BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
$0.00: A Better Minimum Wage

On the contrary, I believe people could trust companies to do this. Why would a company pay you more? Because the basis of survival is the idea that one company out performs another in generating consumer's transactions. Every company has to live up to many standards including a moral standard and a economic standard. If a company's survival is dependent on those standards, doesn't that mean the people have control? There wouldn't be too many evil laughing big companies left if people felt like the companies were discriminating. Notice recently that in certain areas where they reduce the minimum wage other companies advertise that they will keep paying their employees a better wage rather than the new, way too low, minimum wage. Doesn't seem like too much of a worrisome problem if the people have the control. As for people with disabilities, how about we keep the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? The act doesn't necessarily require a minimum wage but it does say that companies cannot discriminate against those with disabilities. Now, this is just one example of many where there are laws against discrimination. We can keep them. About poverty, I would argue that a minimum wage creates more poverty. So if you are worried about poverty as in people lack a set of skills so they won't be payed as much, I would be more worried about them not having jobs at all and truly earning zero dollars. It has already been proven in the Journal of Human Resources that a minimum wage affects the amount of people that can be hired and how often current employees can get a raise or whether or not they can get benefits. Thus, creating more poverty. Notice, as each city raises the minimum wage, the unemployment rate increases. (1) (1): https://mises.org...
$0.00: A Better Minimum Wage

The Answer is Obvious. People cannot trust companies to do this. If there was no minimum wage, why would a company want to pay you more if you do better. After all, they are not required to and you would most likely still be doing the same quality of job whether you are paid more or not. You could be working harder and harder everyday in hopes of getting a raise, while the company laughs and smiles because they do not have to . This goes for people who have no other options to do anything else financially as well. For example a person in poverty or with a disability may not be doing as good as others and being paid less, but this is the only job that person can do and they have no other work options. The idea of not having a minimum wage means companies can more easily take advantage of people who are working in order to make the company more money. We need a minimum wage law to make companies pay at least enough for a working person to make at least a decent living.
$0.00: A Better Minimum Wage

As crazy as it may sound, it may just be the best option yet. This idea of a zero dollar minimum wage would be the best option for improving business quality while at the same time giving people what they deserve to be payed. The argument for the $15 minimum wage has been going on for a while now, but what people don't seem to understand is that under regulations and taxes that are already placed on businesses, and how much they affect the hiring process along with how much companies can actually pay workers. So I when I say a zero dollar minimum wage is better, I don't mean that people shouldn't get paid anything for their labor, but yet that the companies should have the freedom to pay their employees based upon how they do. Think of it in the same sense we tip at restaurants. If an employee(s) does well and the business thrives, the company can choose to pay their employees higher wages. It also means that employees who don't work as hard as other employees will not be payed as much. An example of this I saw was during a speech a man was giving about raising the minimum wage to $15. He talked about how he passionately loved cooking fried chicken at his local KFC. But at the wage he was earning, he couldn't make much money. My solution would fix all issues such as this and give the employees the wages they deserve. Also, it allows for companies to regulate their budgets much more efficiently considering they will have the freedom to decide what they pay their workers. Now that last sentence may actually be the biggest problem that my opponent will point out. The worry that companies would abuse their power and discriminate while choosing what they want to pay their workers. I would agree this issue would be present, but I would also argue that it would be very uncommon. The idea of discrimination in the workplace is heavily regulated and should remain so. While at the same time, business that tend to have bad managers and CEOs tend to do worse overall when considering hiring, performance, and overall profit. In a capitalist society, those businesses would be sure to fail, and the businesses that treat their employees well would succeed.
people are born gay

It is true that often times traits can be passed over from generation to generation, which would explain why they have similar mannerisms. However this does not provide an argument for homosexuality being a choice because society dictates are idea of the difference between feminine traits and masculine traits; society also dictates the idea of the roles men and woman play in society. For example what are you taught at young age? that pink, purple, light green etc. are feminine colors and blue, red, green are masculine colors. In other words society and the world around you dictates your traits and what you consider masculine and feminine.
people are born gay

First debate, I'm not sure how this works. Anyway, I accept your debate topic but not from the perspective that you think. I may be one of the only Bible believing Christians against legalizing gay marriage that thinks that people are born with the tendency to be gay. I used to believe it was a choice until I got married and got to know my two step-sons. They are one year apart with different Fathers, grew up without any association with their Fathers, but each one took on distinct personality traits of their Dad's which shattered my view of Nurture over Nature. I believe there is "some" choice involved, but there is a large tendency there that seems to be genetic. A lot (not all) male homosexuals have feministic mannerisms even at an early age the pre-dates their interest in sexual relationships.
people are born gay

Con In recent years we have witnessed a lot of arguments over the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. However I feel like people are not paying enough attention to the real debate at hand are people born gay? main debate points to discuss A)Society dictates how the majority of people interact with one another sexually and non sexually. B)at birth a child does not understand the difference between male and female nor the complexity of a modern day relationship. C)before a children reaches puberty there are no distinctive exterior differences between males and females, except the way they dress and the image they portray. the "image" is also dictated by society for example if a group of 6 year olds all cut there hair short and dressed in the same clothes could you tell the difference. D)the world would be a better place if we accepted the fact that being gay is a choice E)homosexuality is a freak idea created by society because the whole basis of it is on the principles of gender stereotypes if a boy likes the color pink for example it does not mean that he is gay. Note I am not anti-gay in my opinion it is your choice however, I am against the way our society currently views homosexuals, they are not accepting them but they are making an excuse for there homosexuality by saying that people are born gay. This is a bad thing for are society because it makes being gay seem like an abnormal condition that mutates a gene. In my opinion I think it would be better if we just agree that it is an individuals choice to be gay. This would be better for society because people would over time become more accepting of homosexuals, just as people have become more tolerant for the most part of other religious groups. Forcing people to accept homosexuals by using the excuse that they are born that way and that you must accept them is not a solution.
people are born gay

I will close with an example. I've said I am an evangelical Christian. To be more specific, I am Southern Baptist. There was a young man in my church, we'll call him Ryan. He is a wonderful young man, raised in the church all his life. His family is deep rooted in the church. He was very active in church and never showed any rebellion or reason to go against his parents on anything. He has listened to truths from God's word like the following all his life: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality." When Ryan turned 18 he came out that he was gay and had a boyfriend. As far as I know, Ryan and his parents still have a wonderful relationship. But why would he choose to be gay? Think of how scared he must have been. Think of how he cried every night and how he is still probably wondering if God is still going to accept him. Why would he choose that? I agree, the choice to act on his desires is his, but the desires are not a choice. There was something in him that made him desire men. Is it morally right? No. But separate the desire from the action. The action of following through with your homosexual desires is a choice, but I do not see how the desire can be. When a man gets married does his desire for other women go away or does he just at that point choose to not follow through with his desire? Choosing to be faithful to his wife is a choice. Choosing not to act on his desires and protecting his marriage from those desires is a choice. But the desire itself is not.
people are born gay

If it's truly a choice then why would some people not have a desire for men at all and some do? Yes, I can choose to eat green beans over spinach. It is a choice in that sense. But the choice comes from deeper than just choosing one thing over another. I choose green beans because I like the taste of them and spinach makes me gag! Why do my taste buds prefer one over the other? It's more than just a preference or a choice. There's either something in my taste buds that are different from those who like spinach or something in my brain chemistry. It's not just that I choose one over the other. When someone chooses a man over a woman, yes they do choose, but it's comes from a preference that is deeper than just a choice. Some people that are gay are not rebellious at all. They have tried their whole life to be 'normal' and just can't do it anymore. I still believe it to be sin, and there is a choice to act on the feelings they have, but it's not simply a choice. We have all inherited sin and it is in our nature. For some it is homosexuality, for some it is a lying tong, for some it is gossip and backbiting. But each of us are uniquely made and have inherited our human nature in different ways.
people are born gay

the confusing is understandable to clear things up I think that people are not born gay and it is completely there decision while you believe genetics do play a partial role. you bring up a good point about how 20 years ago people would not want to choose to be gay this is true because at that time people where less accepting of gays so people who did choose to be gay would have been less open about there decision than they are now, they would choose it simply because they would rather spend there lives with other men and have relationships with other men rather then be with woman. They may do this because possibly they have had bad experience with woman or among other reasons because they feel they have more in common with what society views as feminine traits and this makes them more inclined to seek masculine traits. I see want you are saying about traits but no links have been made between sexuality and genetics in fact many gay people have no gay family members or at least none that are open about it. People choose to be gay because they believe they are more attracted to masculine traits because they possess more feminine traits. They might also do it because of rebellion as you say against there society.
people are born gay

I think there's some confusion here. I believe we are arguing the same side of the argument from different angles. I'm trying to say that people 'are' born with a genetic disposition toward being gay. Are you arguing the same thing? If so I apologize and the error is on me for being new at this. If you are truly saying that it is a choice and not genetic then I will continue the debate. If it was truly a choice, who would choose it and why? Rebellion? It is beginning to be more accepted in our society but 20 years ago why would anyone choose it? It's a hard life to choose. My younger step-son would lie about any little thing, big or small it didn't matter as long as it got him attention. His Mother has always hated lying and comes down hard on it. Yet he would lie about the silliest little thing that didn't matter. This behavior didn't make sense to me at all. The interesting thing was his Father was the exact same way, lying about anything that would give him attention. His brother didn't have this problem. His brothers tendency was to be the hardest headed kid I know. He was going to do his own thing no matter what the consequences. He didn't care what you cared or what you thought. His Father was the same way. Two kids raised in the same environment. They were nothing like each other but very much like their Fathers. I'm not saying that everyone that is gay has a gay parent, but that more things are coded into our DNA then we think. Lying, pretentiousness, needing to be the center of attention, violence, etc. I don't think our genes "dictate" what we choose, they just put us on the path to favor one choice over another. For instance, murder is a choice, but the tendency twords violence can be traced to the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene.
Allopathy (Modern medicine) should be replaced by Homoeopathy

Of course you are the choice as my opponent because of that debate but my thought is older. I know the burden of proof of dangerous of modern medicine is mine and that I've done in my previous post, very interestingly you says "... does not match this burden ." Without any reason or logic, just because you think, they don't match! My opponent suggesting to the people " we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals ." The simplest conclusion of this suggestion is- Everyone should have to go for a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery along with Bachelor of pharmacy, before going to be a patient. My opponent is just arguing with me rattle-headed he nothing knows about homoeopathy he wrote "homoeopathy is dangerous and life threatening" but again he don't have any proof or even a firm logic. He is presenting his thoughts and only thoughts. Here is once more his imagination "...pastoral care and placebo all too often not found in modern medicine" there is no proof or any logic in support of his orgument. My opponent want to say that (without any logic or proof) the danger of homoeopathy is only one - it doesn't work. While I'm presenting the lethal hazards of modern medicine with logics and proof, than why it should be replaced with homoeopathy which is safer? Let's see the points upon which Logician stressing - 1 - He is thanking God for reducing animal testing it's OK But now scientist and drug companies are making us guinea pig for that we must pray 'Oh God please save us'. because now we are at more risk. 2- Then why they are so reluctant to homoeopathy? 3- Whole writing including this point shows that the Logician is a clod of homoeopathy. In 1918 Spanish Flu the sucess rate of homoeopathy is 98%. " Dean W. A. Pearson of Philadelphia collected 26,795 cases of influenza treated by homeopathic physicians with a mortality of 1.05%, while the average old school mortality is 30%." (http://www.nesh.com...) http://www.naturalnews.com... 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. http://www.classichomeopath.com... The condition is still unchanged and will remains same, because the virus evolution is faster and unknown direction till the scientist discover a new drug for newly evolve virus a lot of people died. the chase and run will never be stopped while homoeopathy has the treatment always ready. 4- I've been presented a lot of examples the Modern Medicine is dangerous/fatal each medicine has it's own definite side-effects while homoeopathy doesn't have any side-effect. In Logician's word - Homeopathy also often has the side-effect of simply not working. My friend how will you justify the above example? If you still think homeopathy doesn't work read this new research- http://epaper.timesofindia.com... Remember one thing if The Newton wasn't born that doesn't mean the apple will not fall on the earth.
Allopathy (Modern medicine) should be replaced by Homoeopathy

I'll point out that, although he almost certainly challenged me with this debate as a result of one of my previous debates, I do not need to prove in this debate that homeopathy should be banned. Indeed, the boot is on the other foot, so to speak: it is J_a_y arguing that modern medicine should no longer be used. As such, his burden of proof is to show that modern medicine is irrevocably flawed and/or dangerous. Giving plenty of examples of where side-effects have been unexpected, or people have died of illnesses brought on by medical treatment, does not match this burden. It merely shows that we need to extremely careful about which medicines we allow to be used in hospitals. My burden of proof, in addition to disproving any argument that my opponent provides in relation to the above, is to show that at best, homeopathy should be used in addition to modern medicine. As seen in my previous debate, I believe that when used exclusively, homeopathy is dangerous and life-threatening - but when used to complement modern medicine, it can be extremely useful, providing a level of pastoral care and placebo all too often not found in modern medicine. The main reason that I argued it should be banned was because often people take the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment in isolation to the effectiveness of modern medicine, and stop using the modern medicine - this is when danger creeps in. So long as we can all make the distinction and use them in tandem, there is no problem. I shall briefly deal with the four points that my opponent raised in favour of exclusive homeopathy, in the order he presented them: 1- Modern medicine is also tested on healthy human beings, and animal testing is (thank God) being reduced significantly, hopefully soon to the point of not being used at all. 2- Modern medicine does have a "definite law of nature": what can be proven to work in curing disease/treating illness and injury/etc. , should be used in treatment. 3- An excellent reason to use homeopathy to complement modern medicine. If there are specific moments - which are few and very far between, if indeed they exist at all - that modern medicine somehow "can't catch up", that would be the time to use homeopathy as a stopgap until modern medicine can be used once again. 4- Homeopathy also often has the side-effect of simply not working. I await my opponent's response.
Allopathy (Modern medicine) should be replaced by Homoeopathy

There are a lot of reason to start this debate. As we are observing every year a lot of people dies due to treatment here is the research - "Death by Medicine" - Conducted by Carolyn Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD (2003/4) they says- - "...an estimated 164 million people—more than half of the total US population—receive unneeded medical treatment over the course of a decade." - "Allopathy is the leading cause of death, 783,936 1 every year in the USA alone." - "New England Journal of Medicine study, an alarming one in four patients suffered observable side effects from the more than 3.34 billion prescription drugs filled in 2002." Walter Last has a very interesting question- ARE MOST DISEASES CAUSED BY THE MEDICAL SYSTEM? He says- "The total number of iatrogenic deaths in the USA for 2001 is estimated to be 783,936. These were due to fatal drug reactions, medical error and unnecessary medical and surgical procedures. With this, the medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. In comparison the 2001 heart disease death rate was 699,697 and the annual cancer death rate 553,251 (1). -"Children who received broad-spectrum antibiotics were about 9 times more likely to suffer from asthma. A recent research paper confirmed dysbiosis as a main cause of asthma" A newly published book "Modern Medicine is Killing You: Start Your Healthcare Revolution Now!" by Niraj Nijhawan, Kristyn Kalnes (Illustrator), may prove me unfortunately I still don't have the book. there are a lot of examples when the drugs are banned but till then it harms up to thousands people http://www.whale.to... http://www.whale.to... On the other hand homoeopathy is safer then allopathy even in case of prolonged treatment. 1- The homoeopathic medicines are tested on healthy human beings (no animal testing). 2- Homoeopathy has a definite law of nature, while allopathy don't have any fixed law. 3- On the rise of a disease allopathy need research than new medicines for newly arrived/evolved micro-organism. Homoeopathy is in always ready position. 4- Each of the modern medicine have side effects, so many times some dangerous side effects reveals after a prolonged exposure of drug, till then the drug is consumed by millions of people.
Airport security is too extensive

I will admit, my opponent has made some very well-rounded and accurate arguments. But I think that my opponent fails to realize that while the security may seem redundant, there are (or were) numerous attempts to hijack, bomb, and terrorize airplanes and airports. While many do think of tragedies like 9/11, this isn't the only event in which airport security was necessary. Take a look at this example. Although it involves underwear, look at what the bomber attempted to do: http://www.nydailynews.com... Attempts like these take place every day, and lightening up airport security will certainly do nothing to stop these threats. Recently, the TSA allowed small knives on to airplanes. Many unions and organizations in protection of airplane pilots, flight attendants, and other jobs in the industry have protested against this decision. With multiple knives, a would-be terrorist could certainly take control of a plane, and could easily make the pilots unresponsive or with too much lost blood and the terrorist could hijack the plane. In nations without as much security (we'll just say middle-east) car bombs, terrorist threats, and airplane bombings happen nearly everyday. I won't even include a source for that. Just watch the nightly news one night. So summed up, it is very necessary to have security in airports and other places because of the nearly constant threats posed by terrorist organizations and radicals. Thank you.