BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
pain is true

You are repeatedly pointing out the same points over throughout these three rounds and quite frankly, it is boring. The sentence "oppinoins don't matter. . " is very bold. In what context are we talking? Just simply stating that opinions don't matter is absurd! "beliefs are unknown or not true" So then why do we live in a society where we have our OWN beliefs at all? "particles are stories, not real" Are you saying therefore matter isn't real? Then please explain what everything is made up off? ! "your lack of understanding of your defeat is irrelevant to the truth of my position" I am sorry, but I'm afraid that your lack of understanding of the topic has resulted in you failing to explain my points, repeating the same points over again even though I have already told you why they were incorrect, and lastly your failure to be able to answer my questions thoroughly which only lets me believe that you don't have an answer for them!
pain is true

"only pain and joy are true.. it is the case, not not the case" Yes I am aware that this is the case that we are debating about, may I ask why you choose to bring this up? "true=matter' I'm sorry, could you elaborate on this? This statement is rather vague. I do not know what you were thinking whilst writing this so I can only infer. If you are stating that the only thing that true has a physical presence and are made of particles (something you can touch), then why make this debate at all? Because emotions as far as modern research is concerned, you cannot touch emotions. The other way in interpreting this is by saying that the only thing that is true is that which matters. How can this be justified as everyone has a different opinion on what matters. "love is unkown, not true.. you can love a lie" I want to focus on the words "love is unkown, not true", Well your opening debate states that the only TRUE emotions are Joy and pain, so how would we even know what love is? "im not necessarily saying love is bad though, but it can be for sure, ask dentists heheh" Could I ask you to please stop deferring from the original point of this debate? And I would like to point out that you have not answered my other questions which can only lead me to believe that you have no answer for them ;)
pain is true

I would like to start out by looking at your opening statement, "joy and pain are the only true emotions" How can you make an assumption like this firstly without providing any evidence of this. I would like to bring everyone attention to the words "true emotions", what exactly does this mean? Tell me, what separates a 'true' emotion from a 'fake' emotion? And say theoretically if joy and pain are in fact the only true emotions what would you classify other emotions such as fear or even love? Are you a person who knows no love? The claim that the only true emotions are joy and pain is quite plainly, ridiculous. You have provided no evidence to your cause, so are we just supposed to take your word for it?
minimum wage should exist

I would like, first of all, to point out that my opponent has not answered or contested any of my claims about the negative effects of a minimum wage. Throughout this argument, the main point of my opponent seems to be we should have a minimum wage because we should have one. That is circular reasoning. One of my opponent's claims is that society needs to have wage standards. However, the problem comes with what do wage standards, i.e. a minimum wage, do to society. My opponent has never answered the fundamental issue of minimum wage: that it causes unemployment, particularly amongst those working at the minimum wage level, therefore unemploying the very people the laws claim to help. My data has shown this is indeed the case, therefore society should not have a minimum wage because it hurts those it's designed to help. It doesn't matter what the law is supposed to do but what the law actually does. And, as I have shown, if the law hurts the people it is trying to help, by unemploying them, then it isn't worth helping. My opponent has not provided any actual data on this issue, only conjectures, should haves, and personal experiences. Without showing that the minimum wage doesn't hurt people, then there really isn't an argument, only opinion.
minimum wage should exist

The fact that it costs more in some cities doesn't mean a national uniform wage shouldn't exist. The people in California may not be able to live off six dollars an hour, but at least some people in other places can live off six dollars an hour. And, at least with the wage, those earning the minimum are not earning three dollars an hour. And As I said, if workers are making more than minimum, great. If they're making minimum, then it should exist, because that probably means they'd be getting less had it not existed. It's not just a coincidence some people start out exactly at minimum wage. I really do not see your point? Unless you're arguing that the wage to be livable for one person would have to be a really high amount, not six, and that'd be too damaging. if that's teh case, i really doubt we'd need it really high, for example columbus ohio does not cost fifteen an hour to live. having lived there myself. now, there may be retirement fund considerations etc, but we don't have to include that sort of stuff. six or seven or something. Two points as for displacing workers. a minimum wage exists now. i don't know anywhere where you can't find a job, if you're willing to try. in NW ohio, some have a hard time, but all yheu has to do is move, for example, to where they could find them. I really doubt that people can't find jobs if they try, I see job openings everywehre I go. Unemployment might have went up when the increase occurred, but I'm sure those who were cut found jobs again somewhere else. it just makes sense: an employer cuts some workers, maybe, so they go somewher eelse. empiraclly jobs are out there. Plus, ultimately, even if we did cause problems in the job market. we have to set the parameters of our society, what's good. there'd always be more people who could get more jobs more easily if we allowed wages to go to next to nothing, but we don't allow that and have standards. ideally, those who are displaced would not breed, if they're so bad as to not be able to find a jobn that is available, and we'd not have too many people living in bad conditions. but the real argument is that, even with our standards, a wage exists now, and society is not in crambles. attempts like CATO to say no wage should exist are obviously skewed, because no wage would allow the wages to go below even what the wage is now, which is not causing problems. cause whatever the case, i'm not arguing the wage be too high, just that it exists. and if ultimately it needed to be fifteen to meet my definition, then it could just be lowered to seven or so to mitigate the effects of it. we'd still have the wages though, to ensure it doesn't drop to three. really though, ten and fifteen etc is too high to be examples of what's livable.
minimum wage should exist

Before I get into the mechanics of the minimum wage, I would like to ask you to better define your terms. 1) You said the minimum wage should be, "a reasonable amount a single person can live off of reasonably." Besides the syntax of this sentence, are you implying that a minimum wage should be different for people who aren't single? What about dependents and students who are still supported by their parents? Are they to receive a different wage, or not be subjected to minimum wage laws? Also, you need to define how we would measure a amount someone can live off of. And how would location factor into your minimum wage law? Would someone living in Beverly Hills have the same minimum wage as someone living in Starbuck, Washington (pop. less than 1,000)? 2) You said "anywhere i look anyone can get a job for minimum wage if they have their bits together." First of all, what are bits and how can one get them together? Second, how far have you looked? How can you make a sweeping generalization about the employment opportunities of over 200 million people over the working age in the United States? What if a person has a disability? What if a person can't speak English, or can't speak it very well? What if a person has a learning disability or suffers from a chronic illness? What if all of these people want a job, or are they considered people who don't "have their bits together?" Use a term that actually has a meaning. 3) You said " say 3.50 jobs, because that's what the wages would go to without the minimum. to prove this, all we need to do is look back to the 80s. back then, the minimum by law was 3.50. and you can bet people were being paid that much at mcdonald's too." Just because mcdonald's may pay the minimum wage does not mean that every company that offers entry level jobs does. Your proof is not proof at all, but a guess. You need to show actual data if you want to make the claim that wages would be $3.50 an hour without an increase in the minimum wage law. You also need to show the data that the raise in the minimum wage in 1992 "simply caused the people who were paid much less than they shold have to be paid more" and had no other factors, like increasing unemployment. 4) Throughout your argument, you seem to think that mcdonald's and other large fast food corporations employ the majority of the workforce at the minimum wage. However, research has shown that the majority of the workforce employed at the minimum wage level resides in small businesses. Small businesses train many first time workers, and unlike corporations, do not have huge profits and revenues to expend. For the small business, workers cost much more. Everything that I am saying has been consistently documented in business literature, but if you want links I can provide them. 5) I have no idea what your point is by bringing up Indians and God. I don't understand what you are trying to say. In order for this debate to continue, please use spell check, provided next to the bottom-right corner of the text box. Thank you.
Watch the 28 minute movie silent scream. Abortion is immoral.

Everyone deserves a chance at life. Putting your social life above your baby is cruel. The right to life overrides control over your body in my opinion. I don't want to force my opinion on others so I'm not suggesting that elective abortion become illegal. The diary of an unborn child. Mommy. I'm 6 days old. I'm connecting my self to your uterus,my home. Im 22 days old now. My heart is beating and carrying my own blood. I'm now 3 weeks old. My spinal column and nervous system are forming. My liver and kidneys are taking shape. I'm 5 weeks old. My hands, eyes and legs are developing. Week 6! I have a mouth and lips and my fingernails are forming I'm now 7 weeks old. My eyelids, toes and nose are distinct. I'm kicking and squirming now!. Week 8. I'm a big girl now mommy! I can't wait to do fun things with you! My organs are in place and my bones are replacing my cartilage. I have finger prints now. I can hear too. Week 10. I heard you talking to your friend. You didn't seem to happy. You found out i was living in you. We can make it work. But hey I can breath amniotic fluid and urinate. I can grasp things and my organs work. I love you mommy. Week 12 my nerves and spinal cord are complete. You went to the doctor. He seemed mean. I didn't like his home. Planned parenthood seems mean. I like my cozy cottage in your uterus. Mommy your back at the doctor. I'm feeling scared. What's going on. What's that. The canula is invading my home. Get it out. No! It hurts! Mommy please. I'm in heaven now. Why didn't you want me
Watch the 28 minute movie silent scream. Abortion is immoral.

That is a real video of an abortion. The narrator Bernard nathonson was an abortion doctor. Babies can sense light at 14 weeks and if you put a flash light to the moms belly they will move. By that age they are sensitive to noises. When me and my sister were 11 weeks along we would bat each other's hands and play together. At that age they play with their twin and can recognize their moms voice. They will practice hiccuping and breathing. That's life. That baby sensed something was wrong. Something invaded his home. Mommy I'm 8 weeks along I'm developing buds that will be my limbs. Mommy I'm 12 weeks along. I can't wait to be born and do fun stuff with you. Mommy you went to the doctor. He seamed mean. I can recognize your voice now. Aren't I getting good at hiccuping and breathing which I'm now practicing. When you use our flash light I move away. Mommy what's planned parenthood? Mommy this room makes me nervous. What's an abortion? What's that thing coming into my home. Get it out! It's sucking me away! Help mommy. What did I do? I'm in heaven now. I was so excited to do fun things with you. Why didn't you want me.
Watch the 28 minute movie silent scream. Abortion is immoral.

Alright. here are the websites with the information: 1: http://www.mccl.org... 2: http://www.babycenter.com... so, first some facts. 1: 99% of abortions happen before week 13 2: unborn babies begin to feel pain at about 20 weeks, according to recent research Now, I can also tell that the baby in the movie, when getting aborted in the ultrasound, is much more developed than 20 weeks, so yes, it feels pain, and I hate abortions past week 13. week 13 is close to the last week when the babies brain starts to work and be somewhat conscious. so not only is the movie intellectually dishonest, it also sends a message that this is what all abortions are, when they are not. My conclusion? the movie you saw was factually inaccurate when it comes to what abortion actually are. the babies are not conscious, making them what we would call "people", and they do not feel pain when it happens, because they don't even know what anything is yet. And in case you're going to say "well he is alive and deserves to live", lets look at the definition of life "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death." so lets go down the list for babies at 13 weeks. Growth: yes Reproduction: no, as its sexual organs have not developed Functional activity: no, as most of it still has yet to develop continual change preceding death: yes in most classes taught, it is said you need all the characteristics of life to be considered life. So we can conclude the baby is technically not "alive" yet.
Microsoft VS Apple

Gah, I meant to make this five rounds. Anyway, I think my opponent and I have equal burden of proof in this debate. It is our job to prove that the Company we are arguing for is superior to our opponent. With that, these are my resolutions: -Windows XP Service Pack 3 is superior to OSX10.5 Leopard -Windows Server 2008 is superior to OSX10.6 Server Snow Leopard -Windows 7 is superior to OSX10.6 Snow Leopard -Office is superior to iWork -Zune is superior to iTunes -Zune is at least equal to, if not superior to the iPod -PCs and Laptops are superior to Macs and Macbooks. -Microsoft as a corporation is superior to Apple as a corporation. I can provide arguments and evidence to support all of these claims, but I'm interested to see how my opponent retorts to them first.
Microsoft VS Apple

====Microsoft Windows 7 versus superior to Mac OSX10.6 Snow Leopard==== Since my opponent doesn't want to argue the merits of three different Windows/Mac OS's and asked me to choose one, I've simply chosen the latest releases. Obviously I can't argue against OSX10.7 Lion, since it hasn't been released yet. Here are some ways that Windows 7 is superior to OSX10.6 -Windows 7 is available in 32-bit and 64 bit versions, both on a single install disk, while OSX10.6 is only available in 64-bit. This puts a massive premium on ram on the Mac system. It also prevents the user from using a lot of legacy hardware and software. -Windows 7 is clearly the victor when it comes to desktop management. Compare the much more customisable desktop (with gadgets and themes) and start menus (completely customisable) compared to Mac's line of all available programs. -Windows 7 dominates OSX10.6 when it comes to gaming and blue-ray multimedia play back. ====Office is superior to iWork==== -Office ships with email software (Outlook) while iWork doesn't. -I think the comparison between Word and Pages is a good indicator of this competition-at-whole. Microsoft Word is the king when it comes to compatibility and widespread market percolation, while Pages looks ‘cool', but ultimately fails in usability.. ====Zune is superior to iTunes==== Simplicity is king. The process of getting MP3's on to your iPod is long and painful, while the Zune is simply drag-and-drop. This allows you to store your music however you want in the folder structure of Windows as opposed to the oppressive hold that iTunes has over your music library. ====Zune is at least equal to, if not superior to the iPod==== The argument here is that despite iPod having a massive majority of the mp3 market, the Zune is an equally good piece of hardware. Considering Microsoft is mainly a software company and Apple is mainly a hardware company, this is very important to the overall argument. Here is a very detailed review from CNET that calls them even. http://reviews.cnet.com... ====PCs and Laptops are superior to Macs and Macbooks==== I think my opponent missed my point here. PCs and Laptops are everything that isn't released by Apple. That's Dell, Toshiba, HP and every other hardware company that ships with Windows, not OSX preinstalled. Considering the overwhelming choice of hardware one has if they don't get a Nazi-Mac, this is an obviously win.
Microsoft VS Apple

So just one last clarification, you are arguing in favor of Microsoft, correct? I'm not arguing three different Windows system to three different Mac systems. Pick one. I will argue that as a whole, Mac is better, but not every system individually. It takes far to long. For your Office is superior to iWork comment, have you ever used any of the iWork programs? If you have, then you've used a Mac, and more likely then not, own a Mac. That would be very contradicting to your argument. Anyway, I have used both Office and iWork many times, and I will choose iWork apps any time. They are much easier, in my opinion, and they can do just as much, if not more, than Office apps can. I've never used Zune as opposed to iTunes, so I can't really argue that right now. I have to ask around about Zune and do some research. You can post your arguments for that, drop the topic, or just leave it until I next enter, and have more research done. Your choice. Now, onto Zune vs iPod. Read these articles please. http://www.technipages.com... http://gizmodo.com... Now, they may seem contradictory to my point at first, but let me explain. The lack of landscape mode, buying music where you can get a connection, customizable backgrounds, FM tuner and all that fancy stuff no longer applies. I can't find a current enough article with this written in, but most people know these several facts I am about to tell you. iPod now has an FM radio, music can be downloaded with a wi-fi connection, there is now scratch proof glass, IOS4 saw the arrival of custom backgrounds, game center, multi-tasking and many other things, a landscape mode, and plenty of other wingdings. Therefore, the iPod has more than the Zune. Plus, the iPod is compatible with all computers, the Zune is not. Macs and Mac Books are PC's and laptops. An Apple desktop is a PC seeing as how PC stands for personal computer. Therefore, just so long as the computer isn't available to the general public, it is a PC. Next, Mac books are laptops seeing as how the are computers that sit on "TOP" of your "LAP". Please clarify this argument. I'll let the stocks speak for Microsoft vs Apple as corporations. Apple is currently at $323.60. Microsoft is at $28.30. The drastic difference? It's due to more people buying Apple products than Microsoft thanks to the superiority of Apple. I think my opponent has everything covered, so I await a response. Merry Christmas to all. (or a late Happy Hanukah) And a Happy New Year.
Opponent Choses Debate

In this debate i will allow my opponent to pick two games of equal quality and we will have a debate about them. RULES 1. This is obviously a debate about opinions so the argument that it is an opinion is banned 2. These games release dates must be at the very most 5 years apart and cann't span over 2 console generations, so if it were a game from the ps2 vs a game on the megadrive it is not allowed but a ps2 vs dreamcast game is ok. 3. Since my opponent choses the two games i will pick which one i will be debating for. 4. Have FUn and good luck
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

I accept. The only problem here is that this debate itself is a truism. How is it a truism? Because definitionally, horseback riding is a sport(1). So how do I plan about approaching this resolution? That truisms are inherently awful for debate, and because he planned on debating a truism, he ought to lose the debate. Debaters ought not debate truisms because it skews the available ground that debaters have to make arguments. It's impossible for me to debate on how two plus two doesn't equal four when it's a fact, i.e. a truism, that two plus two equals four: it leaves me with no ground to make arguments and, therefore, no way to conventionally win the debate. Likewise, there's no way for me to conventionally debate that horseback riding isn't a sport when it's a truism that horseback riding is a sport by definition, leaving me little to no room to craft arguments to the contrary. The only way to correct back for this violation is to vote him down. You'll be voting him down because: a) debating truisms harms the fairness of debate. Debating as an activity is a contest between two debaters to find who is the more skilled debater, but that's fundamentally impossible to do when one side is massively skewed to having an advantage. b) debating truisms harms the educational value of the debate. Once all the rounds have been posted and everything has been said and done, the only thing that makes the debate matter at the end of the day is what debaters learned from the experience, but debating truisms squashes any ability to learn since nothing ends up being discussed or debated: one side is simply true, leaving no room to create discussion and, thus, allow for both sides to learn. As such, I ask voters to vote in negation. Sources:(1) - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;(horseback riding - the sport of siting on the back of a horse while controlling its movements)
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

In my opinion, horse back riding is a sport most definitely. I believe so because although there are pony rides and many young children take lessons, I think that it leaves a big impression that horseback riding is "easy" or you just sit there. To be able to ride, you must have a strong upper body and core/back strength as well. It also takes a lot of courage and you always have to be on your toes and on the lookout for others and yourself, whilst taking care of the horse.
Is Horseback Riding A Sport

Again, no response made to the theory argument, extend it out as dropped once again. Don't let her make a response to it in the final round because she's literally had all debate to make a response to it and hasn't, don't let her make one in the final round where I have the least amount of time to respond to it.She asks "why, by choice, did you decide to accept this debate? If you knew it was a truism, why continue with this arguement?"Two reasons:1. I made the assumption that you weren't as versed in debate theory as I was and, therefore, could win the debate on a theory level rather than a substance level.2. A theory argument is the only possible way for there to be any kind of discourse on this resolution due to the nature of truisms being undebatable. This way at least you get someone to accept rather than no one.