exactly, every time you make a new penny the value of the old ones less. Just because the penny last longer don't mean it's still not a waste, every time the government literally spends money to make less money the citizens are taxed to make up for it. I don't agree that the reuse adds value either because even if paper money needs to made more often it still cost less by proportion. 2. My opponent agrees that the penny has no buying power. 3. Ahhh... To the good part. To get the price just right the cash has to be divisible by smaller units so you don't over pay. But it cant be divided forever because at some point the value it represents becomes to small to buy anything with or to bother with. Yes there is nothing to make that up with but eventually it just doesn't matter anymore. Whats the point of exact change if you cant buy anything with the change? You would need 25 pennies to buy a ball of gum if the machines actually excepted them. Rebuttal 1. It will takes some work with fixing up prices, but the simplest method would be by rounding the prices (with tax) to nearest five cents or maybe fixing the sales tax percentage. 2. I don't think there will be a shortage of money towards the Salvation Army or any charity for that matter. If on average for every five donators, three donators don't give any money but two give them nickels instead, the Salvation Army just made twice as much. Another point is that one penny again really doesn't make a difference, if two thousand people brought one penny that would be twenty dollars and honestly wouldn't help homeless people at all. 3. Nickels are rarely used and are bad for the economy so I probably would, but I haven't done enough research to confirm this and it's best to take one thing out at a time. If you ask about sources I'm planning on putting them on the last round, I anticipate your next argument and wish you good luck :)
The Penny

First off, thank you for allowing me to debate this with you. The United States's money is based on a basic cents system, with 1 cent being a unit. The value of the dollar has dropped nearly 80% in the last few decades, and prices have inflated to new highs. Very little can be bought with pennies, and yet they should not stop production, even at the cost of 1.8 cents per cent. Refutations: 1. Pennies cost 1.8 cents to make, which con points out is more then the penny is worth, but does not consider the value of repeat use, especially by something as durable as a penny. Estimates on how long a penny last range from 20-25 years, going through thousands of exchanges, each time adding value to the actual cost of producing the penny. In the end, the penny stimulates the economy far more than the 1.8 cents they cost, lasting 25 years compared to the dollar bill's 18 months of existence. (1) 2. While I disagree that paper money was to make things easier to buy, con is correct, little can be bought solely with pennies. Although I will go into it extensively later, paying with pennies is not their use, but instead is for reaching the exact cost of something. 3. Machines do not accept pennies, as they are not taxed and always round up to a clean number, something prices in stores would not do. As for their usefulness, I would argue that when one pays in cash, just as many or more pennies are exchanged then any other type of bill. Almost any price will come out with tax not a perfect five cent round. If something costs 4:53, you have to add an additional 3 cents, only payable with pennies. If you pay with a five dollar bill, then you will receive at least two pennies in change. There is nothing else you could make up that difference with. Arguments against: 1. If the penny was eliminated, it would make pricing things nearly impossible. Unless every price is rounded to a five cent mark, the only thing you can pay with cash is pennies. Add ever-changing tax to that cost, and it is almost impossible to price anything. Con claims he can refute this, which I will hold them to. I am yet to see a good refutation to this point, and I will be impressed if con has one. 2. Many charities work off pennies, either receiving all their donations or a large percentage of them from pennies alone. Such charities include Habitat for Humanity, World Wildlife Fund, and the Salvation Army. These charities and many more rely on pennies, because of people's willingness to part with pennies. (2) 3. The nickel's value has dropped just as much as the dollar and penny, are rarely used in purchase, and nickels cost 11.2 cents to produce. (3) Would you have them eliminated as well? What nonsense. No, nickels are similar to the pennies, and the arguments are valid for both. We work on a cent system, and eliminating the one cent and five cent are fiscally ridiculous. I will begin with this. Good luck, con! (1) http://www.factmonster.com... (2) http://www.pennies.org... (3) http://www.businessinsider.com...
The Penny

The first one cent coin was made in 1792, theses pennies were made of 100% pure copper. The value of copper went up and inflation made the Penny worth less. So the mint was forced to make penny with less and less copper, until only 5% of it was made of copper. In 2006 the value of older pennies rose over one cent, so pennies were worth more dead then alive. People started melting pennies to sell there copper for profit. In a better efficient, rational world that would have been it for the penny, the american government would have realized there not worth minting and would have been happy there citizens were making profits. Instead copper melting became illegal and we kept making pennies. .. Argument 1 (bad for the economy)We manufacture 4 million Pennies each year even though it cost more to make the penny then the penny is worth. It costs 1.8 pennies to make one Pennie. So 1.8cents = 1 penny. Pennies are bad for the economy and add debt every year. Argument 2 (Pennies are impractical and unneeded) the whole point of paper money is that it's easier to buy things with. Imagine buying twenty dollars worth of stuff with 2000 pennies. The penny's worthlessness will continue to get worse, meaning that it will just continue to get more impractical to buy things with pennies. Back in the olden day pennies could by things, not anymore the penny is not capable of buying anything anymore. Argument3 (Pennies are a waste of time) not a single machine accepts pennies not soda machines, news paper dispensers, vending machines, laundry machines, toll booths or parking meters because there just not worth the time to add and collect them. Since sales tax is not included in the price of items, you don't know the exact change you have to pay until looking at the register. Exact change is not enough to even bother for, because its not worth anything and you just end up wasting everyone else's time who waiting in line. Now I now there's concern about prices increasing once the Pennie is removed. I will prove why that misconception is false next round if my opponent doesn't mention it first.
Knowledge is better than brute strength

Yes it's true that Stephen Hawking does not have much physical strength, however if you look it up his net worth is about twenty million dollars. That's basically twenty million dollars for being smart. He not only can afford to have the extra help but got there simply by being intelligent. This means that he got far on only his brains. He didn't have much else to rely on. This only goes to show that knowledge is more important that strength because even if you can't do things on you own you can tell people to do them and if sound smart there a high chance they will do it. Also people want to be surrounded by other smart people. Because if you think about it no one want to be around someone who is not as smart because in human nature people think not so smart people pull them down. I don't say this to be rude but people who are intelligent make you look better. However people who are strong but not intelligent they too rely on those that are smart to help them out a little bit. strength only brings you so far intelligence make the path from there.
Knowledge is better than brute strength

Knowledge is not better than brute strength; knowledge is pretty useless without it.Take Stephen Hawking, for example. Pretty knowledgable guy, right? Probably smarter than the people who take care of him. But that's the thing: He requires the strength of his caretakers to keep him fed and hydrated. Were it not for the strength of people who love him, all the knowledge that Hawking has would be useless.
Knowledge is better than brute strength

Knowledge is better than brute strength. This is true in variety of ways. If you have knowledge and your not strong you can most likely use your knowledge to defeat a stronger opponent. You can also use what you know to confuse manipulate and conquer those who are not as smart but strong. Humans for example are not always strong physically. Compared to the average creature on this world humans are weak we are soft not always physically strong meaning we break easy. Even without strength we are at the top of the food chain because we are smart enough to use our surrounding and make tools. Also we learn from our mistakes faster and better than the average creature on this world. This only goes to show that knowledge can beat brute strength. Knowledge is also helpful because it makes life easier. If you think about some of the richest people in the world didn't get where they are based on pure brute strength. The used knowledge to create something that makes life easier and better. Also when your smart you can convince or manipulate which ever you prefer those who are strong to do the things you need done. How often do you see some one smart doing the hefty lifting. They have workers, henchmen, what ever you prefer to do those things for them. There is also a quote saying knowledge is power where do you think that quote came from. NO it didn't come from someone who was the strongest person in the world. At least not physically. Knowledge is better than pure brute physical strength
Knowledge is better than brute strength

“would you rather be incredibly intelligent or have amazing strength. If you can't have both which would be better.” That isn't what this debate is about. It's not about a scenario in which you can only have one; it's about whether or not knowledge is better than strength. I only need to prove that strength is at least equal to win! “Both have the ability to deteriorate, but if you are left without your strength but with your knowledge would you be able to survive.” As babies, we have strength but not knowledge. It requires strength to nurse from your mother; you don't need knowledge (nor do you have it) to do this, because you have instinct which takes care of that for you. Same goes for pretty much everything else a baby does. They don't need knowledge to hold their breath under water, either; it's instinct for them. They just need strength to keep their mouth closed. “Knowledge is a power and strength in its own right.” It's pretty implied from the posing of the resolution that we are referring to physical strength. Else, you'd be arguing against yourself. “People often wish they were stronger. How do you become stronger. You know your not as strong as you want to be and you know that you can do better. The fact that you know those things. That's knowledge.” You don't need knowledge to increase strength. The more you use your strength, the more it will grow, whether you have knowledge of it or not. “Also there are machines that can literally do the heavy lifting and all I have to do is be smart enough to know how to use them.” The basic parts of those machines were built by strength. They couldn't even exist without it much less be used. “Once again knowledge is superior.” No. Strength is at least equal.
Knowledge is better than brute strength

I will admit that strength does have a certain charm to it. However amazing brute strength is knowledge is still superior. First in regards to what you said about Stephen Hawking how often do people go around using strength to injure disabled people. Next brute strength implies that you have strength to an amazing point. It means you have strength in a force greater than normal. So would you rather be incredibly intelligent or have amazing strength. If you can't have both which would be better. The ability to think for yourself and know things and do things that other can't because your smart or to be able to lift things. Both have the ability to deteriorate, but if you are left without your strength but with your knowledge would you be able to survive. The answer is most likely but if you are left without a mind and without proper thought and knowledge what would happen then. You would have some trouble. Knowledge is a power and strength in its own right. So what would people rather be that's the question. People often wish they were stronger. How do you become stronger. You know your not as strong as you want to be and you know that you can do better. The fact that you know those things. That's knowledge. Also there are machines that can literally do the heavy lifting and all I have to do is be smart enough to know how to use them. Once again knowledge is superior.
Atheism or Theism

=====> Introduction <======Through this debate, I am incredibly disapointed that my partner has brought up absolutely no evidence that God exists. The resolution is "On balance of probability, the existence of God is improbable." The phrase "on balance of probability" means that the burden of proof is shared; namely, that it is not enough for my partner to simply refute my arguments--he needs to show that God is probable of existing rather than not; unfortunately, he has not done that. =====> Final Rebuttals <====== "Nowhere in our opening discussions was anything said about a benevolent deity by either of us." Wrong. Let's take another look at my definition of God. "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. So, what are the general attributes? Omnibenevolence is one of them. The phrase "i.e." means "In other words", or "For example." This does not mean that omnipotence and omniscience are only the attributes agreed upon; this is semantics. =====> Final Statements <====== In round 1, I have presented several key arguments: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Because God is extraordinary, without extraordinary evidence, we are justified to reject it. The demographics of Theism Religious idealogy is based upon where one is born The demographics of Theism are better explained by Atheism rather than Theism I have re-formulated this argument slightly in the previous round by Theodore Drange. Atheism better predicts this universe If atheism is true, then atheism will predict exactly the type of Universe we live in. Therefore, I believe that Atheism is probable. My partner ereplied to absolutely none of these statements. I maintain there is a 50% chance of God existing. I did provide a source stating 67%, but regard 50% as more solid. Sorry, sources=/=Proof. My partner has NOT proven these statistics and hence we are to reject them. I have also shown that the 67% number was a result of quote mining. In sum, I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments and my partner has not lived up to his burden of proof. Because of this, I urge a vote for the affirmative.
Atheism or Theism

I will accept this argument. For full disclosure, I will admit that I am an atheist... but enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. I do see some problems possibly stemming from the defined god. I would prefer one more clearly defined as to its specific attributes & actions. For my purposes, I am planning on god based on a creator god possessing omnipotence and omniscience but not the one whose actions are necessarily described by the Christian Bible.
Atheism or Theism

=====> Introduction <======This debate focuses on atheism-vs.-Theism. The full resolution is, "On balance of probability, the existence of God is improbable." Note that the title of the debate is not the resolution. Also, I consider myself an intermediate debater; therefore, I would like to go up against more experienced debaters. All trolls will subsequently be blocked. =====> Debate Guidelines <======Rounds:1. Acceptance only2. Opening arguments (no new arguments may be presented after this round. If you cannot defend your arguments, you must drop or forfeit). 3. Rebuttals4. Closing arguments/Rebuttals. For the purposes of this debate, the term "God" will be defined broadly as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. This definition primarily concerns general revelation, and hence forms of religion are irrelavent. We are debating a judeo-Christian type God. "Improbable" will be defined as less than 50%. The time limit between replies is 72 hours. If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. 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.Good luck :-)