BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Legalization of Prostitution

The focus of my debate is the legality of prostitution, should government arrest and imprison pimps, prostitutes, and their clients? My stance is that no it should not and that if it does try to interfere with the industry it will result only in creating a violent black-market. Which is why I used the familiar comparison of alcohol prohibition; the alcohol industry lost its legal protection in the courts so in order to settle disputes rum-runners formed gangs and shot it out on the streets. On top of this violent gang culture that was created, Americans paid little attention to the law and kept right on drinking. The repeal of prohibition made sense, it shut down a dangerous black-market and since government was no longer "dealing with it" local community organizations like Alcoholics Anonymous were formed and have had far more success in reducing alcohol consumption than any use of government force ever did. Is there any solid reason to think that these same social results would not also occur for the sex industry upon the repeal of anti-prostitution laws? I do believe prostitution can be ended but it must be ended through individual choice, not government force. I agree that poverty plays a part in women choosing the industry, but that's no grounds for outlawing it completely; tackle poverty as a separate issue via shrinking government and allowing the free-market to create jobs and wealth. It is true that there are women who do not consent to prostitution, and if that occurs then that is justly punished as rape. Does it make any sense to lock women up in prison to free them from slavery? As I have stated above a competitive market of legalized prostitution would minimize sexual slavery and whatever force does occur can be reported to police and she will receive legal protections as any other person would. The laws against prostitution have backfired and actually endangered many women, their speedy repeal would protect women by shutting down a violent black-market
The Legalization of Prostitution

prostitute: a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money; whore; harlot.I will commence by outlining the scope of this argument as seen by me. My opponent seems to be concerned about the impact of laws against prostitution on the society as a whole. He freely admits to prostitution being a vice- there is no doubt about it. This must logically imply that my opponent considers prostitution to be immoral, and therefore it appears to me that he has decided to take a pragmatic stand on the entire affair. To the extent of my understanding, he asserts that the laws against prostitution seem to have made no difference in the amount of illegal activity that is observed even after their implementation. I will assume the empirical data provided by him to be correct, for the sake of argument. However, to be taken seriously, he should also be able to procure enough data to prove that were prostitution not illegal, the number of prostitutes would either diminish or at least remain nearly the same.All of this, though, is beyond the point. The trouble with my opponent is that he appears to have lost all hope for bringing prostitution to an end. He believes that since prostitution as an institution does not seem to 'go away', eliminating it is now a moot point. He overlooks the fact that generally women involved in prostitution do not actually desire to be prostitutes. Alcoholism in this manner, is completely the opposite. What, instead, my opponent should focus upon is eliminating the cause of prostitution instead of prostitution itself. Since prostitution is coitus for money, I believe poverty is one of the main causes of prostitution. My intent is not to iterate each and every such cause, rather to point out the correct path to tackle this problem.I wait for my opponent to make a valid appeal towards (or against) this direction. Since allowed character count is low, I pass on my argument to the next round.Thank you.
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States

Sorry if I rushed your debate. Now with your final statement I agree with some of your points. Now lets see what points I agree on. Your first point about everyone not getting a raise I disagree with. I made many examples about why you would raise a welders wage because jobs harder and they would be getting payed the same as a McDonald's work if it went to 15 dollars per hour. This is the wage welders gets when welding is harder more physical then working at McDonalds. So it just logical in order to keep workers you need to raise the wage. I agree that a raise in minimum wage will increase more robots production. I personally believe that this is good for business but not for the low paying workers excluding labor worker. It will block out a lot of the low paying jobs. But still the minimum wage raise will affect the other wages. It will make a large employed phenomena but it will be in the long run. Faster but not overnight. I personally believe if minimum wage doesn't raise maybe in 10-20 years but if minimum wage raises then maybe in 5-10. My personal idea though. Hyperinflation. A word that represent big works in economy or a feared word. Now will minimum wage affect hyperinflation. yes. But I believe that it's not minimum wage causing it. This corrupt government made it. Minimum wage helps everybody even the rich. This country is working for the rich not the middle class. I'll tell you the rich will make these lies. They are the one getting rich and protect by the police. What do we get being in middle class. Nothing. We are living where the rich is getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This will help the middle class and lower. We are working 48 hours a week and can only support food, water, and bills. We need more money to live a life. Rich will stay rich. They just would make a little less money. They will get a better products. Better games. Better food.
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States

Thank you for your reply in the comments. I hope that the quality of my argument does not diminish, but I am rushing my argument due to the fact that I only received your argument 4 hours from my deadline. My first point is that any job that requires skill does not pay their workers minimum wage. Minimum wage is for unskilled workers, who cannot conduct any other job. I do not see any reason why the change in minimum wage would come with pressure from people who work for minimum wage. I agree that robots are a reality. My argument is that it will push the development and implementation of these robots. When you force companies to make decisions, they will develop quicker and implement these robots quicker. Small businesses also cannot implement mechanical labor. They will have to layoff workers or close down their business, which will then eliminate jobs, therefore job cuts will still happen. If you read the definition of inflation and hyperinflation, you may notice that hyperinflation can be bad or horrible. The hyperinflation that was in the civil war and and the revolutionary war was horrible hyperinflation. This may not cause that level of hyperinflation but it will still cause hyperinflation. Hyperinflation in the U.S. is a certainty within the next 10 years.[1] Hyperinflation is caused by crises that make it difficult for the government to tax the population.[2] Unlike low inflation, where the process of rising prices is protracted and not generally noticeable except by studying past market prices, hyperinflation sees a rapid and continuing increase in nominal prices and in the supply of money, and the nominal cost of goods.[3] The raising of the minimum wage would force layoffs and create inflation in the prices and the currency cost, so it will cause hyperinflation. This is why raising the minimum wage will cause hyperinflation, and through that, is why raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy and must not happen. Sources Http://www.forbes.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.forbes.com...
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States

"To raise the minimum wage you legislate a law where EVERY COMPANY must raise the wages of all of its workers to that wage or above. If you change the minimum wage to $10.10 no company can pay a worker less than $10.10." I disagree companies need to raise people's wages. If you're getting paid 15 dollars and hour in a welding career what would be the difference of working at McDonald skill level McDonald is easier to work at so the company would raise your wage to 17-22 dollars in order to keep workers not going to work at McDonald. That's my point its will just happen without the government forcing companies to raise people's wages. "On a completely unrelated note, the American dream is meant to be for Americans. People immigrating from mexico to america do not deserve anything, and especially should not get to decide on our wages. The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, the set of ideals (Democracy, Rights, Liberty, Opportunity, and Equality) in which freedom includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few ... https://en.wikipedia.org... On the definition where does it say Americans are the only one allow to have the American dream. The American dream is followed by my uncles and mother. They work there butts off and you say they don't deserve the American dream. My mother work in landscaping with my uncle for a while now she has a house cleaning company that is successful. My two uncles Juan and Victor are living the American dream right now. My uncle Juan owes one of the best landscaping business in Merced county he has work on Hector a wealthy multi millionaire Mexican who followed the American Dream. My uncle Victor is here to support his family in Mexico. I'll tell you now the work harder than you. If they had the money they would do better in college then you. They are better than most Americans. "I will not actually explain what happens when you raise the minimum wage. If you raise the lowest amount a person can get paid, the company must pay them more. To compensate for this, the company may raise the prices of its products. Due to this, the only product of a raise of minimum wage is inflation, it does not actually benefit anyone." I want to see the source "But raising the minimum wage actually harms people. Companies cannot afford to pay the workers more, will replace them with machines. Then the workers are unemployed. Once they are unemployed they claim more unemployment benefits. Coupled with the fact that the government cannot actually replace their workers so pays them more, the government will lose money." This information is slippery slope which is a fallacy so therefore invalid. Are my other points right? like better society If you feel like Mexicans aren't able to follow the American dream I question if your even america or just some businessman who believes in money. If my second idea is right this debate will be interesting.
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States

Thank you for your speech. I look forward to a good and informative debate. To begin, I do not think my opponent understands minimum wage based on his statement: "minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy. If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then no one will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise." To raise the minimum wage you legislate a law where EVERY COMPANY must raise the wages of all of its workers to that wage or above. If you change the minimum wage to $10.10 no company can pay a worker less than $10.10. On a completely unrelated note, the American dream is meant to be for Americans. People immigrating from mexico to america do not deserve anything, and especially should not get to decide on our wages. I will not actually explain what happens when you raise the minimum wage. If you raise the lowest amount a person can get paid, the company must pay them more. To compensate for this, the company may raise the prices of its products. Due to this, the only product of a raise of minimum wage is inflation, it does not actually benefit anyone. But raising the minimum wage actually harms people. Companies cannot afford to pay the workers more, will replace them with machines. Then the workers are unemployed. Once they are unemployed they claim more unemployment benefits. Coupled with the fact that the government cannot actually replace their workers so pays them more, the government will lose money. The costs of raising the minimum wage are high and it provides no benefits. This is why the minimum wage must not be raised.
BIRT minimum wage should be raised in the United States

I accept the challenge. My argument will be that minimum wage raise would increasing society. My points -More money to spend so more money that will go to entraining, movies, and gaming. -Increase in most wages For example minimum wage pays 10.10 to pizza guy If McDonald's doesn't raise it price to the manager of McDonald's which is about 10.00 in Illinois to 13-16 dollars then noone will take the job. So in reality everyone gets a raise. http://www.snagajob.com... -America Dream If your come out of Mexico and work in the field hard and can't even support your family there is a problem -Their be a job cut Yes and no Some career would not have jobs cuts for example a teaching Career Think about will a school cut jobs. Would they cut one of their two best teacher forcing the last one to work harder and possibly quitting. Which brings my other point there will be a job cut but the manager will be thinking what jobs aren't needed or workers that don't work well. -Prices will raise interest In this article its states that walmart would raise the prices by one cent. http://thinkprogress.org...
The Christian God exists (3)

I'd like to say that I accidentally made this debate three rounds instead of four, so It'll be a little short. I'd still like my opponent to write "no round" for the third round, however because this will be so short I will allow my opponent to counter-rebut any rebuttal I have made in the third round. No new arguments though.Thanks to miadm.13 for accepting. Finally I get to debate someone my age. I'll move onto your arguments now."First Off, if there is no God...then where did we all come from? I am not sure what your views are for the beginning of the world...but if you believe in the big bang, then you must consider the origin of that "bang.""We're both proposing an uncaused cause with this. Mine is the big bang, Pro's is God. The big bang is the far more likely cause because there is a lack of evidence for God, while we can see after effects of the big bang. Also, I could turn this argument right back on its head by saying "if you believe in God, then you must consider the origin of God"."It could not have come out of nothing. I personally do not believe in the big bang...or evolution for that matter."Why not? If something cannot come out of nothing, then where did God come from? If he was always there, wouldn't it be simpler if the universe was always there? Why add in God? Also, the big bang and evolution are not really related, besides the fact that they're both theories."But the facts stands that we are all here and that we came from something."Well, the second "fact" is not a fact at all (why did we have to come from something?), and we assume the first fact to make living life in this universe easier. How do I know that everyone else isn't a projection coming from my mind, or that life isn't all just a dream? I have to assume that this reality is, in fact, reality in order to make progress in it and better my life."That something is God. We have to accept that there is a higher being out there...because we are just too complex for coming out of nothing."The big bang theory doesn't state that we came out of nothing, but even if it did, why are we too complex to come out of nothing? Wouldn't God have had to have come out of nothing, and isn't he much more complex than us? It's so much simpler if the universe is the uncaused cause."My point is: The origin of the world came from God. It could not have started out of randomness or could not have come out of nothing...because something or SOMEONE had to put it there."Why did this have to happen?
The Christian God exists (3)

First Off, if there is no God...then where did we all come from? I am not sure what your views are for the beginning of the world...but if you believe in the big bang, then you must consider the origin of that "bang." It could not have come out of nothing. I personally do not believe in the big bang...or evolution for that matter. But the facts stands that we are all here and that we came from something. That something is God. We have to accept that there is a higher being out there...because we are just too complex for coming out of nothing. My point is: The origin of the world came from God. It could not have started out of randomness or could not have come out of nothing...because something or SOMEONE had to put it there.
The Christian God exists (3)

This is a debate about whether or not the Christian god exists. I will be refuting arguments from my opponent, who will have the burden of proving that the Christian god is real. Rounds 1-4 are all for claims, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals. Since I would not be able to refute my opponent's fourth-round claims, I request that they write "no round" in the fourth round of the debate. You can use any type of evidence, or you could simply use logic and reasoning to make your arguments. I await my opponent's arguments.
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

What makes it wrong Matt is that they are being taken advantage of. These people are telling them lies and making them commit suicide. You don't see adults doing this and the children are doing it because they are way more manipulative. You can tell a child how good something is and what it can do for them and lie because they know nothing better. But if you tell this to an adult who knows better they would not do it because they know they would die. But some would do it for their country and what they believe in. Being easily manipulated, children do not know what they are in for, therefore they cannot think for themselves as well as adults can. They are told lies right from the beginning starting with school. They are told committing suicide is allowed, so they do not know what the adults know. I do agree with teenagers just wanting to fit in and following the norm as they are told so. In the Quran it says to not kill, why are these people killing their own citizens? Why would these people go against their own religion? All of these questions start to appear and it makes you wonder.
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

Just cause a innocent child has been killed it war doesn't make it wrong. War is wrong, war cannot be undone and countries will do anything to come out on top. So if it is so unethical to do why does every country do it. yes most don't use there own children in warfare, but most nations have killed other nations children for no reason just because they were apart of the enemy's nation. and just like how you said, They did nothing to deserve to die. Just cause the Taliban use there own children doesn't make them any worse. Tragedies happen all the time and the world is so focused on suicide teen bombers when people don't even know that there own nation is killing incident teenagers as well too.
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

There is absolutely no way that it is ok for children to become suicide bombers. They are innocent and harmless and cause no harm to society. I believe they should not be involved, especially being lied too and committing suicide. In the school systems, multiple students are also being told that committing suicide is allowed which is totally wrong. It would be ok if they are fighting in the war, but they are just being killed by their own people and are being taken advantaged of. Also I do not think that the parents were threatened to put their kid into school. I think they sent their children to school and without knowing what the teachers teach them, like suicide is allowed, and they will go to paradise. Also one of the kids said gods name was written on toilet paper which is very disturbing and wrong. Overall, kids should not be suicide bombers because they are innocent and harmless and people are just taking advantage of them which is wrong.
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

Ok Marc I really like where your coming from, with the "lies" part, I completely get with what your saying. But the thing is when you really say lies, are they lies. For example you said the teachers taught them to do suicide in order to go to paradise which I found at 16:59. The flaw in your reasoning is that, that's there religion and that's what they believe in, in there society. That's just like our religion in Christianity. We have a set of rules that we need to follow in order to go to heaven/paradise. So that's why I don't really think its lies when it really comes down to it. That's why I don't think there "lying" to these suicide bombers, I just think that's what there society believes in most and that's just a way in how they treat war, is that there willing to do anything to win it, even though its costing young lives, For example look at Hiroshima in WW2. American troops bombed Japan killing thousands of innocent little children, for no reason what so ever, That's why I think The Taliban using kid suicide bombers is ethical and okay to use. Its just a typical strategy for war that some organizations use in this world to get ahead
the talabias usage of child suicicide bombers in this video cannot be excused by anymore reltavism

Matt, I agree with what you said, your reason was valid. I only agree with part of your reasoning being teenagers. They are old enough to know what is going on, but they are also told lies. As you heard in the video, the teen said that they told him suicide is allowed and they will go to paradise. Also the younger kids do not know what they are doing. They are just told what to do by their elders and they listen. Their elders do not even tell them that they are going to be blown up into pieces, they tell them they are carrying secret documents. I believe they are just doing what they are told to do, because that is what most children do, they listen to what their elders say. They have absolutely no idea because at a young age you do not know much especially about religion. So I think that the teenagers have an idea but only because that is what they are told to do. The younger ones have no idea they just do what they are told to do.