BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Get rid of the penny!!

True, the government makes more money in seignoirage than it loses. Still, just because the government makes money overall, doesn't mean it shouldn't cut out a losing endevour. The present system of nickels and pennies still loses over $150 million a year, regardless of how much it costs to make bills. If we adopt the plan, thats an extra $150 million dollars in the government's pockets that isn't adding to the deficit. Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost. Your second objection is that we need pennies for transactions etc. But, transactions are already rounded. When you buy gas, the price per gallon isn't $3.59, but $3.599. Thats what that miniature number farthest to the right on the sign means. So, rather than rounding off tenths of cents, we would be rounding off full cents. Some argue this would lead to a 'rouding tax' where buyers are robbed of pennies on every transaction. But, a study was conducted, and simple logic would show, that out of the countless transactions performed everyday, there are an even number of transactions that would round up and round down, leaving the monetary advantage null. So, we should abolish the penny because they are personally annoying, and would save taxpayers $150 million dollars a year without effecting transactions.
Get rid of the penny!!

My opponent claims that the penny costs more to make than it's worth. However, the government would not lose money overall, since a $20 to $0.04 deficit in the case of a $20 bill would outnumber the extra $0.003 it costs to make a penny. The penny is also very important for the sake of providing change and paying sales tax. For example, say you want to buy a double cheeseburger from McDonalds' dollar menu. In some states, the sales tax is $0.06, bringing the total cost of that burger up to $1.06. You would need to pay with a $1 bill, a nickel, and a penny. Unless you pay with, for instance, a dollar and a dime, in which case the cashier would need to use pennies to pay you back in change.
Get rid of the penny!!

The United States Government should stop produce current Jefferson nickels and replace them by making Lincoln pennies worth 5 cents and cease a $.01 piece of currency. Currently, it costs the government 1.3 cents to make a penny and over 7 cents to make a nickel. Seignoirage allows the government to profit off of minting currency, but only when the coin costs less to produce than its value. For instance, the $20 bill costs about 4 cents to make. Due to the negative seignoirage value, the creation of nickels and pennies adds to the federal deficit by a considerable amount. We produced over 7 billion pennies and 1 billion nickels, COSTING the government and taxpayers over $150 million. By stopping the production of Jefferson nickels and substituting them with Lincoln pennies, the cost of the new Lincoln nickels drops 6 cents and halts the production of approximately 6 billion coins, greatly reducing cost. I'm happy to address further concerns in the next round.
Get rid of the penny!!

While rounding $1.22 down and $1.23 up mathematically breaks even, who's to say customers will buy the same amount of McNuggets as cheeseburgers? The gains and losses made from altering prices will not break even unless the purchases of each item do too. Basically, if more cheeseburgers ($1.23) were sold than McNuggets ($1.22), you didn't break even. Even so, the main problem is not that the gains and losses will break even, it's that you would be unable to make change at all without a penny, in most situations. The problem with abolishing the penny is that if the price of your McNuggets doesn't end in a 5, you can't get exact change. Take these examples, both in which pennies are necessary. Example 1: You buy McNuggets ($1.22). The price is rounded down to $1.20. $0.06 sales tax brings the total price to $1.26. You pay with one dollar, one quarter and one penny. Therefore, at one penny is necessary. Example 2: You buy McNuggets ($1.22). The price is rounded down to $1.20. $0.06 sales tax brings the total price to $1.26. You need one dollar, one quarter and one penny to pay, but you pay with one dollar, one quarter and a nickel. The change is $0.04, so four pennies are necessary. Also, rounding the change to the nearest nickel is not good because it alters the revenue a store makes and causes you to lose money, or receive money you shouldn't. And the revenue will rarely break even, just as in my first paragraph. There is no way sales tax can go unaffected when the price is rounded to the nearest nickel. As you can see in the examples, the sales tax had no effect on the outcome of the price of the McNuggets. Finally, rounding prices would provide a hassle to all businesses and eliminate such things as the dollar menu, the Dollar Store, etc.
Get rid of the penny!!

Out of the billions of purchases made every day and the even probability that my change will come out to any random amount, there will be an even amount of loses and gains by each side. I will gain two cents here, lose two there etc. This is a matter of probability. This is why, when you flip a coin hundreds of times, you get even amounts of heads and tails. Analogous scenarios. This means the government doesn't lose any money from the rounding procedure and neither do consumers. So, they still get the hundreds of millions of dollars saved from switching the nickel and don't suffer any tax burden. State sales tax is not effected. Whatever amount they tax on products will still come out that much. While I may pick up two cents on the chicken Mcnuggets, I will lose two cents on my hamburger that costs $1.23. This applies to the state in the same way. The state takes six cents out of every transaction, regardless. McDonalds loses two cents, gains two cents etc. This doesn't change because all prices go up six cents, making the probablity of every change interval even still. Abolishing the penny would NOT infringe on states rights. So, there are no negatives to this plan. There is no 'rounding tax' if we issue change in $.05 intervals. The government and taxpayers don't have to lose hundreds of millions of dollars by minting costly coins and I don't have to pick through my change jar for the useful ones.
Get rid of the penny!!

"So, say your Mcnuggets cost $1.22. You pay with $1.25 and the price is rounded down to $1.20 (the nearest nickel) and you get a nickel back." This may seem good, but you are not getting the exact change you deserve; in fact, you are getting more than you should be. $1.25 - $1.22 is $0.03, and should not be rounded up to $0.05. This causes the store, and ultimately the government (since it collects taxes), to lose money, nullifying your saving money argument. It also has an important flaw: sales tax would still need to be added to the price. Let us still consider the McNuggets as $1.22. In Maryland, the sales tax is $0.06. Even if you rounded to the nearest nickel, the total would be $1.26, and still not be able to provide exact change without a penny. Even if the tax was added first and then the price was rounded, this defeats the purpose of a state-imposed sales tax, effectively making the nationwide sales tax $0.05. Not only does this interfere with a state's sales tax policy, but it also can decrease the government revenue even further. Due to these complications, the government would not gain enough, if any, of a benefit from abolishing the penny, and would interfere with a state's right to impose a sales tax. My argument also stills stands that the penny is necessary for change transactions, because of these complications.
Get rid of the penny!!

The quote you mention "Not to mention the fact that adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable, making money instead of losing it, since the Lincoln nickels would be worth more than cost." refers to the new Lincoln nickels, not the current Jefferson nickels. Notice it says "adopting the plan would be intrinsically profitable." So, I don't contradict myself and you reinforce the point that the new nickels/old pennies would cost less than current nickels and save the government a boatload of money. When I say the monetary advantage is null, I am refering to the advantage between buyers and sellers during a transaction. You're woorrying about the change situation during transactions, so I am simply explaining that when you do go to McDonald's, they will round the price, either down or up, and in the long run, prices won't be effected because over the course of several transactions, the rounding will cancel itself out (lose 1 cent, gain 2 cents, lose 2 cents, gain 1 cent, etc, etc.). The price of everything wouldn't change. It would simply be rounded to the nearest nickel. So, say your Mcnuggets cost $1.22. You pay with $1.25 and the price is rounded down to $1.20 (the nearest nickel) and you get a nickel back. This means there is no reason, whatsoever, for a new flat tax. So, not only would abolishing the penny get rid of all those pesky coins, it would save the government, and therefore taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars without effecting monetary transactions.
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

In compliance with my Guidelines, I shall be utilizing this final statement to give you some main voters. The first voter will be morality. throughout the course of the debate, I have argued that we should not become warmongerers. Sending our soldiers to their deaths in what will likely be a large-scale war. My opponent has stated the opposite, referring to the war as "our greatest achievement. The second voter will be over attacks and rebuttals. Throughout the debate, I have refuted every point my opponent has offered while he has successfully refuted few if any of mine. North Korea is simply not threatening enough to risk war with real threats just to assert dominance over other nations. The most important thing to remember when giving the order to go to war is that the death toll isn't a statistic. it is representative of lives lost. Of families destroyed. It's simply not worth the devastation.
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

I intend to honor the rules put in place by the opponent regarding final attacks, I hope my opponent will do the same. In conclusion, voters, the time has come to draw the line and stand up for ourselves. We can no longer allow other countries to press our buttons and antagonize us. The U.S. is now viewed as weak, we not only need to defy this reputation, but never have this reputation again. The U.S. is too great of a country to be bullied by North Korea. Eventually North Korea will have that nuclear arsenal that they dream of, it needs to be ended. North Korea does not care about sanctions, so there is one way to stop them. Join South Korea and Japan before they perform an attack. This has been an interesting debate, I love a challenge and that is what I have received. I enjoy practicing debating against ideas I do not believe in. Voters, make the right decision. When you vote for who had the better grammar, do not base it on who you agree with, but be fair.
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

Firstly, my opponent uses the term flawed rather loosly by stating that since I used the word potential, that my arguments were invalid. However, I was referring to potential FUTURE attacks. I thought that might have been implied but I guess not. as for the points my opponent made about the attacks that N.K. has committed; he brought up the south Korean reports that North Korea had ordered Kim jong nam's assassination and the new york bank heist (they were actually trying to steal from Bangladesh.). even if both of these are true, (and both are under investigation at this point.) you have to ask yourself: is what they're doing worth starting WWIII over? Are we willing to start a war in which innumerable people will lose their lives, while we're already busy in the middle east providing military support there? 2. Next, he accuses me of lying. while I admit, I did mix up the dates on my sources. For this debate alone I have about seventeen tabs open, and I looked at the wrong one when I wrote the date down. The difference between what I did and what my opponent did, however, was that while my information is still correct, his was incorrect. See the difference? Being outdated doesn't necessarily mean that your source is old. all it means is that it's no longer true. my evidence was therefore not outdated as it remains true. 3. He says the "most major flaw" in my argumentation, is that I did not provide a new argument in my previous statement. However, I believe (and this is the way I always do things.) that refuting every single one of my opponents points while he has failed to successfully refute a single one of mine, is a more than adequate way to state my case as it has allowed me to further my argumentation and furthers my position. and finally, he once again brings up North Koreas Cyber program. I assure you, with a 600 billion dollar defense budget and a rather large amount being invested in our Cyber program, we will be more than a match for them. Rather than starting a large scale war, I believe we should develop our own programs to counter theirs. Less loss of life that way.
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

First, I would like to point out the flaws in my opponents' argument. They said "My opponent also brings up potential assassinations and terrorist attacks carried out by the North Korean government." Notice the use of the word potential. The attacks I am about to mention are not potential, they have already happened. Has my opponent forgotten of the widely covered assassination of Kim Jung-Un's half brother[1]? Has he heard that the North Korean government stole $81 million from a bank in New York[2]? (VOTERS) My opponent ends with a lie. "US to deploy THAAD missile battery to South Korea a source from 2017." Is it a source from 2017? No! It is a source from July 11, 2016. He attacks me on outdated information, and then provides it. The last and most major flaw, my opponent fails to provide an argument, only a rebuttal. To my argument, North Korea is not only a military power, but they are also a cyber power. It has now been discovered that they has ties to a bank heist in New York. How far will we allow them to push our buttons. It is time to draw the line and attack. North Korea views the U.S. as weak, we need to prove to them that we will do what is necessary to keep our nation, and our allies, safe. Sources (Actually from 2017) [1]-https://www.nytimes.com... [2]-http://www.foxnews.com...
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

My opponent has argued that rather than being our greatest military nightmare, WWIII would be our greatest accomplishment. (and indeed due to military alliances it would be WWIII) My opponent has as such argued that sending innumerable soldiers to their deaths for the sake of honor and pride is justifiable. When you adopt that mindset you have adopted a primitive, ancient, and archaic mindset. He has also pointed out that Russia is not an enemy. No. Nor are they a friend. They ARE however increasingly becoming friends with china. That was my point. The fact that they fight terrorism. (and support Assad) is not relevant to this discussion. next, My opponent accused me of dropping one of his arguments. This is not factual. The argument he claimed I dropped was encompassed in my point about N.K. nuclear capabilities. and that T.H.A.A.D. had not picked them up. well, one reason T.H.A.A.D. had not picked them up, was because they weren't there yet. It was the missiles in Japanese waters that prompted the deployment of T.H.A.A.D. Next, My opponent states that T.H.A.A.D. has not been deployed. I knew this to be false, so I followed the link he provided. It's two years old. My opponent has provided outdated information that is no longer relevant. T.H.A.A.D. has been deployed. My opponent also brings up potential assassinations and terrorist attacks carried out by the North Korean government. My opponent fails to recognize, however, that these attacks would be few and far between. North Korea would fear defectors (as they always have) especially now that one of their top diplomats has defected. Furthermore, the damage they could cause wouldn't hold a candle to the devastation that the war my opponent is suggesting would cause. My opponent has also stated that our allies won't have T.H.A.A.D. however, in a situation where war is inevitable (which it's not) my opponent would have to recognize that thaad was designed to be globally deployed at a moments notice. Also, I would like to answer my opponent's question about how I can say that N.K. nuclear weapons aren't a threat to our allies in Asia. Simple. the Missiles have to be fired from N.K. at which point they would be intercepted by T.H.A.A.D. as they are capable of shooting down short to intermediate-range missiles which according to all known intel, is all that they have. therefore, our deployment of T.H.A.A.D. in South Korea would cover all of N.K. nuclear attempts. I hold that in any case, against any enemy, war should always be a last resort. US to deploy THAAD missile battery to South Korea a source from 2017 https://www.army.mil...
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

My opponent said "I think we can all agree that a war with China (and due to their friendly diplomatic relations, Russia.) would be the United State's greatest military nightmare. " Would this be our greatest nightmare, or our greatest accomplishment? The purpose of WWII was to defeat communism, can we agree that North Korea and China are communist? Russia is no longer an enemy, they have helped in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist organizations with the U.S. Voters, I would like to point out a violation of the rules by my opponent. My opponent said " standard rules regarding dropped arguments apply." However, he dropped my argument of uniting with South Korea and my argument that North Korea almost hit a U.S. base in Japan. The missile that almost hit this base was not detected by THAAD. My opponent's main argument is that war is unnecessary due to the invention of THAAD, but this is false. South Korea has refused to pay for THAAD, leaving them vulnerable for attack[1]. My opponent also said "the increased development of N.K. nuclear weapons is not threatening." North Korea is unstable, how can you explain that North Korea's possession of a nuclear arsenal is not threatening. Our allies in Asia, as do out bases, do not have THAAD. My next argument is that North Korea is not only capable of performing nuclear attacks, but they are also capable of performing terrorist attacks[2]. Recent assassinations carried out by the North Korean government are signs that they are capable of performing them in the U.S. Sources [1]-http://thediplomat.com... [2]-http://www.cnn.com...
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

I will be arguing that we should not go to war with North Korea yet if ever. If we lived in a fantasy world where we could disallow nuclear weapons and allies, I would say: Sure! go for it! get the bastards! but we don't. As of now the Nation of North Korea is allied with a slightly bigger threat called China. If you recall the events of the Korean War where we did indeed go to war with North Korea, we almost had them beat when their sole military ally marched across the border and drove us back. I think we can all agree that a war with China (and due to their friendly diplomatic relations, Russia.) would be the United State's greatest military nightmare. While what goes on inside the border of North Korea is regrettable, we are in no position to invade. Now moving on to my opponent's case. My opponent has pointed out that N.K. has defied U.S. sanctions and that this is grounds for warfare they also tied this into their point on N.K. Nuclear program. the increased development of N.K. nuclear weapons is not threatening. With the deployment of T.H.A.A.D. (terminal high altitude aerial defense system) we would blow their missiles out of the sky before they got past their border. At that point, with them violating U.N. accords and being the obvious aggressor; China would likely not risk war with NATO over N.K. My opponent also has brought to our attention the anti-American propaganda that N.K. produces. again, I would point out that these threats are all talk. We could defeat North Korea but as long as we are the aggressor, N.K. allies (China and its allies.) would be justified on the global scale for declaring war on the United States. My opponent's main points have been over N.K. nuclear program but T.H.A.A.D. has all but neutralized N.K. nuclear potential. www.MDA.mil
Should the U.S. go to war with North Korea

I will be arguing that the U.S. should go to war with North Korea. North Korea has continued to progress in their nuclear program, despite sanctions, and plan to go further. The recent missile tests show that North Korea is planning for an attack. North Korea would have hit a U.S. base in Japan, if they would have fired from the eastern coast [1]. North Korea has repeatedly defied U.S. sanctions, which is ground for warfare [2]. Recent propaganda videos released by the North Korean government showing U.S. military on fire are signs of aggression. There is only one way to stop the advance of the North Korean nuclear program, and that is by uniting with our allies in the south, and going to war. Sources: 1-http://www.foxnews.com... 2-http://www.cbsnews.com...
Christianity is an Unreasonable Belief System

To believe in something as grand as "God" without evidence is incredibly foolish. To devote one's entire life to the understanding of this invisible creature, is absolutely crazy. Before science was our primary source of understanding, we were limited to our imaginations. We thought up in our minds, a story which attempted to explain what our purpose was. This story is the story of how God created me, you and everything we can perceive. Now, given the time period, this belief actually made sense, however, why in this day and age, do people still cling to this fairy tale? Science contradicts many of the primary teachings of Christianity, yet Christians believe that their local preacher who can "Hear the word of God" is a more reliable source than the Hubble Space Telescope. As someone who doesn't follow a particular belief system, when I look at all the world's religions, I ask the question "Which one is right?". When all the 4,200 religions out there insist that they are the only religion that is correct, ask yourself "Am I really foolish enough to try and pick one of these? And then go about my life making absolutely sure that everything I do is in accordance with a book?"