BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

To begin, you do not know how much I gave to my community. She is a celebrity first and foremost, therefore she has the power to influence many people period. So let's stick to the topic. She has time to do all of those things because she can afford to and she is forced to in a way to get in good ends meet with the people like I stated in my last argument if you were reading. It's all a big POPULARITY CONTEST. That's how the celebrity world works. And if i were jealous, I wouldn't be specifying about celebrities in general as well. I am happy with my life and this is a debate not a place to trash talk. I can say the same to you, but again, this is a debate, not a "guess what my opponent does more or less of game." And with the facts, I stated that you could go on her instagram or twitter and read for yourself what she posts. I'm not saying that she will be a bad role model forever. I am just agreeing to the fact that she is in the present moment because of the things she is CURRENTLY doing. TMZ, twitter, instagram, and interviews on youtube are reliable sources"MORE than your wikipedia. Did you know that in wikipedia people can just post up any crap on there? Not everything can even be 100% true. I'm going off things that Selena actually wrote herself! and pictures she took of herself. It seems like you don't get how the actual celebrity world works considering my aunt works in that industry. So are you stating that my claims are false??? Is that why you keep giving me links to wikipedia???
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

You seem to be forgetting that this is a FACTUAL debate and not a four round slag-off. The FACT of the matter is Selena is successful, She didn't need a sex tape and she didn't need to create a controversy. I don't know if it is jealousy or actual hate but you can't acknowledge this. http://en.wikipedia.org... Every single one of those films is directed at children and in every single one she plays the good girl. She's philanthropic THROUGH her channel not because of her channel and she's bloody good at it as well. She's done more for charity than you therefor I respect her. I respect the messages she portrays in her films and wouldn't hesitate to let my kids listen to her music and watch her films if they also became such philanthropists.
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

First of all, thank you for replying. Second, most of Selena's charity stems off her movies or networks that she works with. This is because it is more convenient. For example, when Selena was on Disney channel she did a lot of advertising for young teens/children to pay attention and take better care of the environment (and how to eat healthy). The only reason she, and other child celebrities(either on nick or disney) do this is to be in good terms with the public and earn children's trust and love. BUT THAT DOES NOT HIDE THE FACT THAT SHE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS TOO MUCH FAME AND BY THAT IS MAKING POOR DECISIONS AND THEREFOR IS A BAD ROLE MODEL FOR CHILDREN. Currently, according to people magazine and TMZ, there are reports of her smoking pot with justin bieber AGAIN! She smokes the most dangerous kinds of cigarettes. If you go on her instagram, you'll see pictures of her in a recording studio smoking a pack of ciggs (which she smokes almost every day). Whenever she goes on talk shows she claims that she does yoga to stay fit, but that's obviously not true"she smokes to stay skinny because when you smoke, food will taste bland and smoking suppresses you from eating. I've tried smoking"it makes you not hungry. and if she does do yoga, she would post pictures on her instagram of her doing yoga instead of her smoking all the time!
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

Just some examples of Selena Gomez's philanthropy: Gomez was involved in the UR Votes Count campaign which encouraged teenagers to learn more about 2008 presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. In October 2008, Gomez participated in St. Jude's Children's Hospital "Runway For Life" benefit. She is the ambassador of DoSomething.org after being involved with the charity Island Dog, which helps dogs in Puerto Rico. She got involved while filming Wizards of Waverly Place: The Movie in Puerto Rico Gomez is also involved with the charity RAISE Hope For Congo, an initiative of the Enough Project, which helps raise awareness about conflict minerals and violence against Congolese women. From 2009 to 2012, Gomez was involved in Disney's Friends for Change, an organization which promotes "environmentally-friendly behavior", and appeared in its public service announcements. Gomez, Demi Lovato, Miley Cyrus, and the Jonas Brothers recorded "Send It On", a charity single with all of its proceeds to the Disney Worldwide Conservation Fund It debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 20. Also in 2009, Gomez made a surprise visit to a Los Angeles elementary school as part of the "A Day Made Better" program that was sponsored by OfficeMax. During her visit, Gomez gave the school an award and $1,000 worth of school supplies, and talked to students about the importance of giving back to the community. On January 22, 2010, Gomez participated in the Hope for Haiti Now Telethon with a number of other celebrities. In April 2012, Gomez was named ambassador to the Ryan Seacrest Foundation. How is she not a good example for young girls? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...
selena gomez is a terrible example for young girls!

I'd like to start by saying that I have no prior knowledge about this topic. Selena Gomez, from what I can see on Wikipedia, was born into a deprived family. Since that moment her parents worked very hard to raise her in a way in which she respected working hard and giving back. She is a very prominent philanthropist and at no point in her career has she needed to make an indecent video in order to achieve recognition. If anything Ms. Gomez is a shining example for young girls.
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

Nonsense. One cannot make a profit in any system unless one is motivated by serving one's neighbor, which is the most moral endeavor. Only in capitalism, with its insistence on economic freedom, can is this type of service to ones fellow man sufficiently incentivized. In every other system, profit is based on considers of things other than service to one's fellow man. The minimum wage is merely taking away a man's freedom to engage in voluntary exchanges with his fellow man. I want to hire you and you want to work for me at a mutually agreeable wage, but the state says no. That leads to nothing but unemployment. And forced unemployment is immoral. No, in a capitalist system, wages are not based on "economic worth", whatever that is, but supply and demand. Stop trying to tell you fellow man who he needs and what he does not. Fascism is un-American and immoral. Now, tell us why you think statism, forced unemployment and inflation are good things?
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

the second round is for opening statements. With that I will start. The Resolution to this debate is: Is minimum wage necessary in a capitalistic economy? I say, yes it is. and I will pose my argument as such. Capitalism is not guided by moral principles Capitalism is not guided by moral principles, only what makes a profit. Though a good or service may be produced because of necessity and for the good of society, the means by which it is produced can be exploited to drive profit. We have seen this during the rise of industry, where laborers were working 12+ hours without breaks, and grossly underpaid. Working environments were also such that it endangered the lives those employed. Machines of iron and steel could maim an adult. And if the machines didn't get to you, the polluted air would. There was much against the working man during the 20th century. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under FDR revolutionized labor rights starting with the enactment of a minimum wage. The wage was based on necessity and not solely on economic worth. It also addressed the morality of child labor, who were also exploited for profit. Ultimately, society must demand employers to run their business with consideration of their employees, and not just what drives profit. Economic Worth If we are indeed and capitalist economy, then pay should be based on economic worth. Menial jobs, then should pay less than skilled jobs. There is a limitation to this premise, in that there is a point where pay shouldn't be solely on economic worth, but also necessity. A wage of $7.25/hr for unskilled work is insufficient if a wage of $9/hr is what is needed to meet basic necessities (shelter, clothing, food). But any wage increase from there can be based on economic worth gained by the employee (experience, new skill).
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

It is a moral argument. And I am giving you apodictic truth. And I cannot convince you. I can only convince you of the truth. And it is impossible to abuse and exploit anyone in capitalism, for capitalism is only about voluntary exchanges. It is possible to abuse someone in the fascism system you like, such as forcing them into unemployment. And no, one who agrees to work for another is agreeing to work for the wage offered, nothing else. It is not the employer's job to worry about what you do wish your earnings. He is to mind his own business. And yes, his agreeing to the wage offered does make it right. It is called freedom, which is opposed to the slavery your propose. And there is no direct relationship between the cost to produce a product and its end price. And there is no need for society to demand moral practices in capitalism when those demands are immoral fascism. Capalism is about voluntary exchanges. It is YOU who is proposing coercion. No thanks.
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

"Stop being a busybody and mind you own business" <--- Is this not an argument. And your last reply did not, to any respectable degree, defend your premise. If you disagree with me, I ask that you provide convincing arguments that we can debate on. With that said, I will continue. Capitalism itself can be immoral, only if the actions are immoral. To make a profit itself is not immoral, but then becomes immoral if the means to make that profit, such abuse and exploitation, causing a decrease in the moral agent's automony. A laborer who agrees work full time for an employer, is agreeing to work for a wage that will sustain themselves, at the very least. No worker agrees to work for less than a livable wage, unless there was no other option. Just because a laborer, who had no other choice, agrees to work for 25 cents/hr when cost of living is sustained by $4/hr, does not make it right. And if the producer feels their product is worth producing because it is in demand and good quality, then it would be better to increase the cost of their goods for the consumers to buy, rather than continuously decreasing the wage rate to an unlivable wage. If the product cannot sustain the business, or the laborer, then a new venture should be pursued, or a new model of operation applied that is less costly. There is a need to have society demand moral, ethical practices in capitalism, since capitalism itself does not consider moral or ethical practices unless it benefits itself (safer working conditions to prevent continuous worker strikes). And the idea of having a livable wage can be better realized if other factors such as taxation and unnecessary printing of money can be minimized. And also that acceptance any person who agrees to work full time, does so to, at the very least, to sustain themselves (food, housing, clothing), and to offer a wage that is unlivable, knowing they have no other option, is coercion and immoral.
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

As stated before it is not up to YOU to determine another man's worth, but that man and the one to whom that man is offering his services. Stop being a busybody and mind you own business. By telling a man that he cannot be hired by ANYTHING unless his skills are worth some artificial and random number, you are hurting him. How evil. It does not matter what MORE affects inflation, minimum wages cause inflation, which is evil. And we have already dealt with the nonsense that capitalism is immoral.
The Necessity of Minimum Wage

Economic worth or value measures the benefit labor has on an economic good or service. One can have economic value by agreeing to work full time to an employer, for that worker benefits the employer by producing some good or service that can then be sold to make a profit. A worker willing to work full time for an employer has economic value. with time, experience and the acquisition of a skill increases that worker's economic value to the employer (and ultimately the consumer) that would merit a raise in pay, and as skill and specialization increases for the employee, that employee would be worth more, and could bargain for better wages. My argument is that an employee, by agreeing to work full time, exchanges their time and effort for a rate they can live off of, at the very least. For that is the whole reason one has to work, to sustain oneself and/or one's family. To pay someone to agree to work for you at a less rate, at minimum, to sustain the worker, is among other things, immoral. It is accepting that even if they agree to work for the employer to make a profit and support their wage, they're time and labor isn't worth a wage to survive. There are few times that an employee would find it mutual agreeable to work a wage they cannot live off of, and only agrees because there are no other options. The influences of inflation are complex, but is more affected by taxation, tariffs, and the unnecessary printing of money than a minimum wage. Indeed, such forces may force the employer to offer a lower rate in wages. Even at the dawn of industry with oil, steel, and manufacturing, companies have exploited labor to push the gains to its farthest level. If it were not for the government to advocate for the laborers, these companies would have continued to abuse their employees to maximize their profits at the financial and health expense of their workers. This is due to the fact that capitalism is not guided by moral precepts and the abuse of individuals is acceptable as long as it makes the employer a profit.
Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

In an effort to remain fair, I have attempted to limit this round to rebuttals only. You write that the inevitability of civilian casualties is hardly an argument when the alternative is considered. The alternative being that ISIS continues its 'rampage' in Iraq? The civilian casualties are not the problem. It's the repercussions they would cause that would have a negative effect on the US in this 'war'. The loss of innocent life is unfortunate, tragic even, but if we did intervene, ISIS would use the argument that the 'crusading' West is murdering innocent Muslims. Using this propaganda, ISIS would grow stronger, as more every day Muslims would be radicalized. It is more rational to attempt to help those innocents through humanitarian efforts and leave ISIS alone for now. I know it may seem hard to believe to you, but people WILL choose ISIS over the US, and they will be the ones that end up fighting the US. You believe that removing their oppressor in its entirety is the fastest and most effective way to help these people. Do you also believe that our adventure in Iraq has been a great success? How much longer do you expect it will take to complete that mission? Removing their oppressor in the manner you suggest would result in the radicalization of more Muslims and a bloodbath between ISIS and the US. I noticed that you added new arguments to your round 3 submission. You have presented no evidence that ISIS poses an immediate threat to the US. While claiming not to be promoting American exceptionalism, you suggest that we can work on all the political injustices that still exist without giving one example of where this strategy has worked. You imply, without support, that ISIS is currently relevant.
Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

Of course in the long term it would make sense that it only works with political solutions. However, Iraq seemingly has little to no resistance against ISIS. The people who are doing this do not care or have any reason to listen to us. A political solution to this problem is just not going to happen in the time frame that we have to work with. What i'm suggesting is no a 'violent reordering of the middle east', but is a calculate strike against specific targets that threaten the safety of everyone. Once we have taken ISIS out of relevance, then we can work on fixing all of the political injustices that still exist. In response to your comments about Assad, I think that the truth of the matter is that the U.S. will only intervene when it poses a threat to us. Why would we do any different? We have enough problems of our own here at home that need to be addressed. Getting involved in foreign affairs would be ridiculous and costly if it posses no immediate threat to us. I am not promoting American exceptionalism, but simply saying that the U.S. is not in a good position to be getting involved in things that don't effect us.
Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

In the interest of fairness, I have placed no rebuttals to your round 2 argument, and unless you disagree, I believe we should limit round 3 to rebuttals only. I agree that the US should make humanitarian efforts in Iraq in order to help those displaced by ISIS. However, becoming further militarily involved will result in consequences for the US. The only solution that will work long-term is not a violent reordering of the middle east, but a political solution. In order to defeat ISIS, we must undermine one of their leading principals, that Muslims are under attack by the 'Crusading west.' Also, how would the US justify intervening against ISIS in Iraq, but not against Assad in Syria? This would send a message to the middle east that the US will only intervene when it's own prosperity is at stake. We must not play into the Jihadist's hands, but rather come to a political solution. The only was to defeat ISIS is ideologically. On one final note, I would like to add that I am not totally against military intervention in Iraq, especially if the Iraqi military cannot pull itself together. However, this intervention MUST be at the hands of a Sunni-Muslim majority country, as this would deal a major blow to ISIS's "War on Islam" rhetoric.
Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

I agree that it would be inevitable that we would have civilian casualties. But, that is hardly an argument when you consider the alternative. ISIS is a violent extremist group that is tearing through the middle east with little consideration for human life. Those who are of different religion or belief system are given the choice to convert or die. This is a much higher loss of innocent lives than anything the U. S. would do and I find it hard to believe that people would choose ISIS over Americans who are just trying to stop this injustice. These people do not care who they hurt and are willing to die for their cause. It is my firm belief that the fastest most effective way of helping these people is to remove their oppressor entirely.
Should the united states become more invovled with ISIS

I will contend against US intervention with ISIS. As it does not seem to be prohibited, I will begin my argument with the following statement: If the US were to intervene they would inevitably kill/injure muslim civilians, this will create a false Crusader threat, which will amplify the appeal of ISIS. Any evidence of a western country killing innocents would be of enormous value to ISIS in the form of propaganda, which they could in turn use to radicalize more muslims, based on their abuse of the "War on islam. " I believe that instead we should focus on humanitarian efforts to help the displaced civilians. Good luck.
Should ice cream and other sugary foods be allowed at the school cafeteria

Ice cream and sugary foods should not be allowed in school cafeterias. 1) Students are healthier when they eat healthier food. If schools provide healthier food, that's incentive to eat it. Childhood obesity leads to adult obesity, and childhood healthy habits lead to adult healthy habits. Thus, schools should foster healthy eating among students. 2) The purpose of a school is to educate. Students can't learn if they are not eating nutritious food. This also turns my opponent's point: children will not be able to learn or grow autonomously if they are eating unhealthy food. 3) Social inequality is compounded by food. If students are unable to get healthy food at home, they must get it at school. Otherwise, unhealthy food will lead to malnutrition and myriad other health concerns, and eventual inability to get a job paying the money to get more healthier food. Assuming eating unhealthy food allows self-esteem is ridiculous. All it promotes are health issues.
Was it just to kick Japanese Americans out of certain states during WW2

No I am not saying that it was racist simply because of simple cartoon. It was merley an example. Here's ten more for you to look at: . http://brainz.org.... I also pointed out the segregation in the San Fansisco school system. How in the world can you argue that America wasn't racist towards Japanese? And racism doesn't need to be violent to be considered racist. Was segregation racist even though we didn't kill the blacks? You also talk about giving them a home. We kicked them out of their homes. You also say how we would've done it to anyone else. That is false. The only time we've been invaded was the War of 1812 and did we lock up all the people of British descent then? No, because they were white. Yes Japan did start a fight they couldn't win but locking up people simply because of who their parents or grandparents were makes no sense. Even the U. S. Navy Intelligence said this measure was ridiculous, as I have pointed out before. If we apply your logic to the hypothetical you have brought up, then shouldn't you lock up your family in the basement so they don't tell the robbers any info? Finally, you say that I'm blind for not seeing what the Supreme Court saw? Justice Frank Murphy who ruled on this case said "I dissent, therefore, from this legalization of racism. Racial discrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life. It is unattractive in any setting, but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States. All residents of this nation are kin in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and distinct civilization of the United States. They must, accordingly, be treated at all times as the heirs of the American experiment, and as entitled to all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. " He agrees with me. If you're going to say that it just because the Supreme Court upheld it, then you would agree that segregation is just (Plessy v Fergunson)? How about forbidding interracial marriage (Pace v Alabama)? How about refusing several black families an education simply because they weren't white (Cumming v Richmond)? Your logic is flawed. Finally, there's a reason we apologized for this. When Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Rights Act of 1988, there's a reason it included an apology and reparations. There's a reason George H. W. Bush apologized again in 1991. "In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated. " Kicking out AMERICAN citizens from their homes simply because of who their fathers or grandfathers were is and was not just.