BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Federal Reserve should be abolished

R5-Unnecessary Pro didn't bother to go into detail in this point and merely said he should have, so I have nothing to rebut. R1-Punishes Innocent People/R2-Rewards Irresponsibility I addressed this all last round, yet Pro did not address my rebuttals. C1-Interest Rates "At what costs" cannot be classified as an argument. However, I'll answer that question with "a stronger economy", as proved throughout this debate by the Fed's abilities to prevent things such as deflation and prolonged recessions. However, Pro says that this a strong economy only benefits the upper class, while hurting those on a fixed income or those who saved. The problem with this thinking is that those on a fixed income may not even have jobs if there was a weak economy, and it would be even harder for them to live. For those who saved, one just has to account for the fact that when the economy is strong, interest rates are higher, and therefore savings accounts pay back more. C2-Inflation vs. Deflation/R3-Distorts Markets Pro did not address anything I showed last round of the dangers of deflation or my rebuttal to his claim it pushes the equilibrium to the right. However, it may be worth noting that if people are buying less and more are unemployed the market is not acting to its potential. R4-Macroeconomics is Pseudoscience Pro asks how can something can be good for one and then bad for all, posing saving specifically. As for saving, it's because the economy consists of people primarily spending and saving. Ideally, those who saved will later spend more and those who spent a lot with save later. However, if everyone does one thing at one time, the economy will either most likely form a bubble and amount debt or if no one's spending no one would have any jobs. Dropped Arguments: On top of dropped arguments already mentioned, Pro did not address last round: -Different sources of saving -Purchasing power vs. increase in wages -The real interest rate -Delayed purchases -Debt repayment -The whole contention, of bank supervision and regulation Conclusion: The Federal Reserve is necessary to keep a strong economy through changing interest rates, preventing deflation, and the regulation/supervision of banks. The Federal Reserve is not immoral, and if anything is moral as it keeps the economy strong, which is needed so people have money to support themselves and their families. For these reasons the Federal Reserve should not be abolished.
Obama Administration has recently been commenting/defending the collection of Verizon Phone Records

Most of the changes to surveillance law made by the Patriot Act were part of a longstanding law enforcement wish list that had been previously rejected by Congress, in some cases repeatedly. Congress reversed course because it was bullied into it by the Bush Administration in the frightening weeks after the September 11 attack. The constitution is diminishing right before our eyes. It violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy. Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide notice - even after the fact - to persons whose privacy has been compromised. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
Obama Administration has recently been commenting/defending the collection of Verizon Phone Records

I disagree with the Secret Data Collection because my conversations with my children and my husband are sacred. Knowing that my conversations are being heard and recorded makes me sick to my stomach. I am currently a customer of Verizon Wireless, since foreign companies own part of them and T-Mobile the government has access to ALL phone calls and that is a violation of our fourth amendment. The Patriot Act also affects all of us as students. Under the Patriot Act, the Attorney General now has the jurisdiction to collect previously inaccessible information including name, address, visa classification, academic status, disciplinary action, or criminal involvement from educational institutions about foreign students. According to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), about 200 colleges and universities have already turned over student information to the FBI, INS and other law enforcement officials.
Deadliest Warrior: Napoleon vs Washington

To conclude my argument, I will simply use everything you just said against you(except for with tactics). Weapons-Washington won the war despite the lack of good weapons. His entire army was just civilians. He had no formal Army. You assume that his weapons proved to be a weakness, but it actually proves Washington's superiority over Napolean. Both leaders won, Napolean had fancier toys that made it easier. Training-Washington proves that despite having a military with no training, he could still win. You have to remember, Washington led a rebellion. Rebellions are not organized and are virtually impossible to win. Napolean led an invasion, which gave him time to prepare. Morale-Again Washington won despite poor morale. Voters-remember, Washington won DESPITE all the odds. Napolean was always expected to win. In a battle with a low number of troops, Washington would be able to beat him hands down. As far as tactics go, Napolean invaded Russia during Winter. He got his butt handed to him. Oh yeah, when he tried to lead a rebellion after being bannished from Russia, he lost. Washington has more talent as a leader. Napolean just had cooler toys and more people.
Deadliest Warrior: Napoleon vs Washington

Washington would win because he could fight a battle using extremely small amounts of troops and he valued everyone of them. Washington fought and in part won the revolution using armies of less than two thousand. Napolean was known for massive armies and watching the battle from over a hill and he could care less if his troops fell. This will be bad for him with only two thousand men. Washington paid for the food for his troops at valley forge. Washington also managed to defeat the british army which strongly outnumbered him. Napolean just squished everyone with overwhelming might. Napolean would not have this overwhelming might in this case. Washington would win. Hopefully my opponent will return.
old songs are better than new songs

Look- I have to admit that some old songs are good, and some new songs are bad. But take "See you again" as an example. Now lets compare "See you again" with "Ballroom Blitz". Yeah, which one sounds better? See you Again. It's because you're finding popular, horrible songs like Watch me Nae Nae then comparing them with good, old songs like Come on Eileen. Second, You can't really say "Better", because as people, we all have different tastes and like different kinds of music. Someone might like Ballroom Blitz and Nae Nae, Who knows?
People do not value life in general.

A shame we're doomed to a mere 1000 characters. And citations to your generalizations? Contentions: 1.) Prove this. Man's improvement in modern medicine and decreased death rates only prove man's desire to live. Human productivity through the ages, whether in science, art, or philosophy, usually bears the intent to BETTER human life. 2.) This must be why we don't have a UN and why people don't ever donate to Africa. 3.) "without any regards to what is important to life." Value judgment, which I found to be again, a generalization, which no basis of argumentation can be formed upon. "People live for money." Think about what currency really serves. One earns money by working, which ideally, is to benefit human life. In turn, the worker is awarded money, which buys the worker food, shelter, clothing, and indulgences, which are to make the worker appreciate life more.
People do not value life in general.

I believe that people do not value life because. 1) People don't respect their own health throughout most of their lives. 2) People don't really care about other people's lives unless it is close to them. But they wouldn't care about that person if that person hurt them. 3) People live for money and just live day by day without any regards to what is important to life. What I mean by value life is to care about it.
Black lives matter is an illegitimate movement

well riots are movements , something to make it right again.well black matter lives believes that they are disadvantaged as compare to white people and rightly so. These movements are of course consisting of many people walking over a distance and more often than not ther are very passionate people also known as extremists.but just because of these group of people doesnt mean that all people are doing this "illegitimately".in fact there are many other riots one recent one is against donald trump and there are aslo extremists,white extremists so why do you pinpoint these african americans as wrong.it is extremely common.one person is not the same as everyone else. this furthre proves my point to show your arrogance and "dominance".
Black lives matter is an illegitimate movement

well you can always argue that statistics are what matters most and no circumstance.have you ever considered the actions of the american ancestors.they enslaved these african-americans.And it was very unfair since they didnt get the education,meant that they couldnt have ordinary jobs not considering the prejudice of the white people.as a result many african-americans then lived a life of crime.a choice that was based on survival.however now african americans have been given a chance to live a normal life although some prejudice still remains.they tend to be raised in bad environments and with a good reason of course.as you can see many african americans have indeed rose in society and will continue to do so in an even faster rate provided there is equal rights for all people and not some benefits of skin.your arrogance and many white people's arrogance can even be shown by the title of this debate.i hope you respect these african americans who may have been raised in a worse environment by you.they should be helped not be insulted for pleasure.i hope more americans can choose to help the minority not deport them sucj as in president-elect Donald Trump 's proposal.
Black lives matter is an illegitimate movement

When you consider 93% of blacks people killed are killed by black people*, blacks commit violent crimes at 7-10 times the rate of whites**, Heather Mac Donald writes in her book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe that in Chicago, IL, blacks committed 76 percent of all homicides, despite composing 35 percent of the city's population. Blacks also accounted for 78 percent of all juvenile arrests. Whites, who compose 28 percent of the city's population, committed 4 percent of its homicides and 3.5 percent of its juvenile arrests. Blacks are 10 percent of the population in Los Angeles, CA, but commit 42 percent of its robberies and 34 percent of its felonies. Whites make up 29 percent of the city's population, and commit 5 percent of its robberies and 13 percent of its felonies. In New York City, blacks committed "75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime," despite only composing 23 percent of the population, said Mac Donald in a Hillsdale speech. Additionally, 2009 Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers show that in 2009, "blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties." In 2015, blacks killed 6,000 other blacks. The numbers of blacks arrested consists with police reports.*** According to Jason Riley, wall Street journal "Black crime rates were lower in the 1940s and 1950s, when black poverty was higher" and "racial discrimination was rampant and legal." If it's not racism and poverty that are blame for the high black crime rate, then what is? Clearly the problem is not in the police force , it's in astonishingly disproportionate crime rates. *fbi report 2013 **bureau of justice statistics ***National Crime Victimization Survey
Debate me about anything

org! To be honest, I don't know much about what he believes, since he barely puts any specifics in his profile. So I will draw a random topic from the gutter that is my brain. .. The resolution, if PRO were to phrase it himself, is as follows: Moral beliefs are intrinsically motivating. He is PRO, and thus accepts this resolution, while I am CON, and reject this resolution. Simply put, I am arguing against motivational internalism, a doctrine that at the barest "believe[s] that there is some sort of conceptual or necessary connection between moral judgments on the one hand and motivations to act on the other. [1]" I reject this claim, and argue that there is nothing necessary about moral beliefs that motivate us to act. I'll let my opponent has his the say. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
Government investment in new technology impedes greater advances therein.

"I think hey should pay for other stuff our teck is good and i thin we should take a break from advansig" Can you clarify on "other stuff", "teck is good" (Assuming Teck = Technology) , and "take a break from advancing"? Assumption that technology is good, this is a relative statement. I can't begin to debate this because it is a "good" argument but because what is good, what technology or what about technology is good? Pay for other stuff? As in Government allocation of taxes for other investments? Be the allocation for paying off poor investments? I'm not really sure if you are debating me.
Government investment in new technology impedes greater advances therein.

Rules: 1- No Swearing 2- Numbers need citation 3- Historical premises need citation Resolved- Government investment in new technology impedes greater advances therein. Defined: -Government: The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed. { Not limited to the United States } -Investment: The allocation of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, as interest, income, or appreciation in value - "new technology " : The advancement of existing technology, or the creation of technology otherwise none existent prior to. - "impedes greater advances therein": The allocation of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns, falls short due to government's negligent allocation and wrongful use of taxes. This said, I will let "con" begin.
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

Firstly I would like to congratulate you lol. That is the strongest argument you've had. Now to assess your arguments… 1) What I was trying to imply with vague wording on the connection between minimum wage laws and discrimination is actually fairly simple. Discrimination will never cease to exist. We cannot change someone's beliefs or feelings. We can only influence them. There is no way to completely rid the world of discrimination. However, we can influence an individual's perception of a certain sex, race, or sexual orientation. I think minimum wage has a good influence on changing that perception. I prefer at least the comfort of knowing that I can make the *minimum* $8.50 (or whatever the minimum wage is) to a man's $10.50; not $0.50 to that $10.50. I have the comfort of knowing I can make at *least* that much money and that maybe, with hard work and determination, I can prove that even I, as a woman, deserve just as much as that man. 2) Opportunity to obtain "skills" is all around us. It presents itself everyday. My parents are middle-class citizens…with seven kids. They can't afford for me to go to college to obtain the skills and knowledge needed to get jobs in our society. Does that mean I end up on the street living off welfare? No. I have over $6,000.00 in scholarship money. I sought opportunity and found it despite my lack of skills. I am an average student, but I work hard. My determination to find something better for myself is what earned me that scholarship money. Being "low-skilled" did not dampen my chances of earning that money and creating my own opportunity. Those laid off workers can do the same thing. Without minimum wage laws employers are able to go back to giving jobs only to those who will work for the cheapest, usually immigrants. This still puts people out of work, probably even more so than the than the minimum wage laws do. Employers will raise prices as long as they can still make a profit off of it and there continues to be a demand for their product. If it keeps the economy rolling, then who cares? The real problem with our economy is the welfare system, not minimum wage.
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

1) You're completely nonresponsive to my argument that minimum wage laws to not actually provide a check on discriminatory wages. Just because women must make at least the minimum wage does not guarantee that they will be making the same as men. If you're looking for the comfort of knowing that you will make the same amount of money as a man with the same qualifications as you, then you should be advocating a law that mandates equal pay for equal positions, NOT a minimum wage law which at best would simply make the pay gap a little bit smaller. 2) I'm not saying that it isn't these peoples fault that they are low-skilled and in poverty. In fact I agree with you, but I don't follow your logic at the point where you say laws that will likely lead to them being back on the street is some how going to fix this problem. We agree that low-skilled, minimum wage earners will likely be fired as minimum wages increase because of the necessity by employers to cut costs, but you provide no warrant as to how this will lead to them getting a better job if they have no way of obtaining the skills needed to get a better job (again this is regardless of whether or not it was by their choice that they are in this position). And I believe welfare is a completely relevant topic for this debate since an increase in the welfare state is the inevitable result of minimum wage laws. In conclusion, the argument here is extremely simple: poverty stricken people will lose their low-paying jobs as a result of minimum wage laws and it is quite clear that this will result in an increase of the welfare state or that in order to retain these people as employees, employers will raise their prices and pass the costs on to consumers. Either way, working citizens will have less purchasing power and thus the economy will faulter. Minimum wage laws also fail to provide the check on discriminatory wages that you speak about.
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

1) As a woman and not yet an adult I would at least like to have the comfort of a minimum wage. This comfort allows me to have the knowledge that I will get at least as much as an adult male with the same work experience as I. Without the minimum wage the 1920's will be repeated. Employers will hand out different wages depending on skill, race, gender, or age. There is no way of knowing for certain that "a check on discrimination" can determine who is discriminating and who isn't. Can you imagine the chaos that would follow? Any one employee could go and claim that their pay is too low because their employer discriminates against them. Employers would then be at the complete and total mercy of their employees. Employees would be able to decide how much they want to be paid. Those payments can continue to grow at an obnoxious rate. As long as there is someone making more money than them, employees have the argument that they're being paid too little due to discrimination. 2) "Historically the low-skilled, minimum wage earners that [you're] talking about" were the ones who were at fault for their own poverty. "Historically" the people who emerged from poverty were the ones with hard work and determination. Both of these qualities are ones that America should be encouraging its citizens to have. If they are "low-skilled" they obviously aren't working hard at becoming skilled. Employers don't appreciate or hire anyone who isn't hard-working at what they *voluntarily* chose to do to make a living. Anyone with hard-work and determination can have opportunity in America. That is why "historically" only people with those qualities could emerge from poverty. Bringing up welfare is a completely different type of argument because I don't necessarily believe in that either. Welfare destroys the economy too.
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

1) I agree with your point that there should be a check on discrimination between the pay of men and women, but minimum wage laws are not the way to go about it. Not only do the harms of economy decline outweigh any possible benefits, but minimum wage laws don't even solve this problem. If there is a mandated minimum wage and employers assign this wage to women they will just pay men more than minimum wage and allow the discrimination to continue. Some sort of law regulating pay differential is necessary for that. 2) Your claim that getting fired provides people with an opportunity to find a job in which they are skilled is empirically false. Historically the low-skilled, minimum wage earners that I am talking about have been non-degree holders without any means of obtaining any form of higher education. Putting them back on the street will usually force them on to welfare. Supporting an even larger welfare system will inevitably result in higher taxes, taking money out of the pockets of working Americans, thus decreasing demand and having the negative effects on the economy that I spoke of in my first post.
Minimum Wage Laws Destroy the Economy

My view is that without a set minimum wage employers will have the leisure of handing out prejudiced wages. I personally do not want to be paid less than a lazy man when I am working a lot harder and more efficiently than that man just because I'm a woman. I see nothing wrong with what a minimum wage would do to America economically. You stated that "The employer must pass that cost on to consumers in the form of higher prices, thus decreasing demand causing decline in the economy or 2) The employer is forced to make cuts, the employees most likely to be cut first are the low-skill minimum wage employees, thus creating higher unemployment rates and directly harming those that the laws were intended to help". My answer to that is that these things will have the direct opposite effect on the economy than the one that you predict. In my opinion, the fact that employers will be forced to cut the low-skilled workers is beneficial to them. The fact that *all* employers will be forced to do this will create job opportunities for these "low-skill" workers to find a job that they will be considered "skilled" at, allowing them to hold that job and perhaps enjoy their work which is rare in today's society. With all these business having "skilled" employees, consumers can become better satisfied with their products which therefore reduces the need for raising the pricing of products. The default in our economy right now, in my opinion, is not caused by minimum wage but by the lack of sales in real estate. This causes a number of businesses such as the ones selling housing appliances to have decreases in the demand of their products.