BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.

Ignore the double forfeit round Once again, I apologize for forfeiting last round but DDO was down to fix the forfeit glitch so there was nothing I could do. My opponent, on the other hand, has not left his speech anywhere. So let me just go over the main reasons I'm winning this round. Here is my speech from last round btw: (http://hastebin.com...) 1. $10.10 All my opponent's evidence is arguing against a $15 wage but I acknowledge that a $15 wage is bad. However, I don't have to defend a raise to $15, only a raise, and if I prove raising it to $10.10 is good, then I prove the resolution true. Because the Konzcal evidence from my first speech supports $10.10 and my opponent never refutes $10.10, you can affirm off that. 2. Poverty outweighs any unemployment increases. Konzcal also covers this as does the Forbes evidence from Worstall. 3. Poverty is clearly bad and increasing the wage decreases poverty. With these three points going cold conceded, this is an easy affirmative ballot. Thank you.
Resolved: The US government ought to raise the minimum wage.

I stand by my view that the US government should not meddle in the payroll of businesses. In history the only thing government has shown it is good at is destroying perfectly good systems. Contention 1 is expansion of economy (http://www.forbes.com...) Let us take for a moment that your views are correct and the minimum wage was increased to $10.10. Businesses are able to support these cost and the world is happy, right? Allow me to ask this; how is it that the business is able to support these new costs? Many would say, "from the revenue that the company makes," and that is right. The revenue that is used to help and expand the business is what is used. The company is not making more money now it is making the same amount of money but with heavier expenses which would make the economy stagnant. Would it not? However that is in a perfect world because these companies are run by humans. These humans do not like to lose money and therefore counter higher wages with higher prices which merely defeats the purpose of the increase of wages and would only result in inflation. Contention 2 it raises the poverty among the unskilled and those new to the work force (http://americanactionforum.org...) while it would helped some people it would devastate a lot of people who actually need. the very system put into place to help the poor is the very one that will be their ends. this system only works theoretically much like evolution it can only work in theory. The reason it can only be a theory is because theories only have to be plausible and that is all this system is. And this debate is not what you think the minimum wage should be, it is should the government raise the minimum wage. so all your points based off of $10.10 have no foundation in this debate. The government is run by humans and only a humans intention is what matters, based off of you off point about ethics and philosophy, it does not matter how high they raise the minimum rate, right? It only matters the intention and because the government only has our "best" interest they can do anything. that would led to higher and higher minimum with higher and higher inflation rates. eventually ending with inflation to rival Germany in 1923 where 4.2 trillion marks was worth one dollar.
legalizing marijuana!

Oh whops. I thought that Pro was trying state that because tobacco and alcohol was legal, marijuana should be legal too. I misread his confusing statements.Anyways...Apparently my opponent is going to stick to his annoying paragraph arguments, and there are three rounds left... Oh god.==Refutations==1. Marijuana is "beneficial", not harmful.I think the best example of marijuana being harmful would be my opponent. Look at his grammar, his spelling, etc. Then look at the fact that he "smokes weed daily two joins a day" My opponent has to yet provide a reliable source for any of his claims. -He has claimed that he read a few books (Doubtful, lol) about marijuana. I'll bet that he misinterpreted data, if he actually read it, and is spreading false knowledge. Please post the exact book and the exact page...-He looked at pictures of brains. Smart - does Pro have profession experiance to judge what is a "good" brain and what is a "bad" brain.-Claims sucessful people smoke pot, but does not provide source-Claims that people losing jobs because of weed is a "lie" (Source? And this is also strawman fallacy...)-Uses anecdotal evidence about his own "health"-Claims he isn't addicted (But says that he smokes daily, and two joints a day)-Claims that he has documentaries on weed (Provide link)Other than that, my opponent failed to provide any other type of argument.==Contentions==Basically all dropped.
legalizing marijuana!

Well u know what the reason ur saying all that bull is because you are against legalizing it! Listen to Dr ron Paul has to say about marijuana I have purchased 4 books about marijuana and they all say a daily user of marijuana has less risks of getting getting any type of can then someone who doesn't smoke at all. I strongly disagree that we need crack down on alcohol and tobacco usage.I clearly said I want to increase the drinking age and increase the.tobacco ussage age to 21 and alcohol to 25. I went to a brain neurologist Dr.kantrell and she showed a brain of someone who doesn't smoke and some one that does smoke weed. The brain looked no different it was the same in fact when u smoke yes it might make u lazy but not permanently. The people of this society says that if if u smoke weed u will have nothing and u will loose your job and be.lazy. the people that are going to be lazy and looose there jobs are lazy anyways there.not not going to loose their jobs because of weed its.just a lie!!!! There are very successful people on this planet today that smoke pot its the most widely used illegal substance on this planet. Ur talking about heavy use I'm not. I smoke weed daily two joints a day I go to the doctor and I always get my blood pressure checlcked I am healthy and I'm never sick Ever. I feel great and I sometimes go a week without lighting up I have no withdraws or nothing not 1 thing its not addictive if u don't want it to be its a controllable substance and its something u half to get used to being high might feel weird and make u paranoid u half to learn to relax and be calm I don't have a smokers cough. Marijuana stimulates brain activity I have documenteries on weed all over my house and I heard nothing wrong about pot. Its a reliable resource that's grows in a natural environebt
legalizing marijuana!

It hasnt killed anyone we should be able to smoke our marijuana in peace and not half to worry about law enforcement busting in our homes!! regulate it and tax it just like tobacco and alcohol!!!!!! Our founding fathers grew hemp!!! everything was fine until 1937 what does the government thing they are doing?? and the study on if marijuana kills brain cells thats eca damn lie the put gas masks on those poor monkeys with little oxygen and their brains were shutting down due to lack of oxygen and were loosing brain cells i have been researching marijuana for a long time and i havent found anything that is really wrong with it its safer than any other substance in the world!!! There are no deaths contributing to marijuana! When people talk about marijuana they seem to talk about other Drugs, Im talking about marijuana alone! People the government has been feeding us false information for years!! Hemp has been used since the dawn of time and always has been used for medical purposes.Its the first cultivated plant on this earth. it grows naturally and i see no harm in this plant! Cave men used the herb to speed up their language skills and and the use of new tools and instruments and cave art!! It open the doors to greater consciousness! They say you can abuse marijuana and get addicted to it , you can abuse anything on this world. In the matter of fact marijuana used to be in every doctors being in the term of the century. Why make it illegal, why is it categorized as a schedule 1 drug and cocaine as a schedule 2 drug, so cocaine is better for you than marijuana haha "oh no its worse for you" says everyone on this planet they are crazy marijuana is not bad for u it heals people its a medicine. A former study at ucla says daily users of marijuana have less risks of getting cancer then someone who doesn't smoke at all. I agree with ron paul we are wasting our money on law enforcement on arresting people for possession and putting them in jail and calling them criminals and some go to jail for life because of marijuana!! they are not criminals and its just wrong because some go to jail for life and these murderers and rapists can get out thats just not right!! the government just doesnt realize what they are doing to this world!! I think the legal drinking age should be raised to 25 instead of 21. I think the age of tobacco should be 21 not 18. alcohol and tobacco kills more people on this world guess how many have died from pot No One!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pitbulls as pets

Firstly I would like to rebut the argument that every pit bull is nice, you even said it yourself, if there is a guy named Jerry that's nice, That doesn't mean that every Jerry is nice. Also did you know that Pitbulls kill one American citizen every 19 days, that's at-least 19 people killed a year. If that's only American citizens that are killed, imagine how much people could be killed global from them. Also did you also know that there at at-least 38 dog attacks per year, and 23 of them are because of the Pitbull. Also Pitbulls are banned in some states because they are a threat to most people. You did say that if a Pitbull is raised with affection, it will respect you, but what if someone doesn't treat it with respect. Dogs also remember all the bad things you have done meaning that if a slip-up happens, Pitulls might turn on you.
Pitbulls as pets

First, researchers say Rottweilers are if not as strong, stronger than pitbulls but nobody argues if they should be household pets. If you search on google, why pitbulls are good the first article that is google certified clearly states the following, "While pitbulls are not good guard dogs because they love people so much, they may intercede if someone threatens their humans. Pitbulls are a loyal, people oriented breed that thrive as part of the family, they are most affectionate with both adults and children." Just because a dog was brought into the world for one reason does not mean in the future, history will have to repeat itself, people mainly dislike pitbulls because they are uneducated about the love and affection this"s breed will give. For example, if you meet a man named Jerry, and he is a bully, that does mean every Jerry in the whole world is a bully. Everybody along with every dog is different.
Pitbulls as pets

I disagree that pitbulls should be a household pet. They were bred for killing which makes them unsuitable for a pet. you don't see tigers and lions becoming household pets because they are physically strong. Pitbulls are stronger than babies, pets, native species, maybe some teenagers, which means that when Pitbulls want to kill, it will kill. 1 in 6 families do own a pet, but they aren't pitbulls, more like a pug, a terrier or a Labrador because they are family pets and are better companions. Pitbulls are expert killers from instinct which makes them even more of a threat than other dogs. Pitbulls are also a problem for other dogs because no dog could stand up to a Pitbull when its in its attack stage because they were bred for it, its like how Retrievers were bred for retrieving ducks.
Pitbulls as pets

Many debate is the pitbull should be a household pet. I agree that pitbulls should be a house held pet. For starters, why can people have pigs as pets when they are considered wild or farm animals but not a breed of dog in certain places. 1 in every 6 family"s owns a dog so this just shows that dogs are the most common owned pet. So why can"t people own a certain dog, but can household a wild animal ?In the past pitbulls were used as fighting dogs because of their strong jaws and naturally forming strong and healthy muscles. Why should the past effect how we see people now, for example people know African Americans were slaves and in the world today they are not commenly called slaves, yes we all know their races past but they should not proceed to carry the label into the future, same with pitbulls. According to dog testing more pitbulls passed aggressive and territorial tests then the common and most loved golden retriever. How a dog acts is all upon the treatment and training, if a dog is treated with respect chances are the dog will not act out in violence and this goes for any breed of dog .
The Death Penalty

I will make just a very brief post since my opponent is still weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the positions for and against the death penalty. Several years ago, Illinois permanently banned its death penalty. Here's an interesting story which is primarily anti-death penalty in its focus from NPR: http://www.npr.org... One of the reasons given for the abolition was that the governor (Pat Quinn) couldn't find a "perfect system." Well, there is no perfect system of human justice. There is always some fallibility, some error which can occur in the judicial system. Is that a reason for abandoning any type of punishment to prevent criminal activity? Should we just throw our hands up and say, "Let them all free since we could have made mistakes in their trials."? Of course, not! That would be stupid. Near the end of the article, it points out that the last person in Illinois executed was convicted of mutilating and killing a 21-year old woman. Illinois also convicted and executed a clown who liked to volunteer in his community named John Wayne Gacy. Gacy not only like to volunteer but he loved non-consensually sodomizing young boys whom he could overpower. When he wasn't able to subdue and sodomize them or keep them quiet, he would permanently keep these boys and young men quiet...by killing them and disposing of their bodies. http://www.prairieghosts.com... So....was this a grave injustice to execute Gacy? Would it have been fair to tell all of the victims and their families that Gacy might have been wrongfully convicted and therefore should just go to prison? Should he have been allowed to become a "model prisoner" like he did the first time he was sentenced to prison...only to be paroled 18 months later for good behavior? Think about these questions and these issues and I look forward to further discussion with you.
The Death Penalty

The Death penalty should be abolished for the following reasons - The risk of killing the innocent - It violates human rights - Its morally wrong, taking someone's life is wrong no matter what - Most murderers aren't afraid of death, they'll never suffer remorse, which is actually helping them - It completely ignores alternatives, for example Jail life without parole - The so called "painless injection method" is getting very costly - The mentally ill are executed, rather then getting the help they need - The "painless injection" collapses your lungs before the person can scream, therefore showing signs on pain - There is no evidence that it reduces crime rates - Racial discrimination
smoking should be banned

All you did was repeat yourself instead of approaching my argument. Also as I have said people who start forest fires are already doing something bad. And if this ever became a law there would be way too many people smoking still that the law wouldn't be enforced, I mean you are talking about a lot of people that smoke. Smoking just needs to be enforced, like have areas to smoke instead of banning it. And my other comment that you did not answer, a lot of smoke businesses would go out of business leading to homeless people.
smoking should be banned

True, but I don't think that banning it will work. People who start forest fires are already breaking the law, making smoking illegal won't change the fires. Also you shouldn't be able to ban it there are those bad people but there are also the good people who smoke. Some people that smoke are good Samaritans. If we ban it it would be bad for both good and bad sides. Also it is very hard to get off of smoking, making people just illegally smoke it other than trying to quit. This would also never be banned because there are way too many people who smoke compared to people who do, and the smoke companies would go out of business since of the ban, making a lot of people jobless. Back to you.
America should expand nuclear energy production.

I will first defend my arguments and then attack what my opponent has said. 1) My opponent never really attacks my first contention about how this has worked in other countries so that still stands. 2) My opponent cites hurricane sandy and natural disasters saying that plants could be breached but the American power plants were not damaged. He also makes note of the disaster in Japan. (1) This was not because of a problem with Nuclear reactors but a problem in withholding high standards. These standards are getting met by the U.S.A. and no nuclear damage from sandy is proof. 3) If several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount. (2) Once built, nuclear power plants have advantages. In a gas-fired plant, the gas alone makes up 80% of the cost of electricity. So firms and consumers are very exposed to the wholesale price of gas.But at a nuclear power plant, the fuel is processed uranium, accounting for just 10% of the cost of production. While it may cost more to build it will be a good investment for the future.(3) My opponent says that the exuberant cost is a huge deal.(2)(3) This shows that nuclear power is able to be built for much less than what he has stated. This also shows that once it is built it is far more effective. He states that there is a very large safety issue with nuclear energy.(sorry for the long chart)(4) Coal " global average 170,000 (50% global electricity) Coal " China 280,000 (75% China"s electricity) Coal " U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity) Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity) Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity) Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy) Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity) Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity) Hydro " global average 1,400 (15% global electricity) Nuclear " global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush) As shown by this chart nuclear energy s by far the most efficient in energy per deaths. If it has the most energy per life lost it is the safest. I also use this rebuttal vs the waste management as it is causing next to no damage. My opponent never says anything that could take over the role of nuclear besides more gas and when we already have to import almost half of our oil this is not the right step. I would also like to say that the BP oil spill has caused an extreme amount of damage.(5) America needs energy and the only option is nuclear. http://www.theaustralian.com.au... (2)But if several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount. (3)http://www.google.com... (4)http://www.forbes.com... (5)http://www.forbes.com...
America should expand nuclear energy production.

(575)=evidence 8)= argument. This is just a brief key to make it more legible. I believe that the United States of America should increase the nuclear energy production for the following reasons. It has worked in other countries, It is not nearly as deadly as people say, America needs the energy and this is a cost efficient option. 1) For my first argument I would like to point to France. They are getting 77.7 of their energy from nuclear energy. (1)France is fine and they are using nuclear energy effectively and have had less negative environmental impacts than oil coal and other fossil fuels. This is something that America can move into as we do have examples and could follow Frances nuclear code as they have not had any huge nuclear problems. 2) The cleanest energy(3)(4) is by far nuclear power. We are not harming the environment and we are losing less lives than if we used different energy sources. 3) Nuclear energy is the most cost efficient energy in the United States. (2)We are at a time where we are in a state of extreme national debt and the cheapest energy option is by far the best. (5) We are importing 45% of our foreign oil and this is costing way more than the nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can fill this gap in energy production. The cheapest energy and the cleanest energy is the obvious choice.(3) Conclusion: Nuclear energy has proved itself by working in France as well as acting as the cheapest and the cleanest energy we have available. (1)http://www.nei.org... (2)http://www.google.com... (3)http://www.google.com... (4)http://www.google.com... (5)http://www.eia.gov...
Standardised testing should not be abolished.

Earlier, letsdebate1 approached me about debating, and we settled on the topic of standardised testing. Because of time constraints, I had to put it off until now. We hope it will be an interesting and fruitful debate!ResolutionThe full resolution is as follows: 'Resolved: Standardised testing should not be abolished.'Definitions Standardised testing: any form of test that (1) requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that (2) is scored in a “standard” or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students.http://edglossary.org...Rules1. Debate structure:R1: Con acceptsR2: Both sides present opening arguments.R3: Both sides present new arguments (if necessary) and rebuttals.R4: Both sides present additional rebuttals and conclusions.2. In general, all arguments should be posted inside the debate, but if you are really busy or there is a bug on DDO, I will accept arguments posted in the comments shortly after your forfeiture of the round. Sources can also be provided in comments.3. BOP is shared. I will prove that standardised testing should not be abolioshed. Con will prove that it should.4. If Con disagrees with any of these rules, he must inform me before accepting the debate so that they can be modified.Good luck!