BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The federal minimum wage should be increased

While people working for minimum wage would earn more, this would also mean the employer would have to pay them more. This means many people could get fired from work. Also as you mentioned, this would result in higher prices for their goods. In the long run, these higher prices could hurt everyone, not just those living on minimum wage. A CBO report from 2013 states that half a million jobs would be lost if the federal wage would be raised to $10.10 ( as many people want it to be ) The report also estimates that many job benefits would be lost, such as paid vacation and reimbursed parking. Another point I want to add is a higher minimum wage would hurt the development of people. Say you're in highschool and the new minimum wages looks pretty good to you. Many teens chose to drop out of highschool and not bother to attend college. These higher wages very well could entice teens and others to not go/go back to college because they are already making more money doing something so easy, like working at a fast food restaurant. In 2011, 3.8 million Americans were working for the federal minimum wage, more than half of them teens. About 70% of minimum wage employees work fewer than 35 hours a week. They work less, and their job is a lot easier than ones that require a college education. Why should we give more money to people doing less work? They work less and the job is easier, thus they earn proportionally less. In conclusion, we should not increase the federal minimum wage. By doing so, the quantity and quality of jobs decrease, and people very well may lose their strive to go to college and get a better education. Sources- Salary.com, Economicshelp.org, Balancedpolitics.org
The federal minimum wage should be increased

The minimum wage increasing will allow more people to have more money, stimulating the economy and helping citizens who are currently in poverty reach out of it, take a foothold, and stay in the middle class. (1) These workers are not making enough to live on in this economy, and they need more. Unfortunately, jobs are very limited due to our ever rising population. (2) There has been discussion about how increasing the minimum wage will increase prices, and this is always a fear but unfortunately for this side; increasing the minimum wage and increasing prices would be disaster for these companies. The more money they have, the more they are willing to spend on luxury goods and more expensive food. This would increase sales and return on investment for companies. They must be made aware of this, and there must be checks in place to protect the costumers from overzealous companies and organizations. Most of the big names who are against the minimum wage increasing, tend to be owners, backers, or stockholders of very large companies that have had very shady practices regarding the minimum wage. Such as Walmart, McDonald's, etc. (1) http://www.postcrescent.com... (2) http://www.salary.com...
Socialism is better than capitalism

Clarifications on definitions : Socialism - ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth controlled and managed by the workers (NOT the state. it has been done in the political discourse but themes of political discourse are not good references for philosophical, economic or any scientific debates ); libertarian socialism. Capitalism - ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth controlled and managed by the private individuals; principle of laissez faire is followed here; economically a blunt term, but here it means crony capitalism just for the sake for a philosophical and economic debate between the two extreme ends) Format : debate begins from round 2.
why cant I call a girl a "cunt", but I can get called a "dick"

To be honest, my impression I got from you in your latest post is that you ideologies are very clogged up, you seem like you do not know where to look at. I am sorry for stopping this debate, but the main reason is because the debate focuses on the very surface of a larger problem, if one is to focus on semantics this debate can last forever because it does not focus on the core issues. You have a problem at identifying the core issue that is why you ask these questions. I suggest you take a look at that book and focus on the content and idea of it, it doesn't matter who write it or how badly it may be presented just focus on the content, there is a lot one can take of it just need to have some patience and look, it does focus on a lot of problems. Thank You
why cant I call a girl a "cunt", but I can get called a "dick"

I will say, this specific debate seems taboo amopng many people. A flaw I have had my entire life is that I was always willing to question the basic priciples of conformity. Be respectful to adults and your elders. Do good in school. Dont do drugs. The list goes on. I see the word "cunt", no different from any other profanity. At the end of the day it is murley just a word with a definition granted but is only afflicable as much as the victim makes it. Personally I have been called everything in the book by friends and enemies alike. If anyone can take anything home from this debate, that the term I constantly reffer to is just a term please dont sue if it is used against you. Secondly I would like to mention exactly why I brought up this debate is because at 24 years old I realize that women and myself have never been on the best when it comes to connectivity and I would like to be way more presentable to the female community. I've been through one divorce which was my only relationship. I've had a handful of one night stands. At the end of the day I want women to tolerate me better so I will now put forth an effort to strive for better communication. To the challenger debating me thank you very much for the link I will check it out, I will be forfeiting this debate and surrendering all points to you.
why cant I call a girl a "cunt", but I can get called a "dick"

Sorry I can't be bothered with this debate, it's too pointless and petty. I prefer debates that are thought provoking, I only joined because I wanted you to clarify what you meant. Meanwhile, you can look at this e-book it is rather ingenious and it should really answer all your questions regarding females, feminism, today's sexual culture and many other problems to do with males and females in today's so called 'equal' society. Go ahead take a look there is a lot you can learn from it, it's much more educational and quicker than me debating you. Good Luck! http://manhood101.com...
why cant I call a girl a "cunt", but I can get called a "dick"

Before I begin I would like to state that I will take any penalties or if need be forfeit this debate at the end because I did not clarify the subject. I would also like to reaffirm that this is purely a question that I have in regards to contemporary society. Personally if a situation persists, I do not feel the use of the word "cunt" against a woman (if the majority of the crowd saw a woman acting belligerently) should offend the rest of the female population. The wikipedia definition of "cunt" states around the lines of the term referring to a derogatory term towards females meaning an object of sex, that the referenced word means nothing more than to have sex with. Example; in February of 2014 I had a party at my house where I purchased an entire handle (1.75 liters) of Jack Daniels No.7 whiskey was stolen by a local woman that I had at the party, in march of that same year I had another party where person A a male friend of mine mentioned the incident and the woman name and acknowledged what she had done. Immediately in a snap of rage I said in quote "seriously, who was that f**king cunt that's not right she do that to me in my own house" a second later person B a female aquantence of mine said "whoa..language". I feel I had the right to be angered, for the record if it was a black male who had done it I would not have called the man a racial slur but perhaps used the a sexual derogartary term. The same for a man of any other ethinicty I wouldn't have used a racial slur. To also add I later apologized to person B for my conduct and explained to her what she had done for me to say that, she did accept my apology. my point is human beings are very vindictive and sometimes choose the wrong way of dealing with things, in this generation and day of age as it is referenced. females have risen greatly to be more equal to that of men in society and in the workplace. The sexual struggle between men and women continues but if we are to be more equal maybe the word "cunt" in reference to females as a sexual demeanors to men from other women should also be somewhat tolerated. In summary to this round, I do not feel harsh action towards a man should be initiated if a woman has proved to be instigating a conflict of reasonable magnitude. I've seen lawsuits and demotions to people who used that term towards other women when the fact of the matter is she wasn't soo innocent herself.
why cant I call a girl a "cunt", but I can get called a "dick"

I don't believe in violence towards women or outright disrespecting them. I do not feel that if I say in a conversation for example; "this woman was being such a cunt I decided to leave..." or using cunt as a profanity in front of a woman like once in very long while there should be this uproar. I've seen other women on a few occasions use the word cunt and most women I know take is as if they were black and they were called nigger. I feel if during an altercation words were said by a woman on a man and the man replied after a moment of a verbal altercation the man said "cunt" why is that taken like a "shots fired" incident. I feel in this matter women need to be more tolerant of that specific phrase. am I right or wrong?
Trans people should be slaves

"Trans people are rare, and they don't contribute anything." The second part of this statement is completely false and has no base. It is an assertion that lacks evidence and cannot be used as an argument. Thus, it can be logically dismissed. "The money provided could go to the government, and we could decrease our debt!" "In fact, this would help us to usher back in the slavery of blacks!" The above statements make the assumption that slavery is moral. If slavery is immoral, then these arguments hold no weight. It is immoral because: "Slavery increases total human unhappiness The slave-owner treats the slaves as the means to achieve the slave-owner's ends, not as an end in themselves Slavery exploits and degrades human beings Slavery violates human rights: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly forbids slavery and many of the practices associated with slavery Slavery uses force or the threat of force on other human beings Slavery leaves a legacy of discrimination and disadvantage Slavery is both the result and the fuel of racism, in that many cultures show clear racism in their choice of people to enslave Slavery is both the result and the fuel of gender discrimination Slavery perpetuates the abuse of children"[1] It is discriminatory and unfair to make transexuals slaves. It is cruel and should never be permitted. The resolution is negated. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Trans people should be slaves

So I have some pretty abnormal views on human rights. I think that black people should still be slaves. I believe that women have no right to deny a man sex. I believe that rape is a victimless crime and should be legalized. But trans people are different. Trans people exist only for their sexual pleasure, so they should be used as sex slaves. Think about it: Trans people are rare, and they don't contribute anything. We could take them from society without consequence and open establishments where people could come and use them as sex slaves. The money provided could go to the government, and we could decrease our debt! Additionally, most trans people aren't white, so we wouldn't be taking out the people that matter. In fact, this would help us to usher back in the slavery of blacks!
Ban plastic bags in grocery stores

Well sometimes children can get to things that are far away or put up. True paper kills trees, but they don't rip as bad when you have milk or something very heavy. Some stores do not take bags that break that is the problem it depends where you live and what policies the store has. Yeah reusable bags are great, but at what cost? Everything kills something now days so they can make something else. This is all I have to actually say now. This debate was fun and I liked it. thank you. Good luck
Ban plastic bags in grocery stores

-why would a children be able to get hold of one of the reusable bags or a plastic on with that it is the respoibity of the parent not the person who distributes the bags. - making paper requires cutting trees, using lots of energy and chemicals which spill into our eco-system - recycling paper is expensive and it further creates more chemicals - the paper becomes weaker and can never be used for the same purpose again - it loses it's strength each time it gets recycled - the reusable bags at the grocery store is made from plastic - 100 times more plastic than 1 poly grocery bag (if you use your reusable bag 100 times, you're breaking even) - the reusable bags can't be recycled and unless you can sew, it won't carry your groceries 100 times - most grocery stores will take back your poly bags and recycle them - recycling poly bags is cheap, it takes very little energy and no chemicals - there is a very common oxo-biodegradable alternative which is cheap and it's designed to allow people to reuse the bag and degrade when it's exposed to the environment - it's also recyclable when it's mixed with regular poly Why not reuse your free plastic grocery bags and then recycle them at the grocery store when they start to break? Ultimately, it's not what we use but how we use it and dispose of it that will make a difference. Most of the plastic garbage that animals ingest are not just plastic bags - plastic bottles and containers, plastic forks, plastic diapers etc. Most of the litter is from less developed countries with very poor garbage disposal systems. Whether you ban plastic bags in North America or not will make very little difference to the plastic litter situation.
Ban plastic bags in grocery stores

True, but if we throw away paper it is a lot better, for the simple fact that look at what is making all these paper bags. i mean these bags are basically made out of high polyethylene and not to mention they are harmful to children. The reusable bags that are mentioned take more to make and more money, so basically we are spending more tax money making the reusable bags more than anything, but reusable bags are less harmful to the environment so I give you that one. Good luck!!!
Ban plastic bags in grocery stores

A ban could also cause a switch to an undesirable substitute.I don't think that paper isn't a better option, neither are biodegradable bags. Simply using reusable bags is the best option and the best option amongst them are the jute/burlap bags. >jute/burlap bags are mini burlap bags for that rugged natural look. Use the double-knotted string at the very top to close the bag. These bags have a strong burlap aroma.< Introducing a levy would definitely assist with the transition to using reusable bags as opposed to the voluntary approach the Ontario government is taking. Good luck to my opponent, im looking forward to this debate.
Eating meat is right

Firstly I would like to state a critique of the basis of this debate. My opponent uses the word right in a moral sense and in said sense right is defined as "Morally good, justified, or acceptable"[1] The problem with this is that it implies objectivity in morals but that is simply not the case and one can prove this as follows. Meat is defined as "The flesh of an animal as food. "[2] and since humans are animals, human flesh is included in this definition. Now, in America almost everyone would say that it is morally wrong to eat human meat whereas in some tribes it is perfectly fine. This is a prime example of moral subjectivity thus before one can even debate about whether or not eating meat is "right" or "wrong", one must prove that moral objectivity exists. I plan to debate this as follows, I will provide an argument that shows that IF moral objectivity were existent then eating meat is wrong. What my opponent must do to win is to prove that moral objectivity exists and thus disprove the above argument and then he must refute my argument showing it is wrong. What he can do is post his argument for why it is "right" and I shall refute it from a morally objective framework but all the while the above argument is in play. If the above argument is not refuted then both arguments regarding "right" and "wrong" are rendered moot and I win. ======Now entering objective framework======= just: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and FAIR" fair is defined as: "free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice"[5] 1: It takes 4.8lbs of grain to feed a cow to proud 1lb of meat 2: This could be used to feed starving children in Africa and other places 3: It is not fair that we get to live in luxary and waste food on factory breeding cows when that food could save a child 4: Since it is not fair to do such a thing it is not just 5: Since it is not just it is not "right" 6: Since it is not "right" it is wrong QED An example of the waste is as follows: "A 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. "[4] Another example would be: "Imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. "Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the "feed cost" of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains. "[4] Are the above two examples right? I think not. (I reserve the right to add more evidence at a later date) 1: . http://www.google.com... 2: . http://www.google.com... 3: . http://www.google.com... 4: . http://www.emagazine.com... 5: . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

To quote someone famous, badly "Sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic ." Which then implies the opposite that "magic will look like advance technology" which is why you have gotten it wrong and gone with the anti-gravity harness. While I agree Santa is the master of matter/antimatter power generation and the cookies he picks should provide enough power for his sleigh, Santa also is a safety nut, and all that power being generated at speed around the Earth could disrupt electronics of all sorts. If he disrupted the power grids where would he get his hot cocoa from? The number of gas powered stoves has been on the decrease for years. Lastly, Santa can keep his Reindeer fed the magic moss strategically planted through out the world, which he has done. I know this as my grandfathers house has been for many years one of these feeding places. This is why I know Santa has the ability to be in multiple places at once. Heard from him directly a few years ago.
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

It's well known that Santa perfected matter/antimatter power generation long ago so power is no problem for him, since a gram of cookie will produce enough energy to power New York for a thousand years. Magic is no match for technology and Santa only appears to be two places at once since, at near the speed of light time slows down to nearly nothing. Relativistic travel is the only logical answer and only space bending antigravity technology could make it work.
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

" Plain old physics" that is why I have to go with magic moss. The amount of energy needed for Jolly the Old fellow to get up to those speed time and time again is insurmountable. I have tried to calculate the amount of energy needed but without knowing the the weight of Santa, his sleigh and the reindeer, or the power requirements of the anti-gravity harness I just cannot do this. The magic moss however does not have this power limitation. As magic is outside of the laws of physics. Santa's sleigh cannot only accelerate to required speeds it can and does occupy several different points on the Earth at the same time. (I believe this is related to the speed he is travelling so it also helps out if he is using anti-gravity harnesses.) I will save my best argument for the last round.
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I will begin my arguments with a quick analysis of how fast that sleigh must go in order to complete deliveries in one night. It's awfully bloody fast. In order for the sleigh to stop and actually land long enough to allow presents to be delivered, it must be able to accelerate like a bat out of Hades and stop on the proverbial dime. Only antigravity technology could do that without turning Santa into a red and white puddle on the seat. Plain old physics makes it necessary for the sleigh and all its equipment to be capable of controlling gravity. Let's see those elves do that.
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

Thank you for posting this debate. Please bear with me as this is my first debate here and while I have been reading many of the debates there seem only to be a general range of procedures, which I will attempt to follow. If I understand correctly you are of the position that Santa's Reindeer are given flight by anti-gravity harnesses versus the eating of magical moss. While both are highly plausible, the case is going to come down to which is the most efficient.
Do Santa's reindeer fly by Antigravity Harnesses (Pro) or Magic Moss (Con)

After examining the flight patterns of Santa's sleigh over a number of years I have determined that the reindeer are using one of two methods of pulling it, antigravity harnesses or magic moss fed to them by the elves. I believe they have antigravity harnesses. I challenge anyone to take the Con point of view. No limits, just have a good time with it.
America and Israel are Terrorist States and Europe is the Origin of Terrorism!!

Ok, so the Khazars, a Turikic semi-nomadic people [1] became Jews and were the forefathers of the Jews today. Jews today got upset that they were not descendants of Abraham and created lies to deny the geneaology. So what. This does not prove that the Jews today are not Jews, that they rule over us all with a golden fist, that they are the origin of Oppression or anything apart from the fact that European Jews are descended from Turks. Whats your problem anyway, Israel is not going to exist in ten years according to Henry Kissinger in your source. Well thats the debate. It wasn't much of a debate, more a conversation between my opponent and me. A conversation once about terrorism, now about European Jews who cause poverty.http://en.wikipedia.org...;[1]