BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Minimum Wage

R1: Ok my opponents rebuttal is really confusing. I would like to suggest to him in future debates that he use more clear examples. I think I got it. My opponents says that it would be at the disadvantage of the majority. This is not true. If prices and wages are lowered then that means money has just gotten more value. For example, in the 60's one quarter coulf buy a giant bag of candy now it can only get a tiny gumball. If this is not a adiquate answer then perhaps my opponent should use actual phrased rebuttals rather then whatever he has up there. R2: My Rebuttals section answered this. If the cost of food and goods is lowered along with wages, then chilld labor will not be needed. My opponent should get his computer looked at then, because the sources are working perfectly for me.
The Minimum Wage

Thanks for the response deathbeforedishonour.Rebuttals___R1. We must also take into account the effects of more money in less hands Here's an example:The X of Y averages 1 Z a year as the average per capita income.The population of the X of Y is 10.If one man took 5 Zs into hand, then obviously this comes at a loss to the rest of the X of Y.This, of course, leads to lower standards of living for the majority.R2. My Opponent really doesn't answer my argumentMy opponent hasn't actually stated why child labor is bad.I would attempt to answer his statements. Unfortunately, my opponent's sources are not working, and thus his arguments can't truly be answered.__Vote Pro!
The Minimum Wage

RebuttelsMy opponent says that a avaerage working class family would not be able to survive on the wages they make, because they would be to low and that children would be forced to work. This is not true. If the wages were lowered then all the stores would put out lower prices. This is because if people got lower wages then they would not be able to buy anything from the stores puting the stores out of bussiness, so in order to save there bussiness they would lower prices and the people inspite of getting lower wages would still be surviving. My contentions:C1: The national minimum wage raises the cost to employ workers. In order to make more of a profit the employers would cut working hours and jobs. This would raise unemployment and it does. Just look on the news, the unemployment levels are the highest they have been in 26 years[1]. Abolishing the national minimum wage would create more jobs, and would help bolster the U. S. economy. C2: Another good reason is that young workers would draw the short end of it and they do. A recent study says that the number of young unemployed workers (ages 16-24) has rose 27 percent[2]. Employers are highering old more experienced people in a effort to get more money. Abolishing the minimum wage would give the younger workers a chance. I can't wait to see my opponent's reply. :)Vote Con! [1] . http://applicant.com...[2] . http://townhall.com...
The Minimum Wage

Thanks for accepting deathbeforedishonour.A1. Unrestrained Capitalism Now, let's examine what the minimum wage does for a developed society. Take this hypothetical situation-John wants to work. Jack offers him a job at his coal plant.John accepts. Jack pays him 20 cents an hour for the job.John searches for a new job. He find that Jack has the highest pay rate in town. He is forced to continue working at poverty levels. __This is not a rare occurence in unrestrained capitalism. In 1900, the US average wage was 22 cents per hour. (Source 1)Let's examine what that earns you in a 16 hour day.3.52 a day, less than the current minimum wage.3.52 is near-poverty. Adjusting for inflation to 2011 is about 90 dollars a day. Despite this, here are my costs (not even including bills!) to live my existence-200 dollars a week for groceries.120 dollars a week for gas.That only leaves 310 dollars a week to pay my bills (which is several hundred short.) Obviously, even with cutbacks, a middle-class life cannot be led without a minimum wage.A2. Labor by Unfit HumansIf the average US middle class family can be ripped off at such a level, won't it make more sense to put everyone to work? Including women and worse yet, children. Children are not built to do heavy jobs. Despite this, if the family is in need, everything must me mobilized! Obviously, these money making measures do nothing to benefit human condition.__I await your response.Sources Cited__1 http://www.statcan.gc.ca...
Capitalism

Let me start by saying that private property is a right- and it is protected under the 5th amendment. My opponent claims that the right to property doesn't indicate private property as a right- however, the distinction between personal property and private property was only recently made by Karl Marx- and during the time of the Constitution property refereed to every kind of property. Furthermore, human rights are not granted by government- they come from God. Now in regards to my opponents argument, he seems to be under the assumption that workers are producing wealth and that employers are stealing wealth from them- which is false. Instead, workers are providing a commodity- labor- which is necessary for their employers to produce wealth. To say that employees should own all of the businesses in America is like saying that the oil companies should own every branch of industry in America because they provide all of the oil with whgich to power these industries- and are entitled to all wealth produced by their oil. If labor was the only necessity to produce wealth, workers would produce at home rather than work for someone else- but instead, they work for an employer because he enables them to amplify the productive powers of their labor, and therefore enable them to produce more wealth than they otherwise would have been able to. In exchanges for this, workers sell they labor to said employers for a lower price than its natural price, but still considerably higher than the natural price their labor would have had if they didn't work for their employer. If employees didn't see themselves as better off working for an employer than they do not working for said employer, they would not work for him. Instead, they recognize that employers enable them to produce more wealth and live a higher quality of living than they otherwise would have been able to achieve. Employers are not stealing from employees, because they are not diminishing from the natural productive power of their labor, but are rather augmenting it, and benefiting from said augmentation, as only mutually beneficial exchanges will occur in capitalism.
Capitalism

We've had a debate on this before, but I will debate you again on capitalism. My opponent mistakenly correlated capitalism with liberty. I doubt they would think state capitalism or crony capitalism is liberty, yet both are still types of capitalism. Really, it's libertarianism that has to do with liberty, not capitalism. If you have libertarian capitalism, then you can say that is about liberty, but so is libertarian socialism, which is what I advocate. I won't say anything else in this round since my opponent didn't offer much. I'll save my main arguments for next round. Plus, burden of proof is usually with "pro" for a given topic unless it is settled that con is taking a stance other than "not captialism". Since my opponent didn't say "capitalism versus socialism" I contend I do not have the burden of proof, since all I have to do is argue against the arguments in favor of capitalism that my opponent offers.
Capitalism

But it is merely according to John Locke that these rights exist outside of the opinions of anyone. In other words: it's the opinion of someone that rights exist outside of opinion. We, as a society, agreed to John Locke's ideas on rights, so by opinion of society, rights are not subject to opinion. We didn't need to agree with John Locke's ideas, and if we didn't, then the rights would be considered to exist outide of opinion. Again, the Two Treatises on Government is all opinion, it's not factual or objective. Granted, it's widely accepted opinion, but it is, nonetheless, still opinion.Capitalists de facto do decide whether you get to eat at night. Because we live in a capitalist society where the only viable options for making an income for oneself is to either be the business owner or the employee, capitalists are the ones deciding whether you eat at night. Again, what other alternative is there in a capitalist society? It's either work under someone, or make others work for you. If you go with the former, then capitalists decide whether you make a living. If you go with the latter, then another capitalist(which is now you since you chose to be a capitalist) gets to decide whether you eat at night. As for whether the workers are part of the business, it's simply applying it to definitions. Let's look at a definition of the term business, the one that is applicable to this situation. It's " A commercial operation or company."[4]How are the workers not part of the company? Without the workers, there would be basically no company. They are vital for the company to exist, so it makes sense to conclude that they are part of the company. The workers are required for the operation of the business. By having a single person own the company, they essentially own all of the workers too. Socialism would free people from this slavery, and allow you to own yourself, to own the products of your own work by transfering the means of production to whom it should belong.[5] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... (see definition 2.2)
Capitalism

Rights are not subjective to the opinions of anyone- not the government and not the people. 'Rights,' are in actuality liberties which exist inhereintly. The proof for this is found in that link I posted to John Locke's 'Two Treatise on Government.'Capitalists do not decide whether or not you eat at night- they do get to decide whether or not to preserve a contract which is benefical to you, and are likely to terminate said practice if it ceases to benefi them. If you hire a person to keep your house and yard clean, you should have the right to terminate such a contract if your employee ceases to work according to a certain standard- that is not tyranny, because its your property and your money. The workers are not part of the buisness- they are just providing a commodity which the buisness uses. The buisness refers to a fictional entity which owns certain properties, and is actully a proxy refering to its shareholders. The workers are not a part of that- just like the ol industry is not part o thesteel industry, and the steel industry is not part of the fork industry.
Capitalism

My opponent doesn't seem to understand natural rights: they come fron Natures God,the Deistic God, and are thus caled natural rights. John Locke explained it in his Second Treatise on Government:http://www.earlymoderntexts.com...Regarding the rest of my opponents argument- capitalistsmaking decisions for their company, without the consent of the employees, though these decisions afect them, is not tyranny. The capitalists buisness belongs to him or her, and he has the right to make decisions regarding his own property. Government nly demands the consent of the governed because government makes decisions regarding our lives, as opposed to a capitalist mking decisions regardin his own life that have effects upon others. The capitalists actions, ultimately, only have an effect on others by implication, rather than directly. This is just like all other actions done by people, as everyones actions have an effect on others. If I decide to spend at Joes shop rather than Jims shop, or if I decide to boycott Jims shop, these actions will have an effect on them, and yet this is not tyranny because I have every right to spend at whatever shop I want, or to boycott any shop I want, as it is my money. Jim and Joe are only making exchanges with me, so though my actions may have an effect on them. Jim and Joe have no right to mandate what shop I buy from. Likewise, workers are only making exchanges with employers, so though temployers actions have an effect on the employees- the employer is only making decisions regarding his own property.
Capitalism

Nonetheless, there is nothing that guarantees the right to have a privately-owned business in this country. As for the claim that rights come from God, this is ludicrous. From which god do they come from? And if you say a specific one, why is that god any more legitimate than other religion's gods? The problem with getting rights from "god" is that there are thousands of gods, and thus everyone has a different idea as to what rights that god grants. Rights, in reality, come from what is generally agreed upon on in a society. The evidence of this is that each society has different ideas as to what rights are. China has different ideas as to what rights they deserve than the United States, for example. Italy has a different idea too, Mexico has a different idea as well and so on. The difference between the oil industry example my opponent brought up and the workers, is that the workers are directly working for the company, which directly expands that company. The oil given to other companies from the oil industry is an indirect expansion of that company. For example, while the oil workers worked on that oil and then that oil is used to benefit other industries, this is too indirect to claim that they would have right to own all other industries which use oil. The worker, on the other hand, directly works for an employer. In addition to a worker being entitled to the product of their labor, I believe that consent of the governed is vital not only for government legitimacy, but economic legitimacy. In a capitalist economy, no worker gets to consent to the decisions that the business owner makes, even those decisions can affect them. This is tyranny. Now, while there are things the workers could do to stop this, it shouldn't have happened to begin with. I mean, peasants in the dark ages also had means to put an end to an unjust rule, but that was often through rebellion or civil disobedience. Similarly, while workers can strike or have labor unions work on their behalf, these are not the ideal things. Why waste work on those things when the workers could just own the company jointly and this problem would be solved? If we relied on labor unions, this is money and work wasted, since the solution to have workers own the company would get rid of that unnecessary money and work from a labor union. Additionally, a strike would end up pausing production in that company for a while, which is also unnecessary. Why not keep the production going by having the companies organized as worker cooperatives, that way strikes and unions would never be needed again? In summary, capitalism doesn't give consent from the governed like other economic forms could. I contend that since it is generally agreed upon that governments which do not give consent to the governed are tyrannical, so is capitalism. While one could argue that workers do have consent, for they choose which employer to work for, this still doesn't mean they get a voice when it comes to the decisions made by the company, and these decisions often affect the employees, which makes them the governed.
Everything In the Bible Should Be Taken Literally

My opponents argument is only applying to people who are not christen. My case can be applied to all religions, because no matter what religion you are, when you read the christen bible, you should not take it literally. Also, my opponent has failed to state why faith is harmful. Faith is very beneficial. For some people faith does have something to offer. People get a lot of things out of having faith, they find strength, hope, etc. If anything, religion is what brings out any good in people's hearts. All moral conduct, norms, and virtuous standards are spawned from religion after all. And what about the good religion has done? How many charities can you name that are secular or were started by a secular group? The Salvation Army, Red Cross, etc. were established by religion. In fact, almost all aid that goes into poverty stricken places, or places hit by disasters, is spear headed and done by religious organizations. Religion is not some bad thing, or pointless thing that has shown no results. There is a place for everything, and everyone will have their own beliefs and perceptions of those beliefs. That is, after all, the cusp of individuality. Also, the bible does not need to be taken literally to be proven false. The whole concept of a supernatural being is baloney. Also, if you agree with the CON side, you can say that the WHOLE bible cannot be taken literally, therefore proving it to be false.
Everything In the Bible Should Be Taken Literally

Too many minds are won into oblivion by the destructive force that is faith for us to continue letting it wiggle around in metaphor uncontested. Take the Bible literally when it says Pi is 3, that the Prince of Peace has not come to bring peace, or any other falsehoods or contradictions, and fewer people will be snared by it. Reason only operates when dealing with the literal, and Reason is the only counter we have-- let faith wander free of it, and it will have people renouncing the earth in favor of the being that's supposed to have struck me by lightning several times right now. It takes reason to notice I haven't yet been struck down.
The doctrine of Purgatory is Biblical

Resolution: The doctrine of Purgatory is BiblicalAs Pro, I will affirm. Con will negate.DefinitionsFurthermore, I declare, I proclaim, I define that 'Biblical' is to be taken as meaning 'In agreement with the scriptures.' [1]RulesFirst round is for acceptance. No trolling or profanity. I must be a Catholic.Sources1. http://www.debate.org...;
Israel should take down the fence

I thank the honorable opposition for taking part in this debate and would like to begin my constructive arguments in refutation of this resolution. It is usually proposition's job to introduce the resolution and model under which the debate will take place, however, today I will be introducing the debate. I would like to now define the debate. The fence in consideration is the west bank barrier between Israel and Palestine that runs along the armistice line of 1949 (the green line). As the opposition I am here to prove that this barrier has in fact been beneficial to all parties and therefore must not be taken down. In order to prove this I would like to bring forward three main contentions. In this first round I would like to express one main contention, that being, the protection Israel has been able to provide itself since the construction of the barrier in comparison to the chaos that would return if the barrier was taken down. As well, I would like to explain the reason the wall was put up in the first place. Since early 2000 until the idea of a security wall was proposed over 850 Israeli civilians died in countless suicide bombings and attacks made by the Palestinians. In 2002 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel decided it was time to protect his state after deadly suicide bombings, and the way he chose to do this was by putting up a barrier. Israel did not want to build a fence, and resisted doing so for more than 35 years. If anyone is to blame for the construction, it is Hamas, and the other Palestinian extremists. Now a large majority of Israelis support the construction of the security fence; in fact, both Jews and Arabs living along the Green Line favor the barrier to prevent penetration by thieves and vandals as well as terrorists. The fence has also caused a revolution in the daily life of some Israeli Arab towns because it has brought quiet, which has allowed a significant upsurge in economic activity.The Israeli people had become target practice for the Palestinians, where radical Palestinians would shoot people while they were driving on major highways and target large cities like Tel Aviv to gain the largest amount of casualties. Post the building of the wall however, merely eight people have been killed in terrorism related incidents, this is a visible difference of the benefits this fence has. Side proposition will have you believe that this is a great burden on the innocent Palestinians but if you look at the grand scheme of things Israeli people were being killed something that is irreversible whereas the hardships the Palestinians are facing are reversible and they have been getting better. This house needs to realize that it was the fault of Palestine's leaders and extremists that this wall went up. This wall was not a revolutionary step, for Israel has borders with many other countries so any notion that this fence is more political than security is invalid. I digress and await side propositions rebuttle before sharing my final points of construction.
Israel should take down the fence

Lets look at the history of Israel. The State of Israel appeared by the general assembly of UN in 1948. The territory of present Israel originally was a territory of Palestinian nation. The green line is an artificial border that's been set without taking the rights of Palestinians on this land. And their rights were proven not only by facts, but by aspect of the problem. The territory that is on the other side of the fence named territory that's been occupied by Israel. UN's resolution #242 says that Israel has to move back from the occupied territory to the borders that were accepted in a year 1949. However Israel never done that. Also Israel doesn't strictly hold the fence that they've created. As an example we can take the highway #1, which crosses the Green Line in the region of Latrune. We also don't have to forget that Palestinians were never acting as aggressors. They were only responding to the actions that Israel made. Lets just remember the case when a sniper from Israel shot Palestinian boy who was walking to school. That case proves that Israel reasonably holds the conflict in order to keep the territory that's been stolen for Palestine.