BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO should employ features similar to Facebook 'Likes'

To address your position that DDO is not a social media site, I refer you to the Tufts University definition: "Social media refers to the means of interactions among people in which they create, share, and/or exchange information and ideas in virtual communities and networks."(1) By definition, I assert that DDO is a social media platform. As you said, "it is a site for[...]today's issues." Well, certainly I agree. And, in fact, I would call this social commentary, despite your objection to the term: "Social commentary is the act of using rhetorical means to provide commentary on issues in a society."(2) The DDO community is intelligent enough to vote on merit. Given that DDO is a public social network for all to share their opinions, I believe that the only way to guarantee a free, democratic exchange of ideas is to permit other members to contribute through open dialogue. (1) [http://webcomm.tufts.edu...] (2) [http://en.wikipedia.org...]
DDO should employ features similar to Facebook 'Likes'

DDO should not employ a feature similar to Facebook's "like" button. Contrary to what my opponent stated, DDO is not a social media site, nor is it for "social" commentary, it is a site for intelligent discussion or today's issues. Although it has a few benefits, the harms greatly outweigh them. For one, judges might be persuaded to vote with who has more likes even though their opponent has a better argument. Also, all this would end up becoming is who supports what. That is what the big issues are for. It would add confusion to the site, and all for what? a feature that already exists. Instead we could have pre-made debates on all of the big issues, with more fluid votes that feature some tie in with your actual opinion, and voting before the end (such as per round or continuous). Of course these could not count toward users's ranking, or only votes after the end count. I have shown why I think your wrong, and what my counter proposal is, now onto you.
DDO should employ features similar to Facebook 'Likes'

Short and sweet! - 1000 characters - Try not to be verbose - 2 rounds only My contention is the following: DDO is becoming an important community for social commentary. As such, I am of the opinion that a slight increase in social media appropriation is desirable. What I want to see: - A function similar to Facebook 'Likes' for debate arguments, perhaps framed as an "I Support This" button to express to debaters how their argument is being taken - A comment section for debate arguments - Comments can receive Likes (or "I Support This", etc). Potential problems obviously include: - Weak debaters being assisted by the community and not debating for themselves, although this could actually be a good thing. - Vitriol is more likely to arise in the heat of debates. That being said, perhaps the functions could be turned off by the creator of the debate, and also members can currently post in the comments section anyway, this would just be more in-line. Think I'm wrong? Better ideas?
Raise The Minimum Wage

"Productivity is not due to workers, rather technology"I was getting ready to concede this point as for me I thought this would be common knowledge but upon further research this isn't actually true. According to the U.S Department of Labour Statistics, We are not producing as efficient because of a lack of automation. "CEO deserves much more" I am not denying this but the gap has expended drastically and clearly as the average workers pay has increased the CEOs has increased tenfold. As I have shown in the previous graph the margins used to be much closer but now they are expanding to absurd amounts. This clearly shows a problem in the current system with revenue allocation. "What will they be purchasing?" Commodities of all sorts of course! The whole premise of capitalism is that we have infinite wants but finite resources when we provide an individual with more resources they will attempt to equate that with their infinite wants. They will fail to reach their goal of permanent satisfaction. Thus, rampant consumerism."Government subsidies"Some government subsidies are needed for things such as emerging technology or alternate fuel sources but giving poor people money out right is a broken window fallacy. You will take money out of the federal budget and give it to others just to have them put it back into the economy and eventually, back into the federal budget via taxes. This won't solve anything and it will certainly not help increase the lower class' propensity to consume in the long run."Little effect on reducing poverty"The problem with these studies you have listed is they don't represent the long run effects.For example: "A 2012 analysis of the New York State minimum wage increase from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour found a “20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals."This study only studied the short term effect of increasing the minimum wage. Unlike the NELP study that I listed was over several decades. They also failed to show a direct link towards aggregate unemployment and the minimum wage."Increase unemployment"My opponent utilised an example of American Samoa which has an extremely low population and thus the division of labour is much more homogeneous. In this case yes, unemployment would increase because the local economy is not very diverse at all. But this example cannot be used as a tautology to the greater American economy where the division of labour is vastly more heterogeneous.I shall await your response.
Raise The Minimum Wage

Alright, so I am going to go through the reasons I believe increasing minimum wage would be beneficial to society.1. As productivity has climbed marginal compensation has rise very slowly with it. As we can see from this graph, in the past few decades we have increased our production capacity by a stunning amount yet hourly compensation has risen very slowly with it and has even stagnated and decreased. Meanwhile, CEO pay has greatly increased only dropping significantly during the 08 crash If productivity increased by this much you would think not only the ceo, but the average worker's pay would go up by similar margins but that is not evident. A rise in minimum wage would help this gap close. 2. Increased aggregate purchasing powerWith an increase in minimum wage those living on minimum wage would have the ability to purchase more. As we can see from this graph, the average purchasing power has gone down significantly and while that has happened we have been unable to fully compensate through an increase in wages. And it is very difficult, to live if at all on a minimum wage at 7.25 an hour.[1]3. It will not increase unemployment.Contrary to popular belief among Austrian economists, raising minimum wage does not increase unemployment. Why? mainly because there are only around 1.3 million people (in the United States) who work for minimum wage.[2] So a slight addition to the cost of labour to a certain group does not significantly shift the aggregate supply curve for the labour market. Here is some evidence for my claim. NELP (National Employment Law Project) conducted a study[3] and found that for the 22 times the federal minimum wage was raised from 1938 to 2010, the majority of the time employment went up and the times it went down can easily be attributed to the natural business cycle.This itself should prove that increasing minimum wage has little effect on unemployment and if anything, brings it down.Here is a piece of modern empirical evidence for my claim. Seattle not too long ago increased their minimum wage to $15 an hour and we can already see that unemployment has actually been low and today it hovers at a measly 4% [4]For these reasons, I believe minimum wage should be increased gradually.I shall await for you to present your reasons and why it should not be raised.sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [1]http://poverty.ucdavis.edu... [1]http://www.nelp.org...;[3]https://ycharts.com... [4]
Hunting: Ethical Activity or Sensless Slaughter

Hi Bill, I negate the resolution. I believe that hunting is a wrong murder. I am not saying that it is a senseless slaughter but it is not right for one to kill other organisms. Of course there could be an exception. For example, when you are lost in a forest and need something to eat or you will die. I know this is kind of extreme but if it is not a extreme case, I think we should not kill any animal. They have the right to live too since God made those creatures too. We have the power over them but it does not mean that we can do whatever we want to. This is why I negate the resolution.
Hunting: Ethical Activity or Sensless Slaughter

I believe Hunting is acceptable when done for the the purpose of usage of the animal while teaching and acquiring greater skill, controlling population densities, safety, and income. I however do not believe it to be acceptable practice to kill for fatuitous pleasure. Pro: Will defend the statement above, and refute Cons arguement. Con: Will give reason that no hunting should be acceptable in society today, defend their reasoning, and refute the above statement(s). R1-P: Opening Instigation R1-C: Rebuttal, Reasoning, Opinions R2-P: Rebuttal, Reasoning, Opinions R2-C: Open Forum R3-P: Open Forum, Questioning R3-C: Answers, Questioning, Open Forum R4-P: Answers, Closing Arguements R4-C: Closing Arguements Please remember, Opinions are welcome! Thank you! -Bill
F#CK OFF with your juvenile liberties America.

I can only assume that you have considered the fact that musicians sell out to the corporate leaders as to not devote all financial gains to the cause. Yes, this is so, but as to be of fame is a curious game that leaves you with castles in the air, as to sell one's self out. Is to be away from the masses of followers that crush any that pull the stars down from the heavens. Is this of what you address this debate? Try any song of the as far as music existed be it hitting two rocks together as to clap one's own hands or stomp one's own feet. Or to dance the night away. As to mention a few bands of that era as music is but a reflection of that current time and events of or an era. Bob Dylan, Peter Paul and Mary, Cat Donavan, Little Richie, Malvina Reynolds the list goes on, please excuse me as I have or should have done more research into bands of change throughout history. If you would like to add more please add them to comments. And if you are questioning my sanity then guess what it must be 2far4u2. Free will; I don't know you. I only know of you. If I ever knew myself at all. Say what you mean and mean what you say is not mean it's meant from the heart. Sometimes we need to be cruel to be kind and don't forget the golden rule. Wisdom is to have the ability to have a structured conversation with the village idiot and accepting that tomorrow it's my turn to be the village idiot. Explaining complexities in the simplest manner is just like nuts and bolts. The hardest part is knowing how to put it all back together. It's just fundamental principles that create the missing link and it's JUST fundamental principles that are the missing link. Faith is going into a dark room looking for a black cat, knowing that it is there because of its meow. Religion without science is blind; Science without religion is inhumane. Wisdom the unconditional love of philosophy STOP sign. I love myself, I think am grand, when I'm all alone I hold my hand. I think one day I'll marry me and try and raise a family. If something come from nothing isn't anything possible. In the beginning, there was only darkness, until he came out from behind our own eclipsed minds and showed us the way home. The tongue is as a double-edged sword it cuts both ways. Practising; Empathy, Humility, Sympathy and Cooperation throughout life, creates an understanding of the surroundings that we are subjected to, doing this teaches us to talk to each other, so we can speak with each other and not at each other. Peace be with you.
F#CK OFF with your juvenile liberties America.

I'm going to be honest with you. If I'm trying to argue that this song changed things than I can't prevail. But I'm not honestly sure what exactly the debate is. But, I think you misunderstood this song. You seem to believe McLean hoped this song would change everything. But that is clearly false. McLean is a sane human who understands that his song was not going to stop politicians from believing one thing or doing another. The song is just his cry for help to say. The premise of this entire thing is flawed. You present this to me like McLeod failed in an effort to change the world, but how can one fail at a task they never were aiming to complete?
F#CK OFF with your juvenile liberties America.

All I ever hear coming out of a sepo's gob is who yanked the chain fluffy? Get with the program, you circle wankers at least try to clean up your own backyard. Don Mclean sang this song how many years ago and has anything changed? NO. Try and prove me wrong and I will but have the biggest laugh that I have had all week. The proof is who you voted in to be your president. We had our turn with our own but he wasn't there long. We Kangawallabies all thank the man with the head for the job, that had no comment.
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

My case stands firm. I will explain why this is the case and refute what remains of my opponents arguments. -Entertainment Industry- I have provided statistics on the revenue generated from the entertainment industry in R2. Pro believes we should have tossed this 31 billion dollars in revenue, so that we can invest the 1 billion that takes to run it into what he believes are better causes. Although, he fails to mention what possible causes this money should go to, and why it would be more beneficial than entertainment the entertainment industry. -Benefits- Pro concedes that there are indeed entertainment technology that are beneficial (like video games), he simply thinks there is a better way to obtain these benefits. Now, while there is nearly always an alternative method of achieve similar goals, that itself isn't a reason for why we should do away with one or the other. Pro also fails to explain why people who already have these benefits shouldn't use video games in the first place. -Freedom- It would seem Pro is against peoples freedom to invent what ever it is they want. He essentially believes that if it can be abused or cause harm, it should be banned. He believes we should all have to live optimally healthy lives regardless of what we actually want. Even though Pro admits that entertainment technology can have benefits, and also fails to show why its bad to simply use them on occasion, he still believes that these things should have never been created. I ask you the reader, has he really justified his position here? "Rebuttals" B1. We can speculate all day. Unless you have an argument though that's based off more than speculation, you have no evidence that these people could be doing other jobs that are more beneficial than the ones they are already doing. B2. Pro has completely failed to prove the world would be better without entertainment technology, he simply looks at all the special cases of the irresponsible people abusing this tech, and thinks it should never should have been invented. People abuse all sorts of entertainment, Pro seems to think that this isn't true, but one look at otakuism in american or japan makes it very evident that there are hundreds of thousands of people who spend their entire day indoors reading manga/books or collecting figurines [1]. Pro can speculate all he wants about how someone could have lived their lives better, but until he has proof that they would be, it's just speculation. B3. I thinks its rather obvious that inventions have killed people. This doesn't follow they should never have been invented though, not by a long shot. It's like arguing cars should have never been invented because someone could die from using them. Pro goes on to say that he actually has used foot/endnotes correctly. This is not true. Foot/endnotes go at the end of a document or article not scattered throughout the middle. Like feet, they appear at the bottom. Perhaps he has confused each of his contentions for an article. Either way, the resolution is negated. [1] http://en.rocketnews24.com...
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

Rebuttals: 1. Money. I stated the entertainment industry takes up lots of energy which could be used for more beneficial things I personally do not care about the cost. 2. Technology is relevant here cause it causes the addiction. Con stated reading should also be banned if video games are but I say this video games are quite addicting it's even in the top ten most addicting things. I'd like to ask Con if there is such thing as book addiction? I've researched and found ether there is no such thing or it is rare ether way books are better then video games. Sources http://brainz.org... http://www.addictionz.com... http://www.healthyplace.com... 3. See 2 4. See 3 5. This is not a proven fact. Maybe J.K Rowling could've been an award winning singer we do not know. 6. My job is not to prove everything is wrong with technology only for entertainment I am not an idiot my job was to prove the world would have been better without it. 7. I have proven that some of their inventions did in fact hurt and even kill people. 8. I have not broken rule #2 ever if Con is referring to when I said no noob sniping that is not a end note and if he was referring to the time I said can I accept another debate that too was not a end not. Too prove my point here is the definition of end note and since I made the rules I define them. Definitions end-note [end-noht] noun 1. a note, as of explanation, emendation, or the like, added at the end of an article, chapter, etc. http://dictionary.reference.com... e-men-da-tion [ee-muh n-dey-shuh n, em-uh n-] noun 1. a correction or change, as of a text. http://dictionary.reference.com... Footnote another word for endnote Closing remarks. Vote justly and debate logically. Goodbye I had fun.
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

I would first like to say that doing anything in excess, or lack of, will more often then not result in some sort of harm to oneself. If Pro really believes video games and other forms of technology entertainment need to be taken away or should have never been invented, he would also admit that things like books should be banned. Anybody can abuse the things they find entertaining and do them in excess, but that doesn't mean they should have never been invented. These things all serve great purposes when you overlook the few people who give them a bad name. Pro's distaste for entertainment technology is indeed misplaced. He should be petitioning to try and help the irresponsible people, not prevent beneficial technology from being created. A1. Pro states that the entertainment industry takes up more then 1 billion dollars to run. I find that to be a very reasonable cost since its return revenue to the government is 31 billion dollars (see R2). A2.Technology is irrelevant here. The people who are irresponsible and spend every waking moment indoors depriving themselves of sunlight and physical activity are to be blamed not the technology. Any kind of entertainment could lead to someone doing these kinds of things, like reading books. 3. See A2. 4. See A2. "Rebuttals" Pro doesn't really refute anything I'v posted, he just speculates in favor of his resolution. B1. It's impossible to know that. It's like speculating that all book writers could have possibly gotten better jobs, despite the fact that no one would want this. B2. Pro confesses that entertainment technology have benefits. It was his job to prove they are not beneficial and should have never been invented. Pro essentially concedes the debate here. B3. Now Pro is accusing the inventors of these wonderful forms of technology, that they have harmed the general public. I have not only refuted that using entertainment technology has benefits to it in moderation, but have also given evidence that America doesn't prevent things from being made that can be abused. America respects its citizens will make responsible decisions no matter how much they doubt that may happen. Pro's round three, again broke the rule "#2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate". This means I should receive the conduct points.
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

Arguments: 1. Energy. The entertainment industry takes more than $1 billion dollars. Sources: http://www.nrdc.org... http://www.techthefuture.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://science.time.com... 2.Sports Research say most gamers lack vitamin D and are obese but there is a way to save more than a billion dollars be healthier and live longer and that way is sports. Here is a list of health benefits of sports. http://www.muhealth.org... http://truesport.org... http://www.education.com... http://www.sportanddev.org... http://www.healthline.com... 3. Porn addiction People used to rarely see porn but now the internet is here addiction comes. Here is a list of bad things porn addiction brings. http://www.m.webmd.com... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://gizmodo.com... 4. Internet addiction. The internet, everybody loves it but some people more than others some people are even addicted to it. Here is a list of bad things internet addiction causes. http://psychcentral.com... http://www.apa.org... http://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.addictionrecov.org... Rebuttals: 1. Entertainment industry. Yes, I acknowledge the fact that the industry gave thousands of jobs but if it had never been invented nobody knows if they could have better jobs or not. 2. Benefits. As I've said earlier there are other ways to get these benefits as I stated earlier technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented but if they create video games for learning or for faster reflexes that's okay. 3. Freedom. I did not say to ban inventing them I'd rather the inventors to think before creating it but they van create them.
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

Now I shall begin, my arguments are mainly about addiction and health this round will be about addiction. But first I'd like to define the word technology. The word technology means machinery or devices developed from scientific knowledge. Addiction: Addiction is a cause of death, broken families, broken relationships and much more. Addictions caused by technologies are video game addiction, internet addiction and porn addiction. In this round I will primarily be focused on video game and smartphone addiction. Video games. There were several instances where a gamer has died because of addiction see videos here . https://m.youtube.com... . https://m.youtube.com... Here are some articles about video game addiction . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... . http://www.webmd.com... . http://www.addictionrecov.org... UK counselor and therapist Steve Pope even says "2 hours of gaming is like abit of cocaine. " Granted he overstated but still it is addicting and as we've already learned video game addiction is dangerous. Now onto smartphones. Smartphones cause cancer. .. .. .. I'm just kidding. But seriously. Recently a twelve years old girl tried to poison her mother cause her mother took away her IPhone. . https://m.youtube.com... And here are some articles about the topic. . http://www.medscape.com... . https://www.psychologytoday.com... . http://m.huffpost.com... . http://www.businessnewsdaily.com... I hope that I made good points and an overall good argument. I now await con's arguments but before that I'd like to sadly inform the voters that Con broke rule #6 by accepting this debate . http://www.debate.org... so please vote fairly and give Con his punishment the loss of the conduct point. Thank you and that is all for now.