BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raise the minimum wage

What you stated in your opening statement is true. Very small increments will not destroy our economy. That is not reality. In the state I reside in the minimum wage is raising from $8.00 to $8.75 in only one year. Look at what Obama wants to do. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com... "Obama highlighted his own executive order, requiring federal contractors to pay employees at least $10.10 an hour." Is that a slow increment? Is raising it to over 10 dollars small?Also what you stated is obvious. We must raise the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. The truth is that this is not what the United States is doing.Why not raise the minimum wage? Simple. Destruction. We have to compete with nations like China. http://www.cbsnews.com... This source states that "Shanghai will rise to $293 per month." Look at this wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org.... China has $2.02 minimum wage. If we raise the minimum wage, we simply cannot maintain and continue to compete with foreign nations. I am not insisting on decreasing the minimum wage whatsoever. The simple truth is that the faster you raise the minimum wage, the easier it is for business owners to decide they do not want to manufacture in America.Imagine this. A garbage truck driver versus a garbage truck company manager. Almost everyone can drive, it is a skill not requiring much effort or training. That garbage truck driver makes $7.25 (minimum wage). Let's say that the manager makes $10.00 because he went to school, trained, and it is a job that requires experience. If the minimum wage increases to $10.10 like it is being proposed what will be the result? That garbage truck driver bumps up to $10.10 and the manager will have to bump up to around $15.00. Imagine this cycle going on with every single company there is. Since it costs more to pay the workers the expenses will rise. Let's say McDonalds has to raise their MIILLIONS of employees paychecks by the HOUR. That McDouble or Quarter Pounder meal is going to undeniably go up. The cycle will go on and on and on. The American dollar worth will plummet.Not only would the stores and other companies need to increase their products to a higher rate, but unemployment would be at a huge gain. http://dailycaller.com.... This proves that raising the minumum wage does just that. Raising it just $1 increases unemployment by 1.48 percent and 747,700 become unemployed and 83,300 jobs lost.Here is a chart from http://americanactionforum.org... shows that states with the minimum wage at $7.25 have a 6.4% average unemployment rate while states with the minimum wage above $7.25 have a 7.4% average unemployment rate. That is a 1% difference. In your following argument I would like you to state some facts on how the minimum wage increase actually produces jobs and growth. Of course it increases the average income, but inflation of product prices will make it completely useless.
Resolved: Modern American Feminism is Both Correct and Needed

Modern American feminism (3rd/quasi-4th wave fem.) is correct: Women in the West continue to, by-and-large, be treated like second class citizens. Women make up more than half of the American population. They earn 60% of undergraduate degrees, and 60% of Masters degrees, 47% of law degrees, 48% of medical degrees, and 59% of the college-educated, entry-level workforce. Despite all this, they comprise less than 15% of executive offices, 8.1% of top-earners, 20% of women in congress. Despite making up more than 45% of associates in the legal field, only 15% of equity partners are women. This is to say nothing of the even more substantial gap present in the lives of coloured women in the United States, which is itself a major focus of contemporary, intersectional feminism. (1) Women also continue to lack agency over bodies - aside from momentous beauty standards (and the enduring sentiment that a woman's beauty is her only true asset), there is the ongoing war against the female libido (slut-shaming, attire standardization, etc.), and the persisting anti-abortion movement. These issues alone should illustrate the sustained relevance of feminism in America. (1) https://www.americanprogress.org...
Resolved: Modern American Feminism is Both Correct and Needed

I will be taking the position that modern American feminism is basically incorrect in it's worldview and counterproductive. This debate is specifically about America feminism dealing with women in America. Oppression of women abroad is not therefore relevant in this debate. This is about women in America. Since I am con on this, my opponent will be pro and the first arguments will be pro stating their case for modern american feminism in round one. Since I will be arguing against them, I will begin by putting my own arguments and responding to them in round two. That is how this debate will go.
Ournamestoolong, pick your own debate! 1B

===== Definition of Animal Rights ===== I'm sorry to say, but I'm quite disappointed. This debate has essentially turned into a simple clash of definitions. A quick read of my opponent's argument shows that he agrees with EVERYTHING I have said - about how many rights animals deserve, and how animal welfare should be adopted. He claims that animal rights simply mean to give animals "fair and humane treatment". He pulls this definition from dictionary. com - Seeing as how this has turned into a definitions war, I will give the following responses: ===== ". .. Accorded to humans" ===== My opponent has failed to focus on that handy phrase in the end. Accorded[1] means, in the context of this debate, " to be consistent or in harmony". This means that both non-human animals and humans get the SAME rights. Read my opponent's definition, but remove everything from "claimed" to "abuse" and you can see my point clearly. The revised definition is: "the rights of animals are accorded to humans". Yes, rights mean fair and human treatment to animals. But revert back to my opponent's own definition, and he see's that in context, it means fair and human treatments that HUMANS have as well. ===== Opponent's perceived definition =/= animal rights definition ===== Even if my previous argument was wrong, my opponent's attempt to redefine animal rights is still wrong. Dictionaries are tricky, because many times they define words that are subject to debate. For example, an entire debate is focused on what "life" is, or what "consciousness" is. How does a simple dictionary-look up solve this? It doesn't, so if one really wants to understand a word, they should look into different sources as well. Take PETA for example. They are the primary organization in the world for animal rights. Heck, the phrase "animal rights" is synonymous with PETA. While some of PETA's actions are controversial, no one claims that PETA's philosophy is inconsistent with animal rights philosophy. Just look at this quote from PETA's website[2]: "People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests. .. " This obviously is in contrast to animal welfare, who believe that animals SHOULD be used in entertainment, testing, etc. , but without unnecessary suffering. My opponent agreed with the animal welfare position, so now he's in an obvious dilemma. ===== Conclusion ===== If my opponent wishes to center his argument on pure definitions, then it shall be my pleasure to tear it down :). He has cornered himself with a paradox of definitions (he supports animal welfare and animal rights? ), and I see no visible way for him to resolve this unless he tries to change the definitions. Which makes a debate useless if the meanings of words can be changed. Vote for CON! ---References--- 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.peta.org...
Ournamestoolong, pick your own debate! 1B

"My opponent uses a vital word: IF. Obviously, I don't. So until he can prove Creationism, this point is invalid. " I offered that as a argument for creationist voters. We both agree that evolution is true, so lets debate that. "My opponent argues that animals are sentient[1], which means to be able to feel pain or pleasure, then they should have rights. Ignoring the logical gaps in his argument, I will agree with this point. It's quite obvious that animals can feel pain or pleasure, but does this mean they get rights? To an extent, but definitely not what animal rights entails. " I'm glad we agree that animals can feel pain, but we have opposing definitions of animal rights. "Animal rights states that "animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community"[2]. Basically, animal rights activists call for animals to be given the SAME rights as human beings. This brings me to my counterargument" I have different definitions "The rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment and protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans. " (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) "Rights (AS TO FAIR AND HUMANE TREATMENT) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all animals" (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So animal rights essentially means fair and humane treatment to animals. "***Animals don't have same rights*** Simply put, animals don't have rights. For one to have rights, they must be a person[3], which is defined in philosophy as someone or something that is self-aware, i. e. conscious. Similarly so, a person is expected to be ethically responsible for their actions - which implies free will. Is my opponent willing to say that animals not only are self-aware, but have free will? Shall we jail a tiger for hunting down it's prey? Should they pay taxes like we do? " Animals don't have rights like we do. Obviously, they do not have freedom of speech, the press, or religion, but they do have the right to be treated humanely. Animals are not self aware, but they can feel pain. And as we are self aware, to knowingly inflict pain onto another being is inherently immoral. "***Animal welfare*** While animals shouldn't be given the same amount of rights as human, they should have a certain amount. Because they are sentient, they can suffer. Thus, I advocate animal welfare as an alternative to animal rights. While animal welfarists agree that animals shouldn't be abused unnecessarily, they agree that animals are not on the same moral platform as humans. Therefore, they can be used as pets, entertainment, testing, so on and so forth[4]. " We agree here. Thank you.
Ournamestoolong, pick your own debate! 1B

===== Creationist Argument ===== My opponent uses a vital word: IF. Obviously, I don't. So until he can prove Creationism, this point is invalid. ===== Evolutionist Argument ===== On the other hand, for this argument I agree with the premise that Evolution is true. Since that lifts the burdens off my opponent's shoulder (contrary to the Creationist argument), let's get to the meat of his argument: My opponent argues that animals are sentient[1], which means to be able to feel pain or pleasure, then they should have rights. Ignoring the logical gaps in his argument, I will agree with this point. It's quite obvious that animals can feel pain or pleasure, but does this mean they get rights? To an extent, but definitely not what animal rights entails. Animal rights states that "animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community"[2]. Basically, animal rights activists call for animals to be given the SAME rights as human beings. This brings me to my counterargument: ***Animals don't have same rights*** Simply put, animals don't have rights. For one to have rights, they must be a person[3], which is defined in philosophy as someone or something that is self-aware, i. e. conscious. Similarly so, a person is expected to be ethically responsible for their actions - which implies free will. Is my opponent willing to say that animals not only are self-aware, but have free will? Shall we jail a tiger for hunting down it's prey? Should they pay taxes like we do? ***Animal welfare*** While animals shouldn't be given the same amount of rights as human, they should have a certain amount. Because they are sentient, they can suffer. Thus, I advocate animal welfare as an alternative to animal rights. While animal welfarist agree that animals shouldn't be abused unnecessarily, they agree that animals are not on the same moral platform as humans. Therefore, they can be used as pets, entertainment, testing, so on and so forth[4]. ===== Conclusion ===== I have adequately shown why animal rights steps too far across it's reach in the realm of philosophy, and how animal welfare would be a more appropriate position. ---References--- 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.bsas.org.uk...
Ournamestoolong, pick your own debate! 1B

RESOLVED: Animal rights is the morally correct position (I am going to draw a line and say that you may not argue that morals do not exist) My argument is simple, and is divided into two parts. 1A: The Creationist Argument IF you believe that God created the world in seven days, then animals and us share the same creator. We are all God's creations and should treat each other morally. 1B: The Evolution Argument IF we evolved from primates, we have a large amount in common with them, so it is probable that we have the same thinking process. Animals can feel pain, they have the same neurological process as us. To cause an animal pain is to cause a being pain, a being, that could in fact be very similar to us. We evolved through the same process, so we are similar, and should treat animals with kindness. Thank You.
Ournamestoolong, pick your own debate! 1B

So let's get it on :). According to my opponent's wishes, I will be CON for all of the following resolutions/topics: ===== Topics ===== 1. The Christian conception of God is true/The Christian God exists. 2. Late-term abortion is wrong. 3. Animal rights is the morally correct position. ===== Conclusion ===== As my opponent hopefully notices, I attempted to construct each of these resolutions in alignment with his beliefs (as states on his profile). Remember, I'm CON for all of these topics.
Northern Ireland

First of all it was a democratic vote. Northern Irish citizens willingly voted to remain part of the UK. They should have a right to self-determination like in the Falklands. Second of all they are allowed a great deal of independence. They have their own governor and section of parliament and in sport citizens can choose to play for the republic of ireland if they wish. They can also freely pass into ireland without a passport check. It is more of a joint ownership than being owned wholly by uk. The six counties are actually a drain on uk's resources. if Ireland were to take these counties it would provide no real economic benefit and would show a poor message that the uk has given into terrorism.
is deforestation necessary for development

This is the first time I have been challenged and so I would like to say good luck. "Deforestation is necessary for development" that is the name of this debate and my opponent has made a horrible mistake that I wish to point out. He said it himself, very first sentence. "is deforestation necessary for development, yes"And that is the fatality that my opponent has made. I wish that yes deforestation wasn't such a problem but being on the pro side I must say that if humans don't deforestation we can't develop we couldn't even of made this website or any modern buildings without deforestation so really its said by me and my opponent that deforestation is necessary. I thank you for giving me this challenge again and I hope you don't quit GOOD LUCK
All love is conditional, all relationships are exchanges.

For clarification, would you consider yourself a utilitarian? Where the moral worth of an individual is a measure of their utility relative to you. Utility being generally defined as good or happiness. Ok, lets begin with "All love is conditional". My refutation of this point depends on my ability to generate examples of individuals or relationships where love is given without the recipient having to "earn" or without conditions that need to be fulfilled. One such relationship is the bond between a mother and her new born child. That child doesn't need to earn his mother's love, nor does he need to work in any way, conscious or subconscious, in order to receive it. This link is quite powerful, even to the point where the mothers of serial killers will often go to great lengths to protect and defend their child. This, im sure, serves an important evolutionary purpose for man because this "maternal selflessness" is really more than a social construct, instead it is behavior that stems from humanity's primary priority, survival. "All relationships are exchanges". The ambiguity of this phrasing has me a little confused, define and describe these exchanges. I can only assume you mean that relationships, in the simplest sense, depend on the presence of some "give and take" system that is mutually beneficial. I suppose I could agree with this but I disagree with your subsequent conclusions: "No one actually likes anyone else. They only like what the person provides." Of course your forgetting that what someone else has to provide or offer is fundamental to their identity. So by saying that you don't like the person you only like what they do for you is inherently contradicting. It's because you have created a false dichotomy between utility and identity. You assume they are separate but they are integral to each other. thanks sergent, very interesting topic
We shouldn't waste our time observing "rights" and "liberties" when fighting terrorism

I don't know how you can say that you're not arguing in favor of our government. In your opening statement you said "I think the patriot act has merit". The government does too, they're the ones that enacted it, they're the onces that act on it. If you don't support our government then how can you support the patriot act? In essence your saying: The patriot act is good BUT the government has done bad things with it The two can't be reconciled. If you're in favor of the PA than your in favor of the government employing it, which they've already done, which means that you have to support their actions. 1) Constitutionality I happen to agree that the right to life is just as important as the right to freedom of speech. Or the right to a fair trial. Or the right to due process of law. However those rights are equal. If we lived in a nation where we had no rights but were still alive then our lives wouldn't have the weight they do today. The right to life in the constitution is only made possible by the other rights granted in the constitution. Take away those, and there is no point to life. I'd continue to rebut you point by point, but frankly I'm tired of debating. Your argument is that safety is more important than a reasonable sacrifice of rights, and that's hard to argue against. My main argument is that these sacrifices will lead to more sacrifices, until we live in a society not worth living in. Your slippery slope arguments in your closing are sort of non-responsive. I said that as long as the government takes away the rights of the minorities the general population will turn a blind eye. You responded by saying that minor rights violations don't matter. I don't see the connection. You claim historical examples don't apply. I don't see why not. I hate quoting songs but history repeats itself. If it's happened before it's guaranteed to happen again. There are only so many different scenarios that play out in societies. Once again I assert my argument that the government will continue to infringe upon the rights of the minorities in this country. They're doing it now, and they're getting away with it. It will continue, cross apply my arguments from round 3. Anyways. Very nice debate, I didn't think that anyone could defend the idea of taking away rights and liberties, but you did a very good job. -Matt
We shouldn't waste our time observing "rights" and "liberties" when fighting terrorism

1) Government's constitutional duty is to protect its citizens 2) Right to being alive is the most important of all 3) The argument that our civil liberties are being denied has no real world correlary as there are few, if any accounts of this realistically affecting anyone 4) Terrorists only win when we DRASTICALLY sacrifice our rights or we all die 5) All of your arguments, though popular, only apply to a far greater sacrifice of rights 6) The sacrifices we are currently making are small and will not lead to greater sacrifices due to a further increase in public awareness at that time and the nature of our government For all abstract purposes this 'liberties' rhetoric may be true. We can sit here and talk about how we have to defend our rights and protect citizens from government, but does it have any real effect on your life? I didn't claim that we should forfeit all rights in the name of being safe. But, to make the governments job, to ensure the public safety and general welfare, harder because people don't want to be offended at the airport is ridiculous. I didn't say we should forfeit ALL rights, just allow the government to do its job. The whole slippery slope argument doesn't really apply. All of your examples assume that we are, in some way, realistically denied our civil liberties. We still have an OVERWHELMING majority of our rights. The effects of the Patriot Act are exaggerated. It simply allows the government to cut through red tape in times of urgency and importance. The police (etc.) are still subject to warrants and reviews and must still illustrate probable cause. The bottomline is, all the more intellectual members of society can propagate this notion of abstract civil liberties and talk about how our civil liberties are being violated, but in reality, right now, the effects of losing the rights we have lost are vastly trumped by the safety we have achieved. As far as terrorism is concerned. This is a matter of principle versus application. It would be foolish not to further ensure our safety in the face of this new threat. The claim that protecting ourselves is 'letting the terrorists win' is ridiculous. Their aim is to tear down our way of life, it's ludicrous to claim that the patriot act does any kind of real damage to civil liberties. If you went to the streets every American would not have even known the act was passed. If we REALISTICALLY weigh the pros and cons this is all obvious.
We shouldn't waste our time observing "rights" and "liberties" when fighting terrorism

We shouldn't waste our time observing rights and liberties when fighting terrorism? America is a country based on rights and liberties, you can't defend this country's principles on the one hand while ignoring them on the other. What the Patriot Act does is allow for a substantial expansion of governmental power over the rights of citizens. It gives the government the power to tap our phones, to read our emails, to search without cause or warrant. What the Patriot does borders on unconstitutional. If this country is worth defending we have to keep our rights intact. Terrorism is a problem in the world, but the point of terrorism is to degrade a country, or a group of people. The point of terrorism is scare people. If we continue treating our citizens like suspects then the terrorists have met their goal. They've succeeded in scaring us. They've allowed for our civil liberties to be put on hold, and that's exactly what they want. If we ignore the rights of US citizens then we're doing exactly what terrorists want us to do. The worst thing that this country could do is give in to the fear of terrorism, and let ourselves be beaten.