BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control Laws

I think I'll do a paragraph by paragraph as well. Third Paragraph: You incorrectly state that the Columbine and the Virginia Tech shootings were the cause of not enough gun control. In both cases, the commiters received their guns illegally. And in the case of Seung-Hui Cho, he was suspected of being mentally ill. However, no one ever forced him to seek help. This is fault of the administration. Again, in both cases, more gun control laws would not have helped. Repeating a past statistic, 85% of crimes that involve guns are committed with illegally obtained guns. Fourth Paragraph: I never said there was no correlation between poverty and gun violence. However, you still seem to dismiss all the statistics that show just when gun control laws are placed, gun violence increases. You have still yet to show me any evidence that poverty coincidentally increased at the same time gun control laws were placed. To back up your claims, you take a quote representing the opinions of a few unknown people. Please adress my statistics. Fifth-Seventh Paragraph: Again, I never mentioned anything about unemployment. Perhaps there is a correlation, but you have yet to adress my statistics. ---- In conclusion: 1) MidnightSpecial has yet to adress why the statistics show that gun control laws lead to gun violence, and has misdirected the audience into talks of poverty, irrelevant to the topic of gun control. 2) MidnightSpecial has yet to prove how more gun control would lead to less gun violence. 3) I have proven how less gun control would mean less gun violence. ---- At the end of the day, the simple fact is this: I want more freedom and liberty. I also want less Americans to die. Less gun control means les gun violence. And although he probably doesn't realise it, MidnightSpecial is calling for more gun violence, more death, less freedom, and less life. All voters, look at all the statistics, and use your common sense.
Gun Control Laws

Ahhh, I must pay great compliment to your counterarguments. This will be hard. Right off the bat in your first paragraph, you assume, "the good of having them and making it more difficult for criminals to obtain firearms far outweighs the difficulty of enforcement". There are many things wrong with this statement, as its the statement you spew the rest of your thoughts out. I must address this. Reading that, I ask on what basis is taking away our second amendment rights good? You mention no statistics, no evidence. And when you try to redeem yourself, you briefly say that, "Oh well... it will have worked only if we enforce them stronger. zOmG!!!" Even dismissing D.C. and Jersey, what about Switzerland, Florida, and Germany? And also, are you implying that poverty just SPONTANEOUSLY increased in D.C. and Jersey when they added stricter gun control laws? Show me the evidence for that. The only real evidence you DO bring to the table, are the statistics that show Americans love to shoot people. I will not dispute this. However, you must realize your incoherent connection of thoughts. You say that the spontaneous poverty was the reason for D.C. and Jersey's sudden increase in crime, but then you follow saying that Canada and Japan have less gun violence. Several questions arise: 1. Wait, who has more money? 2. Who has the greater population? 3. And who failed to bring connection between lack of gun control enforcement and gun violence? You. This turn around, I'd love to hear you address one major point: Why do all the statistics show that more gun control laws, equal more gun violence?
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

MNEs with their war chest of billions can afford to hire white-collar workers at a premium because they possess the skill sets, education, and training to compensate for such high salaries. They are not the subject of this debate, but rather the unskilled workers who are on the lowest totem pole of society, for they are the ones who make up the labour components in the factories and manufacturing centres run and lead by these white-collar workers and MNEs. Many of these factories are located in developing countries. Those who make up these workers would mostly be paid at the lowest scale. Often times, this is because developing nations do not possess the right form of legislation to protect the social welfare of the people affected the most by the volatility and caprices of the market, such as the exhortation by MNEs to produce the greatest possible output at the lowest wage . At worst, some of those in the factories are women (1). Without adequate protection, they would be exposed to the dangers of market changes so terrible that it may literally endanger their lives. Take for instance what has happened in Bangladesh when a garment factory crashed and took the lives of 1000 people (2). Muhammad Yunus, in his article, appealed to have the government to introduce social protection laws, such as the minimum wage in order to protect their livelihoods (3). These people have no prior skill sets, education, and training; but given a minimum wage, it would enable workers to have basic rights to live. To live with the money they honestly earn to survive so crucial to human dignity and upward social mobility. To avoid being exploited by the MNEs, which already has possessed billions of dollars of war chest, and rather utilise the minimum wage as a redistribution policy to give the workers their due income they sorely deserved. Therefore minimum wage does not lead to unemployment. Rather it enhances employment and results in a greater socio-economic performance in the long-run through a fair and just redistribution of profits made by the MNEs to those who it owes the most - the workers. Once the MNEs does this then a trickle down of wealth would flow down to the societies they operate on. And this, in turn, would precipitate economic development. Minimum wage serves as a policy that would help economies in the long-run to develop, and once it develops it can then in turn generate sustainable growth and growth in turn would generate more jobs. The virtuous cycle of growth continues and would put a halt a vicious cycle of gross exploitation of workers (4). The minimum wage is the way to do it. Source(s): 1) This is How Women are Exploited in Today"s Global Workforce "https://www.hrw.org...; 2) Bangladesh factory collapse toll passes 1,000 - http://www.bbc.co.uk... 3) Minimum wage for workers in Bangladesh raised after protests - https://www.theguardian.com... 4) Virtuous circle and vicious circle - https://en.wikipedia.org... (The pro-side has been using personal pronouns, such as 'You', 'I' to make his points. The writer should avoid such means of communications to avoid being too personal in the debate.)
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

As you said, the private sector is profit driven, but that profit has to come from somewhere. A MNE offering minimum wage would be driven out by companies paying higher amounts, leading to potential failure of the company. Most multinational salaries, such as Procter & Gamble, pay wages far above minimum wage. How would the minimum wage increase overall salaries in those companies? For minimum wage to help, those companies should be paying minimum wage. Even if the top 20% own 86% of the world's wealth, then that still doesn't mean that minimum wage is the way to fix that. As I said before, minimum wage doesn't lead to a "virtuous cycle of growth", it leads to the opposite. If anything, minimum wage prevents competition in wages, meaning that instead of earning $10000 dollars a year, an unskilled worker with little education would earn nothing. This prevents social mobility, as the same people will continuously be beaten by more skilled workers, working for the same salary. As a result, minimum wage would prevent jobs, at social mobility of those in poverty. Source(s): http://work.chron.com... https://www.epionline.org... http://www.payscale.com...
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

On the contrary, minimum wage does help to in improving the social mobility of those affected most in adverse conditions, in such, it would provide them a living wage enough not just to survive but to secure extra income to afford the much-needed provisions for their family and livelihoods. Examples such as obtaining a basic income of $2,000 per month which would be enough to pay for the rental, car fuel, child's education, income tax, and much more. Had there not been a minimum wage, and given the ample supply of labours in the market, the private sector being profit-driven would drive down the prices of wages to, say $1000, leaving the worker in the lurch. He would then be socially, physiologically, & physically drained from all the work that would be placed on him in the name of producing the firms' profit. According to the Socialist Labour Party website, "(t)he richest 20% of the world's population receive each year 86% of the world's wealth - while the poorest 20% of the world's population exist on just 1% of the world's annual wealth." Is is not about time that society demands a fair share from these MNEs to distribute the wealth to the people? Without adequate laws or legislation, the people would be exposed of being egregiously exploited by top MNEs. By placing the right form of law, such as minimum wage, it would ensure that it would secure the livelihoods of the people and this, in turn, would secure a proper social foundation of an economy. This, in turn, would create a 'virtuous cycle of growth' needed to generate a bigger middle class, a stronger consumer market, a greater demand for products, and therefore bigger business opportunities for young firms to capitalise on. It is through these cycles that would help to generate greater economic activity in the form of the setting up of new businesses, and this, in turn, would create more employment. Minimum wage therefore does not lead to unemployment. Source(s): http://www.socialistparty.org.uk... http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk...
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

That being said, please note that my opponent provided no sources, so all of his arguments are speculation. As the definition says, workers may not accept a job below minimum wage. This actually works against unskilled workers, who are the very people the minimum wage is supposed to "protect". Because they are unable to out compete more skilled workers, this results in many people not having jobs at all when they could have had at least $10,000 a year. Another ill affect of minimum wage is that is prevents teens from getting jobs, since they can't box out the more skilled adults. This lack of job experience and funds could very well hurt them in the future. We also have to consider the employer's point of view. Many small companies can't afford to pay for increasing minimum wage, destroying many jobs that would have provided at least some money to families. To offset these expenses, the small companies who can afford to pay higher minimum wage would have to raise prices, further hurting low-income or poverty families. Even at the current minimum wage, many marginal family owned companies may struggle to get off the ground. Because of the minimum wage, many people couldn't secure savings to climb the social ladder, as you said. But without minimum wages, they could secure basic income and some job experience to better their future. And because companies need employees to function, the same companies that my struggle due to the minimum wage might work their way up in funds, paying more employees more money to work. This would be virtually guaranteed, because of the competitive nature of wages. For these many reasons, minimum wage would in fact hurt the very people it's meant to benefit. Source(s): . https://www.americanactionforum.org... . http://www.investopedia.com... . https://americansforprosperity.org...
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

According to Investopedia.com, the minimum wage is defined as "a legally mandated price floor on hourly wages, below which non-exempt workers may not be offered or accept a job." Minimum wage does not lead to unemployment, because as a social tool, it is vital to protect those who are exposed heaviest to the realities of open market environments. Those who are most exposed are mostly those living on the fringes of society. They exist in both developed and developing economies. In advanced economies, the state apparatus would be in a greater position to secure social protection for the poor. If they are not taken care of, then the government would lose out in the long-run that could be triggered by potential social disruption and unrest due to the gross exploitation of workers in an industry that would seek to exploit them by building up a framework of long-term dependency on the company. Without adequate income, a family would not be able to secure much-needed savings to go up the social ladders, thereby ruining the social mobility process which is so needed for economies to succeed in the long-run. Having a minimum wage would enable them to succeed in the long-run and therefore the economy will succeed too.
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

This debate will be about how minimum wage affects unemployment, and about how minimum wage laws really affect the ones they're meant to help. Whoever my opponent is, I look forward to an enriching and meaningful debate. The only rules are not to troll, forfeit, or insult your opponent. Here's how the debate will be structured: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Pro's opening argument, Con's rebuttal. Round 3: Con's argument, Pro's rebuttal. Round 4: Pro's rebuttal to rebuttal, closing points, Con's rebuttal to rebuttal, closing points. Good luck!
Minimum wages lead to unemployment

Con says that MNEs aren't the subject of the debate, since they pay well, yet he also says that the MNEs try to underpay their workers for maximum labor. I don't see how that hypocrisy is logical. I agree that the topic of this debate is the lower class, and the fact is that MNEs are becoming increasingly technology based. Jobs in factories are dropping, and those that remain are being replaced by technology. With that technology comes new jobs based on operating the machines rather than actual labor in the factories. Despite the inherent dangers of factory jobs, these new jobs are safer than ever, and require less exertion than before. None of Con's sources say that the low wages of factory workers in developing countries are due to a lack of legislation; the reason is that workers are willing to work for less than in more developed areas like the U.S. This is regardless of gender, and I don't see how it would be worse to have women in factories. Seems like blatant sexism to me. This clearly shows that it is not minimum wage that protects them in any way. Physical danger is mitigated, and incidents such as the factory crash have nothing to do with the minimum wage. Speaking of which, it seems like almost all of Con's arguments are based on incidents from Bangladesh, which is an undeveloped country that is growing, and will eventually switch to a service based economy like many other developed countries. If anything, a higher minimum wage will slow down that inevitable transition. This would simply prolong the abundance of factories and lower paying jobs, while preventing easier, safer, and better paying jobs from coming to the country. There is one more thing that I would like to address. I have repetitively emphasized how minimum wages prevent unskilled job candidates from gaining employment, but Con seem to be fixed upon the concept that a minimum wage will provide those workers with enough money to live. The minimum wage won't do anything for the people who can't get a job, the very people the minimum wage laws are supposed to benefit. As one can see from my arguments, the minimum wage not only proves ineffective at helping to reduce poverty rates, it also slows economic growth and prevents social mobility on the lowest rungs of the ladder. If Con wants to bring up virtuous and vicious cycles, the minimum wage would definitely qualify as the latter. If anything, the inflation from increases in minimum wage would hurt the unemployed more than it would help those who already have jobs, albeit low paying ones. In conclusion, minimum wage comes with a plethora of negative effects, far outweighing the useful qualities. The minimum wage isn't helping anyone, and it certainly shouldn't be increased. Vote pro. Note to Con: Please don't post an argument for the last round, as you posted one in the acceptance round. This would mean that Con would have one more round to argue in, which could lead to a biased debate. Source(s): http://www.bbc.com... http://www.heritage.org... http://www.industryweek.com... http://www.tradingeconomics.com... http://freebeacon.com...
All debates should be one round

I disagree with this statement. It is important that debates have the possibility to last a set of rounds. 1. It's not fair for the Instigator because 1.1 he has no ability to refute and rebuttal or 1.2 has to spent characters on outlining the limits such as no rebuttal-rule and BOP for the opponent 2. It doesn't show the potential of a debater 2.1 because there are no rebuttals therefore there is no skill required to show why it's opinion overcomes counter-arguments 2.2 nor to fully deal with all core arguments of the opponent 2.3 because it doesn't show the ability of the debater to remain polite under pressure 2.4 doesn't show the flexibility to understand and evaluate both sides of a topic. 2.5 doesn't show the ability to stay focused over a period of time and to post arguments accordingly 3. because it's subjectively boring and 4. attracts noob snipers and trolls I guess a thanks is in order for this debate challenge.
GOD is not only a Religion

OK so now we see one side is in fact a religious God. Still a majority does not have exclusive say on what can be found as a word and what must be only used as a number. Middle ages ( 5th " 15th Centuries) the Renaissance or Medieval period. Documents from the Middle Ages sometimes included symbols, which are today called Medieval Roman Numeral. Some letters had been used as substitute and others numbers had been abbreviations often used to replace strings of letters used to represent one number. A history of Algebra began in ancient Egypt and Babylon. Where people learned to solve linear, quadratic, and indeterminate equations. Indeterminate equations are whereby unknowns are involved. When we talk worship we are saying by Merriam Webster an extravagant respect or admiration for, or a devotion to an object of esteem. So by the two basic principles presented by belief and worship as a definition of religion this included designed behaviors. Mathematics is only a religious interpretation by shared belief holding a set definition placing it completely outside the limitation of just words. One, Won, and 1. To, too, two, and 2 the power of numbers is self-evident as there are in one language five words here to express the sound made with just two numbers. Truth does not need to be a popularity contest. It is reasonable fact and may not be the only truth out there to hear or see. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.algebra.com... https://www.merriam-webster.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...... Thank you for the debate it has been both n honor and pleasure. Good Luck.
GOD is not only a Religion

Religion defined: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Most of the world sees a God or Gods in and as religion. They worshiped them and still do. God is not seen as numerical equations and just letters or numbers. It is seen as a word of importance to many cultures. your number 400 is the roman numeric CD, D by itself is 500. Some study sites: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
GOD is not only a Religion

OK, we know religion has a meaning for the word GOD. I am not arguing that. Many years of Religion are in fact at your disposal. The first written recorded of counting is believed to be 25 thousand years ago. The Greeks and the Romans developed part of the numerical system you are questioning. No I do not think it is a number, I am only solving a given mathematical problem, that when written in a particular way looks just like a word. If they are not clearly labeled and registered in an impartial or non bias way, we would never be able to tell them apart. GOD and GOD One is a religion the other is a number. Source http://www.vedicsciences.net...
GOD is not only a Religion

GOD is not just a word with a Religion ownership it is an axiom of numbers written down in a way that produces a result. The numbers are 400, 11, and 500, G, O, and D when placed in the axiom the numbers produce a sum, 89. The axiom has many uses that are not restricted to religion. Con will explain how GOD has only religious meaning while fact clearly shows numerical purpose outside of religion. Source One nation Under God (a guide to the common defence, 2016) http://education.ed.pacificu.edu...
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare vs. Left 4 Dead

Thank you to tvellalott for his response. He will now be crushed by the amazingness which is Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. :) REBUTTALS MAPS “There is no way COD:MW has an advantage here.” Think again! Call of Duty: MW2 came with two different packages and each had 5 maps. One of the maps is even an abandoned Amusement park (called Carnival). The favorites of the plays though is Crash and Overgrown – both involve the use of Snipers in long range shots. MULTIPLAYER “And no matter what they add, they cannot balance the game to accommodate newbs and vets playing together.” Take it as incentive to play more until you can pwn as well. Online the game isn’t really responsible for teaming up newbs in one game and the veterans in another. It does what it does well by delivering all the action you crave and enough fun to keep coming back. You say it isn’t particularly fun to get shot 30 times in your first online game. Well, play in the missions and get some tactical skills before playing online. Plus, the fact that you have still played after your not-so-happy first encounter with CoD online shows that it’s still fun enough to come back to. STORY – The Zombie Apocalypse “COD:MW is very good, but it hardly revolutionises the FEEL of the war game, only the mechanics. The storyline isn’t better than any Metal of Honour game.” Not true. Modern Warfare is critically acclaimed as THE best war series. [1] It revolutionized war gameplay, the realness in the graphics, and brought the missions to new levels of pure, stunning awesomeness. CONTENT – Mutations “Every single week Valve implements a set of experimental game rules, called mutations.” I will concede that Activision does not try experimental game rules on its PC version. Luckily, the game is difficult enough to keep players interested without constantly changing the gameplay. CONCLUSION P1) There are better graphics, more difficult missions, stronger weapons and more maps in CoD:MW. P2) P1 is the basis for an amazing game. C) COD:MW > L4D Resolution Affirmed. Vote Pro. Sources: [1] http://coedmagazine.com...