BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Rebuttals"First that's utterly wrong from a common sense ground. Second, personal opinions whether or not they are copied aren't sources, so I am going to ignore all of it." ~ProIt may seem odd from a common since ground, but the past tells that my statement is indeed true. (note: I posted no rebuttal to Pro's second point, as I was unable to understand what Pro was saying)."Did you even read ANYTHING I said last round? I already proposed an idea that you might agree with, to cut the minimum wage and introduce a welfare amount proportionate to how much they make and their pay level." ~ProI actually read everything you wrote last round. The resolution is "The Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)" ~Pro. This has nothing to do with introducing a new welfare system to go along with this taking away of minimum wage. Even so, your system is already in use by the United States government; welfare amounts are already based on the wages of the welfare recipient. No minimum wage would still require an increased national spending on welfare."The rest of your argument is literal copy pasted garbage." ~ProI did not copy my argument from anywhere. Also, calling it garbage is rather rude, voters should take this into account while voting for who won the "conduct" section.Pro has forfeited all arguments! Pro failed to rebuttal any of my three arguments introduced last round.I extend all previous arguments.Thanks for reading. Pro, I await your response.
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

"There is no real link between minimum wage raising and unemployment" First that's utterly wrong from a common sense ground. Second, personal opinions whether or not they are copied aren't sources, so I am going to ignore all of it. "United States, and make many more dependent on welfare. Overall, a no-minimum wage system would be bad economically. " Did you even read ANYTHING I said last round? I already proposed an idea that you might agree with, to cut the minimum wage and introduce a welfare amount proportionate to how much they make and their pay level. Go back and read it. The rest of your argument is literal copy pasted garbage.
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

I accept, thanks to Pro for making this debate. I wish pro good luck in the following rounds.I will begin briefly with a few rebuttals, then show why no minimum wage is bad for the economy. "The minimum wage is not in place to be economically prosperous, but a feel-good law that severely hurts the country and the people working (and not working) under it."This is unsourced, which is unavoidable because of the no links or sources rule... Minimum wage helps keep many off of government welfare because it gives the worker more money to support him/her self."The minimum wage is bad for the government, because people who need the money and are still going to illegally work below the minimum wage regardless of what the law says. The only difference is that it will promote breaking the law while also not paying tax."People who need money are not going to work under minimum wage, but at or above it. Why would someone needing money want to earn less of it, to the point of it becoming illegal. A minimum wage does not prevent anyone from paying taxes."The minimum wage prices many people out of the job market, new immigrants and students may not be worth minimum wage and are figuratively tossed to the side when it comes to the hiring process. One of the biggest problems with this group is that they lack the experience or worthiness to merit hiring at minimum wage levels, but by removing the minimum wage it allows people to work for less money but gain INVALUABLE experience."Many minimum wage jobs are labor, retail, or fast food jobs. These jobs have little requirements, and as the employing company grows, their need for employees grow as well. The experience is not invaluable. Many minimum wage recipients did not have a chance to get a good education, allowing them to move up to a higher paying job. Many minimum wage earners are stuck earning minimum wage for their life."The cost of many goods and services will drop. (self-explanatory)"Yes, the cost of goods and services will drop, but so will many people's abilities to purchase these goods and services. With no minimum wage, many people's buying power would greatly decrease, decreasing sales in all industries, and hurting the economy."Hiring two people at $5/H is better than hiring one at $10/H"Hiring two people at $5/H would most likely put these two people on welfare. Hiring one person at $10/H would avoid this.If minimum wage was taken away, you would see a mass decrease in the amount of goods/services purchased, and a huge increase in nationwide welfare costs. Overall, no minimum wage would ruin the US economy. This is enough to disprove the resolution.Off to you, pro
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Rules: 1.(No links or sources) - I want to have a logical and reasonable debate, not a "I am right look at this link" sort of one. (Will go into more detail after) For every expert or graph saying what I propose is bad, there are also ones proposing they are good. Both a no-minimum wage and a high minimum wage have theoretically been successful (With Northern European countries as an example), but using a wage graph from Sweden can't really be applied in America/Canada due to the socioeconomic factors and many other reasons that don't need to be discussed. 2.(Location) -The debate should be kept primarily in the American and Canadian geographic region as stated before. 3.No trolls/idiots ---------- ARGUMENT: The Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage) The free market should control the wage on a supply/demand system. 1.The minimum wage is not in place to be economically prosperous, but a feel-good law that severely hurts the country and the people working (and not working) under it. 2.The minimum wage is bad for the government, because people who need the money and are still going to illegally work below the minimum wage regardless of what the law says. The only difference is that it will promote breaking the law while also not paying tax. 3. The minimum wage prices many people out of the job market, new immigrants and students may not be worth minimum wage and are figuratively tossed to the side when it comes to the hiring process. One of the biggest problems with this group is that they lack the experience or worthiness to merit hiring at minimum wage levels, but by removing the minimum wage it allows people to work for less money but gain INVALUABLE experience. 4.The cost of many goods and services will drop. (self-explanatory) 5. Hiring two people at $5/H is better than hiring one at $10/H
Minimum Wage Is Bad Economically (No Minimum Wage)

Not going to waste anymore time with people who debate like CON. The arguments that he has given to me (that aren't copied) are illogical and outright ridiculous. He then tries to overwhelm the debate with huge walls text that would take 20-50 individual points to cover. Easily going over the 10,000 word limit. Then when I find out he's been copying arguments he automatically claims I forfeited the argument. CON previously lost a minimum wage debate with another user and perhaps tried to exhaust his opponent into submission for a win instead of earning it, but what would someone expect with a person that makes claims like.(paraphrasing) 1."Millions will leave America if we lower the minimum wage" (That's the point? Supply/demand) 2."The minimum wage has no negative effects on the economy" (no comment) 3."It's the large companies responsibility to make sure minimum wage workers go to secondary education!" (?what?) =========== CON uses debate tactics that would drive opponents to give up on the headache and sheer tedium of the debate. You can see it for yourself in his arguments. 1.Act normal 2.Start bombarding opponent with easily counterable yet long and figuratively ambiguous arguments that forces said opponent to skip a bulk of the debate or prematurely hit the 10,000 word limit.(lose-lose situation) 3.Ignore PRO's arguments and paste formulated responses off other websites. 4.Play the victim when opponent doesn't want to talk with you anymore. 5.Free votes from buddies. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am going to restart this debate with someone who actually wants to have an intelligent discussion with me on minimum wage. Not play childish games for virtual internet points.
The internet revolution should not undermine intellectual property protection.

The concept that ideas can be property of people is fundamental to intellectual property, as the name so nicely indicates. For example (the example will be in brackets), a copyright prevents an individual from recreating that said copyrighted product (a book), even by only using his own property (ink and paper). In this situation the copyright owner (author of the book) owns the idea of that product (not just the paper the owner has written it on). This is the only logical way to bridge over the copyrighted material to another person's physical property, through the property of an idea. Therefore the person that has been granted this right owns the idea and ergo all manifestations of that idea. Once a group or an individual asserts that they own an idea, through a copyright or a patent, they assert the right, as with any other type of property to use force to defend it and gain justice. There is only one round left so I will have to sum up the main arguments in one simplified sentence. There is a small chance that this will only lead to more clearing up of definitions and such proceedings but it is more likely that you will more fully understand my position. The easiest analogy that springs to mind is the common PSAs that make the statement "You wouldn't steal a car." and then compare that to downloading. To make this car situation much more accurately analogous to what is actually happening in reality you would have to change a few things up. "Stealing" is not rational and immoral because it denies the owner of that property access to his product. When one wants to compare what actually happens when you download something to "stealing" a car, a more accurate description of that would be: You drive past my house with a new car, I look at your car and with my own tools and own material recreate that exact same car and drive that around. If I would have stolen it you would no longer have his car, in this scenario you still do. You probably are not going down the route of "you wouldn't steal a car", so I will let you make your arguments in your next post.
The internet revolution should not undermine intellectual property protection.

This debate is being initiated via SmartPhone. I am new to this site, so please excuse the informality and simplicity of this message. It's interesting to observe how the internet explosion of the last decade has translated into the significant erosion of intellectual property protection under its jurisdiction-lacking umbrella. Millions of individuals who enjoy both the anonymity and unity that the internet provides, engage in acts of piracy on a day-to-day basis. Nothing seems to be immune to theft as everything from music, movies, documents and images, to games, applications, trademarks and patents are being stolen at unprecedented rates. Intellectual property right holders are (and have already been) clearly suffering significant losses in revenue as a result. In fact, many authors and holders of intellectual property now resort to earning financial compensation by way of alternative means to the internet, for example: merchandise sales, touring and aggressive direct marketing. The reality for them, is that anything digitally produced is subject to the large-scale piracy that the internet is currently unable to defend against. Individuals are free to roam about the virtual landscape, claim whatever they chose -- limited only by the level of his or her own greed -- and do so without any significant fear of legal sanction. In sum, it is evident that without adequate laws governing the internet, theft is thriving -- even expressly encouraged -- and intellectual property rights will continue to be breached. It may only be a matter of time before the virtual world becomes governed by an "internet constitution."
THB: The "Star Wars" prequels are better than the original trilogy

When it comes to story the originals just destroy the prequels I mean we already know what's gonna happen Anakin will become Vader, Palpatine was the Emperor and was Darth Sidious it was super predictable and even somewhat copied the originals. This is pretty evident by just certain scenes in Episode II Anakin loses a hand just as Luke did in Episode V which was the second installment of the franchise just like Episode II was with the prequels. In Episode III we have Obi-Wan and Anakin battle which is an exact copy of Vader and Luke sure thanks to effects and better stunts the battles seemed more intense but we knew who was gonna win the battle not to mention Obi-Wan was like a Father to Anakin as Anakin as stated just as Vader was Luke's father. Not to mention the originals also have a plot twist so intense of course I am referring to the "No, I am your father" plot twist pulled by Vader. In terms of characters and such as much as I adore! The prequels for their characters and such most of them just aren't relatable unlike Luke, Leia and Han, Luke is just a simple farm boy trying to get through life and just wishes he could have a more exciting life and eventually he gets the opportunity and slowly we see him build up his character from a local farm boy to a Jedi Padawan to eventually a Jedi Knight and so on. Han was always that cool sorta friend we had although he was a little selfish we got to see him become more than just a simple smuggler and develop feelings towards Leia and Luke and even forgetting about getting paid just so he can help the Rebels. While the prequels had better graphics the originals had far more detail put into them every Star Destroyer, Asteroid, Death Star was actually a small model which was shot with some intense camera work and dedicated workers. In Conclusion: The Originals have more dedication a more developed story and helped us develop feelings towards the main characters because we could relate to their intense struggles.
THB: The "Star Wars" prequels are better than the original trilogy

What makes a good Star Wars movie? A thrilling plot, inventive characters, and, of course, some tense lightsaber battles! This is the first point on which the originals fall somewhat flat while the prequels do well: remember the final battle with Darth Maul in Ep. I, or the fight between Anakin Skywalker and Obi Wan Kenobi in Ep. III: all the characters look like they're genuinely trying to take each other's heads off! You can feel the rage Obi Wan experiences to see his master slain in front of him, and the passion Anakin feels for Padme as he fights to create the world in which he could have saved her. By comparison, the conflict between Obi Wan and Darth Vader barely constitutes a battle, and the fight between Vader and Luke is bland, unrealistic and unemotional. This brings me nicely to my second point: the characters themselves. I often encounter criticism of Jar Jar Binks at this point, and while it is undoubtable that he is thoroughly annoying, the gibberish that Chewbacca and R2D2 spout, C-3PO's general incompetence, and even Yoda's first appearance in Ep. IV are, on sum, just as irritating. Of course, all of these characters are present in the prequels, but the former 3 have much less air time, and Yoda is much less annoying. Anakin's motivations are always clear: the greater good, the Jedi way, his dedication to Padme, and various other factors make his decisions, though badly thought out with hindsight, far more relatable, and therefore enjoyable. Luke's only motivation is that his family was killed on Tattooine, which, though tragic, is very one-dimensional and cliche. Han Solo seems motivated only by getting into Leia's pants. The prequels also have much better graphics, which, though it may be somewhat unfair to compare them to their 80s counterpart, nonetheless counts in their favour in modern times. In summary, the prequels have better lightsaber battles, the characters are more relatable and emotional, and the graphics are a nice bonus.
THB: The "Star Wars" prequels are better than the original trilogy

Therefore, each debater must marshal their argument in its entirety in round 2. Any arguments made in places other than round 2 should be ignored by the voters. Prop must argue that the Star Wars prequels: The Phantom Menace, Attack Of The Clones, and Revenge of the Sith, are better than the original Star Wars trilogy: A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. Con must argue to the contrary. The victor will be determined by a "select winner" voting system. Each debater will have 24 hours to post their argument and must use no more than 2,000 characters in their round 2 argument. I will be prop. Good luck, have fun, and may the force be with you!
Abortion should be allowed

I must disagree and with the following things you said: 1) Your argument equates to saying "it is justified to murder someone if they don't have a good life." No it does not. I am implying that it is justified to have an abortion if the baby would live a horrible neglected life. I have never and will never think that we should kill adults and children that are already born into their life situations. 2)I contend that no person has the right to take away the future of another thing. My question is that if you feel so strongly and believe a fetus is a human why would you refer to it as a 'thing'. 3)A fetus is potentially a full grown human and there is no difference in the relation between a fetus and adult and a toddler and an adult. Like you said yourself 'There is no way to know whether or not a fetus has a future'. In that case there is a difference in the relationship between a fetus and an adult and toddler. That difference is an adult and toddler have a future no matter what happens. Now I will answer what you want me to explain: 1) The difference between the rights of a fetus and the rights of an adult: The rights to life of the fetus should automatically go to the mother since the fetus relies on her body. The rights to life of an adult are his/hers since their body can take care of itself. Same goes for a toddler. My Closing statement: By comparing those who support the right to an abortion to Hitler and Stalin my opponent is making a vast oversimplification of a debate that cannot be summarized in black and white terms. There is a huge gray area on whether abortion is right that my opponent is ignoring when he makes simplistic, and what I find offensive, assertions. The debate of abortion is a very sensitive matter. My opponents comparison of Pro-choice supporters to Hitler and Stalin was insensitive and morally unethical. The Debate is over an ethical issue and my opponents tactic of hurling insults at his opponent is not a viable tactic and will not help the debate. Henceforth he should not be the victor
Abortion should be allowed

I have to disagree with the following statements you mentioned earlier: 1) If the legal system is wrong, we are killing people on a magnitude comparable to Hitler and Stalin. First of all 20 000 000 people died under Stalin's dictatorship only 1,800,000 unborn Fetuses are terminated. Under Hitler the Estimated Death Toll: 6 million Jews, 5 million others including 500,000 Gypsies, 6 million Poles, 5,000 to 15,000 homosexuals. Once again Only 1,800,000 unborn Fetuses are terminated. Note that Stalin and Hitler's death tolls were imposed on actual living and breathing people. People who could actually feel, physically and mentally, the pain that was put on them. Henceforth I find that statement politically incorrect. 2) Thus we can determine if an action is murder or is unethical on the same magnitude as murder by evaluating if the action deprives a thing of a future like ours. A fetus undoubtedly has a distinctly human future, a future where it will smell flowers and listen to music and swim. Depriving the fetus of that future is unethical on the magnitude of murder. In most abortion cases the Mother cannot handle the responsibility of motherhood. If a mother cannot handle motherhood the child will most likely be neglected or abused sometimes even both. If you think a child born from a mother that cant raise him/her lives in a loving home you are horribly mistaken. 3) Simply stating that woman has the right to her body doesn't necessarily guarantee the right to an abortion. But indeed it does. The Fetus is inside her body it is not yet even developed enough to live out of the womb. The Fetus is part of her body. henceforth it does guarantee the right to an abortion For my own Defense: This country was founded on choices. We have the choice to a religion, we have a choice to public school or private school. Our rights and freedoms are based off choices. Being Pro-choice is a good thing because without choices we wouldn't be where we are today.
Abortion should be allowed

Abortion is the right of an individual woman. Whether they choose to get one or not it should always be an available option. It is not the right of myself or anyone else to deny that woman her rights to an abortion. If you do not wish to have an abortion than don't get one but why strip others of that right. A woman should be able to decide what she does with he own body. Every child born should be wanted. The consequences of not allowing abortion in a steryl place would result in women going into back-alley abortion clinics.
Song debate

This is a debate that isn't like past Song debates. This debate is aimed to highlight an under lit meaning of a topic. By that I mean you choose a song that highlights a historical issue and explain it. Voting will be based on which issues have been highlighted as larger issue. There is to be no rebuttals. Each round except round 1 shall be structured by posting a song and giving a brief background on the event and why you think it is important. Topics are to be chosen in the next round. If a topic is deviated from then it shall result in an automatic forfeiture of the debate. The issue/topic must be history. It could also be about something that didn't happen like WW3, NAZIs winning World War 2, or whatever you like. The topic must be realistic. THAT MEANS no aliens and such. In your review you will site the song using MLA format. YOU ARE CHOOSING ONE TOPIC.
Song debate

For my finial song I chose "My future's so bright, I gotta wear shades," by Timbuk3. http://www.youtube.com...Lyrics: (http://www.azlyrics.com...)TIMBUK3's song, "My future's so bright," shows much of the mood enternally in the US as many people. including the government, are looking for people who can do amazing things and help give them an edge in the Cold War. The opening stanza shows much of the status of the education status when the government would interveene in it, "I study nuclear science, I love my classes/I got a crazy teacher who wears dark glasses/Things are going great, and they're only getting better/I'm doing all right, getting good grades/The future's so bright I gotta wear shades" (Timbuk3 1-5). Here one can see that the teacher isn't really a teacher, but is actually a member of the Department of Defense. The reason that this man gets good grades is because, once again, he's working for the government so the CIA tells his teachers that he passes, because he's building up for the federal government and that in itself is a matter of National Security and hence the CIA won't permit the teacher to look over his project.