BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum wage is better off the way it is now.

Before we start, you have your math wrong. For 7.25 an hour it is 15,000 dollars a year because 7.25 X 8 X 5 X 52 = about 15,000 and for 10 dollars it would come out to about 20,000. In theory this sounds like a good idea but it isn't. If we raise this then more people will be able to get by by doing the bare minimum. Then this creates less motivation to work hard and get a good job. Why spend all those years of hard work in college to become a doctor if you could just get buy with working at a fast food restaurant. Minimum wage is meant for younger people not older people too. A man in his 30s, 40s, or 50s should not be making minimum wage to support his family. A man with a family should have a job that requires at least some type of degree and hard work to get into. If this man can just work at Burger King to support his family then he will not work hard to get a good job. Raising minimum wage would bring us closer to a socialistic or communist society where everyone is equal.
Minimum wage is better off the way it is now.

I would like a debate where I as the con suggest we do increase minimum wage and the pro that minimum wage is good at what the price is today. to make sure were on the same page Today: 7.25 a hour and 40 hours is full time on averaged 10,000 is what people make on minimum wage yearly If it was 10 dollars: full time would still be 40 hours a week and is on average 15,000 dollars a year
Pick your own debate - 1C

Thank you for a thorough response. I agree with all definitions given. "What exactly does my opponent, and Benjamin Franklin, mean by the phrase "good"? Without the context being supplied, "good" can mean a lot of things, and it turns out that this entire debate hinges on it's meaning. For example, I can argue that a war is good for those who like to kill, thus fulfilling my burden. This, of course, is viewed as simple semantics and my opponent should rest assured as I will not take this path. Instead, I will define good as "moral", or "justified". I'm almost positive this is what my opponent means by the phrase"good"." I do not believe it could always mean justified. Killing someone may be justified, but that does not make it good. Rather, I take it to mean moral. "How was this war justified? Because America did nothing wrong in this situation. They were the victims all the way, from the moment their ships were being attacked, to when they agreed to pay up, until they finally set their foot down and defended themselves. This is a justified war because America did not partake in immoral policies, while the Barbary states did." The Barbary States DID take part in unjust acts, and they were part of the war, this did, in fact, make the war unjust. I do not think that, in this conflict, it was necessary for 35 people to be killed due to the actions of the Barbary States. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Every war starts with a unjust action, making the war, in its entirety, unjust. People should not have to die because of a unjust action.
Pick your own debate - 1C

For further notice, simple notify me in the comment sections so I can change it before you accept. Anyway, for this debate, I will choose the first topic: RESOLVED: "There has never been a good war or a bad peace". Since my opponent is PRO, then I am obviously CON. Therefore, if I can prove that there has been "bad peace" or a "good war", then I have won this debate. [Word - War] [Source - . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] [Definition - (1): a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2): a period of such armed conflict] *NOTE*: I won't define peace because my argument, as con, is that there is a good war in history. ==================== Context specific problems with the word "good" ==================== What exactly does my opponent, and Benjamin Franklin, mean by the phrase "good"? Without the context being suppled, "good" can mean a lot of things, and it turns out that this entire debate hinges on it's meaning. For example, I can argue that a war is good for those who like to kill, thus fulfilling my burden. This, of course, is viewed as simple semantics and my opponnet should rest assured as I will not take this path. Instead, I will define good as "moral", or "justified". I'm almost positive this is what my opponent means by the phrase"good". However, the next problem is evalutationg whether or not a war is good. How do we tell, or how can we judge, a war in ethical terms? I hereby argue that to determine whether or not a war is justified is to A) look at the intentions of the instigators+participants and B) look at how they carried out their acts of war. Now onto my examples: ==================== Examplle: Barbary Wars ==================== In this particular conflict, the Americans were first harassed by the Barbary States to pay them some tributes in exchange for them to stop attacking American ships. However, demands rose and soon the United States refused to pay up - resulting in the Barbary states attacking them. Eventually, however, America was able to push them back and a treaty was signed[1]. How was this war justified? Because America did nothing wrong in this situation. They were the victims all the way, from the moment their ships were being atacked, to when they agreed to pay up, until they finally set their foot down and defended themselves. This is a justified war because America did not partake in immoral policies, while the Barbary states did. ==================== Conclusion ==================== By offering at least one example of a justified war, I have held my burden. It just depends on what point of view one takes to decide whether or not a war was justified. ---References--- 1. . http://www.globalsecurity.org...
Pick your own debate - 1C

This is my first debate in a while so bear with me if I'm rusty. I realized that this is only a three round debate and not four like you planned, but it will go the same way. RESOLVED: "There has never been a good war or a bad peace" I am PRO -Benjamin Franklin RESOLVED: The Electoral college should be replaced with another system I am PRO RESOLVED: The beatles were the greatest rock band in history I am PRO
Pick your own debate - 1C

If you have participated or read any of these types of debates before, then this one should be no different. However, for those who haven't: ROUND 1: This obviously includes my opening introduction and rules. For my opponent, he/she will post 3 topics he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please try to add a mix of subject. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of three positions my opponent proposed. It should follow throughout as a normal 3-Round debate. *NOTE* - I realize that politics are almost undoubtedly tangled with social issues, but a somewhat cut between the two would be fine. By politics, I imagine topics such as what is the best political system, what role does the government play, economics, taxes, so on and so forth. By social issues, I imagine topics such as gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, so on and so forth. *NOTE* - The "1C" notation is for purely for browsing purposes. If there's any concerns or questions, leave it at the comments sections.
Pick your own debate - 1C

"How is justified not mean good? Justified is defined[1] as "[demonstrating] or [proving] to be just, right, or valid", which obviously is synonymous with good. If I can justify a war, then I can show that it is a "good" war. Remember, giving a reason for something is not the same as justifying something. " If a war is justified, but the end result is bad, that makes it a bad war. "To evaluate whether or not a war is good, I argue that we must look at it from a utilitarian perspective. As any historian does, we need to observe how the war has changed history, and to what extent. If the results of a war bring a greater amount of good than it took to go through it, then I argue that the war is a GOOD war. A justifiable war. " We also need to look at another thing. Could the same result be achieved through a peaceful approach? This would make the war pointless, and therefore, bad. "My example is the American Revolutionary War. While blood was shed, and tears were drawn, it resulted in the formation of the United States of America. Despite the controversies and wars during it's history, as any countries history would have, the USA -- I would argue -- is overall a benefit to mankind, to the world. One war brought upon the formation of a great nation, how "good" can that get? !" The United States of America could have been formed peacefully. My proof? Canada. Canada was owned by Britain and gained the right to self government in 1849 without war. The result could have been the same for the USA, and lives would have been saved. (. http://www.infoplease.com...) "For example, let's say a man planned to murder someone who killed his brother - an act of revenge. He confronts him, gives some Hollywood-esque lines, and blows the suckers brain apart. A definitely horrible situation, right? However, we find out that the murder victim is actually a GANG LORD BOSS! OF THE YAKUZA! THE HIGHEST RANKING OFFICIAL! This man's revenge has actually saved the lives of potentially thousands of people - this, we would call a great situation" Say the police were already planning to arrest the man. Would the situation still be immensely good? Someone still killed another person in cold blood.
lepricons

My opponent starts off by saying "it" is lepricons. However, if you look up "lepricons" in the dictionary you get nothing. It may suggest you to "leprechauns" but since the title of the debate is "lepricons", we are basically debate nothing. So my opponent is trying to convince you guys that "lepricons" exist, but since we do not know what these things are we can't possibly know what he is claiming to exist. Next, my opponent says I accused the audience of being on crack. Actually, if you looked at the speech in my first round you can clearly decipher that I was accusing my opponent of being on crack. Since my opponent could not comprehend that argument or any of mine, you can clearly tell that he is on crack. Since my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments, I urge a con vote.
lepricons

Duh, "it" is lepricons. weren't you paying attention. That's the title of the debate. you do not know what "it" is and I'm telling you it is lepricons. Gosh! I did not accuse any one of being on crack. I accused YOU of saying that the audience is on crack. Looks like someone is not paying attention. It was 2505 yesterday for me. I went back in time to worn you about the lepricons but you are too busy debating the existence of a thing called "it". I hope that Stephen King is on your side at least, despite the fact I basically won and Dean Koontz is on my side.
lepricons

My opponent tries as eloquently as possible to refute the point I made earlier. He says I am just jealous I did not see it. However, the problem is I do not know what "it" is. Even for things from myths, and fairy tales are still not found in the dictionary. Therefore, since we have no conception on what "it" is, I could not possibly be jealous. My opponent also tries saying that he is trying his best to give coherent responses. However, I suggest to him that he either use the "check your spelling feature", or go back to school. Against my second point, my opponent completely misunderstands it. I just put it out there as another point that they could look at if they did not buy my first one. However, since my opponent is now accusing the audience of being on crack, you must clearly decipher that he is the one on crack. Finally, my opponent refers to himself as "Proffessor Kimm", but the only way he could be a professor is if this was 2505 and the movie "Idiocracy".
lepricons

Well, I would like to state that you must have a vary good dictionary if it can redirect you to something different. Mine wont even give a definition to lepricon. anywase because I is tarribibles at forminging a coherints responses Iss try my bestest at giving my statements making senses. I would also like state that just because you didn't see one leads me to believe that you are just jealous that you never saw it. I have reached said conclusion through my flawless deductive reasoning. 1) some people are jealous 2) I saw it and you did it 3) Because I saw it and you didn't you are jealous "Plus, if you do not buy that argument, my opponent is on crack." This sentance also makes little sense sense. Just because the audience does not by your arguement does not mean that I'm on crack. mabye they are the ones on crack; they are the ones who don't buy your argument. I know, I know. you are outstandid by my impeccable statements of wisdom but what did you expect from Proffessor Kimm
lepricons

lepricons do exist I found one in my back yard and I beat it with a shovel....riggghhhttt before sasquash saved it from its iminant doom. Do you believe me because that dude on the side of the magic class doesn't although he likes to copy me but I know he doing when I'm not looking. I've tryed using an other glass to see but the a-hole on the other side is doing the same thing.
Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics.

There is little I can do. My opponent has forfeited round 2. (Ooh look! Now I'm some sort of poet). I would like to apologize for calling my opponent's case nonsense. However, I still cannot see a way that it applies to this debate. -------------- Apathy, or the lack of interest, towards politics leads to the ability of governments to establish tyrrany. -------------- Unconditional pacifism, or the refusal to be violent in any situation, leads to the fall of a government. Such a government is replaced by a mroe detructive one. -------------- Both results are dangerous, or able to inflict injury or harm, to a people. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Therefore, the resolution is affirmed.
Apathy and unconditional pacifism are generally dangerous approaches towards politics.

I accept burden of proof. Apathy- lack of interest or concern http://www.merriam-webster.com... pacifism- opposition to war or violence of any kind http://dictionary.reference.com... "Apathy is the slow poison coursing through the body politic that paves the way to tyranny." -Laurence Overmire Part I: Apathy When a people do not care what their government does to them, they are more likely to tolerate it. People gradually take more and more until they are victims of tyrrany. Being apathetic is the ultimate cause of tyrrany. If such a thing occurs to a people, it is often because they were apathetic. Apathy leads to tyrrany; therefore, it is a dangerous approach towards politics. Part II: Pacifism Often times, violence is justified. This is especially true when a people are being attacked by a group that does practice violence. The group that is pacifist will tolerate this violence towards them. Ultimately, they will be abused and ultimately ruled by the very people who were violent towards them. Pacifism leads to being ruled by foreigners who care not for your people. Part III: Conclusion When a people tolerate too much, their situation gets worse and it effects their lives in dangerous ways. I'll leave it there and await an opponent.
In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

Well firstly before you think you won the war no pun intended,you asked the question could America "USA" win against any country in a total war, and guess what i brought up the country China you want too know why?becasue thats a country that could take on and stop America in its tracks in a total war.With that i'll try to make it quick having total war with country is a terrible thougt i think we both can agree on that :) however having total war with China would not be a good thing for either country your claiming that America could take on any country in my arguement im using China so America verus China your saying it would be a breeze to take on China with out any agrucultural and or industrial without it destroying us? If so you really need to learn a thing or two about economics. =========Conclusion=========== The pont im trying to say is it would be a tie America cant live without China China cant live without America you are really beeing foolish to say America would completely destroy China,but then agian everyone is entitled to their own opinion my opninion is America wouldnt win against any nation in a total war there's not one country that could do that in the 21 century.I've enjoyed debating you considering htis was my first debate on this site so i thank you for allowing me to learn more about random things,so please people if you understand where im getting at then vote for me :) Im trying to say it would be a tie America cant live without China China cant live without America you are really beeing foolish to say America would completely destroy China,but then agian everyone is entitled ti their onw opinion my opninion is America wouldnt win against every nation in a totaw theres not one country that could do that. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both. ~Abraham Flexner
In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

The reason why China wouldn't win is because while their army is sizeable, their airforce and navy are extremely lacking. Their navy don't even have blue-water capability yet. As you can see, my opponent resorts to one argument; that the situation of Iraq shows how an inferior country can take out a superior country. He concedes that the USA military has superior technology. =====Counterarguments===== >>>Cost of the War on Iraq<<< The only reason why the war on Iraq is costly (though not even in comparison to other wars) is because this IS NOT a total war for the following reasons: - We are trying to create a political system there, not raze the entire country - We are having a conscious effort not to kill citizens, not to kill every human being in sight - Our Marines are being put in a position they aren't used to, guerilla warefare (discerning terrorists from civilians), this is a job for Special Forces. In a total war, there is no care for this. >>>Deaths<<< "There are over 4,000 u. s. deaths since 2003 and over 30000 wounded " ----> First of all, this isn't a lot of deaths in comparison to other wars. However, the only reason we have these numbers of death is because we are trying to recover th country, not annihilate it. If it was a total war scenario, then the USA can easily destroy Iraq (look at the initial invasion and how quick that took). We would just bomb and bomb and bomb it to rubbles. Then send in our Marines and let them do what they do best, shoot everyone in sight. >>>Vietnam<<< The Americans, militarily speaking, were doing fine pushing back the North Vietnamese. However, when the NV's decided to go urban warefar and take vital places (such as Saigon), then politically speaking people in America wanted out. America lost the the Vietnam war for political reasons, not military. >>>Interrelationship<<< "so militarily yes America could possibly destroy China" ----> This seems like a forfeit to me. It doesn't matter whether or not the destruction of China will be economically bad on America. This is a TOTAL WAR SCENARIO. A total war isn't a war where people go "hey, they make our toy guns! ". A total war is "we are going to annihilate you like Sherman did in the Civil War". "China which by the way is 3,704,4272 sq mi" ----> With the advent of 21st technology, this isn't so much a problem anymore. =====Conclusion===== My opponent makes the faulty comparison of the Iraq war to this hypothetical total war scenario with China. IRAQ AND VIETNAM ARE POLITICAL WARS. If we were in a total war with Iraq, the destruction will be so fast it will take a few weeks probably. My opponent concedes every point I have made, of America's military superiority.
In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

You do make a lot of good points on this topic so good in fact i almost thought i had lost :P ,however let me finish with this. [Definition - Total War] "1. Total war is a conflict of unlimited scope in which a belligerent engages in a total mobilization of all available resources at their disposal, whether human, industrial, agricultural, military, natural, technological, or otherwise, in order to entirely destroy or render beyond use their rival's capacity to continue resistance. http://en.wikipedia.org... thats the true definition of total war then let me say this. =============Counter============== 1.)The war in Iraq has given us a bill of over 585.6 billion dollars since war was declared on Iraq. 2.)We spend over 200 million dollars a day for this war. 3.)And those don't even count the war in Afghanistan which would be a total of 872.6 billion dollars. Now then with that said America is already and growing larger in debt by the second with a whopping 53 trillion dollars in debt because of one of several reason which would start a whole new debate.Now the reason why i brought those numbers up is because in Iraq we are facing a very different opponent this opponent uses i.e.d's and ak-47s or ak-74's and straps C-4 to a car and ram it into allied vehicles.There are over 4,000 u.s. deaths since 2003 and over 30000 wounded thats not even including soliders that get Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 1 in 8 soilders get PTSD and theres roughly around 160 to 200 k soldiers fighting Iraq i can imagine how bad it would be fighting China remember what happened in Vietnam? I used China for a good reason and that reason is because China and America are so dependent of each other if they were to go to war they would in fact destroy each other so militarily yes America could possibly destroy China. Industrial, agricultural no.I mean come on can you name me something popular that isn't made in China?And besides that i'm not even factoring in the sheer size of China which by the way is 3,704,4272 sq mi. compared to Iraq's 169,234 sq mi and the dense forests ect ect.. http://www.nationalpriorities.org... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://www.armscontrolcenter.org... http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com... http://mwhodges.home.att.net... http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.antiwar.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com... http://theiraqinsider.blogspot.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.blurtit.com... =============Conclusion================ I've focused much on China because I firmly believe that they are the only country that could take on America in a total war. We have each other by the balls and if either one of us moves we would be seriously injured.....
In a total war excluding WMD's, the USA can defeat any other country.

Its very simple in the 21 century any country that isn't a third world country and posses a fairly good military could technically take on America IF they were defending for instance if America had total war with China and America was attacking they would lose no ifs ands or buts ,granted it would be a bloody war but China would win, biggest army in world they have quality and quantity ,plus they know their country fairly well and America's military isn't exactly equipped for that type of environment,however would say this if any country was dumb enough to invade America it wouldn't work thanks to the 2nd amendment and if I have too the "National guard". So essentially you really need to specify on where this total war is taking place.