BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The right minimum wage is $0.00

"The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00." That was the headline of an editorial in one of America's most prestigious newspapers. Can you guess which one? The Wall Street Journal, perhaps? Right city; wrong paper. This editorial appeared in the New York Times in 1987. "There's a virtual consensus among economists," the Times wrote, "that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed." So, economists and the liberal paper were on the same page (pun intended). Why? Because they understood that a minimum wage does not guarantee jobs. It guarantees only that those who get jobs will be paid at least that minimum. And that leads to two bad outcomes: unemployment and higher prices. I can best explain this by asking a simple question: What is a wage? A wage is the price of labour. Now, what happens if the price of labour rises, not because workers have become more productive, not because a business must pay higher wages to hold on to valuable employees, but only because the government requires it? When the minimum wage rises, employers will adjust. They will use less labour. They'll fire current employees or cut back on their hours. They will also raise prices for their goods or services. These are undesirable consequences. But let's also consider another bad effect Businesses will hire fewer workers, especially those with little or no job experience. Suppose you're young and haven't worked many jobs before. Maybe you've never had a job and are trying to land your first one. The work you can offer an employer may be worth only, say, $7 an hour. You agree. He agrees. And you have your first job. But what if the minimum wage set by the government is higher than $7? What if it's $10 or more? Well, you won't get the job. You may be willing to work for $7 an hour, but under minimum wage laws, it would be illegal for you to do so. This very point was made by Paul Samuelson, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century, and a prominent liberal. I paraphrase from his classic textbook Economics: "What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him a minimum wage if the fact that he must be paid that wage keeps him from getting a job?" And, that young person loses more than a paycheck. He also loses valuable work experience: learning to accept responsibility, dealing with a boss, getting along with co-workers -- all the things that demonstrate to an employer that he made the right choice in hiring; and all the things that will help that young person get a better paying job down the road. A recent study found that in some cities the unemployment rate for teens without a high school diploma approached 50%. Pricing these teens out of the labour market does them no favours. It's not doing the rest of society any favours, either. Teenagers who can't find jobs often find trouble. Advocates of a higher minimum wage argue that, while some young people might be priced out of the job market, this is outweighed by the fact that those who have minimum wage jobs will get a wage increase. But that doesn't mean they'd be better off.
Compulsory Voting

Con argues compulsory voting creates a "false democratic representation" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens. I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government. *side note* Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout
Compulsory Voting

Undemocratic means do not justify democratic endsPro did not present any argument at all, just an assertion. His points were unsupported (see his last paragraph)Arguments against compulsory voting:1. Not voting is a valid political choice. Voting involves a person’s freedom of choice, movement, and association. By forcing people to the polling station on the Election Day violates these freedoms because if people don’t want to exercise their right to vote for the reason that they don’t want any candidates, it is their choice.2.This would create false democratic representation as the "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls. For this reason, compulsory voting would not serve any purpose at all.
Compulsory Voting

Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.
Compulsory Voting

Thanks for conceding. In CV, even if there is a blank-vote option, it would still violate some fundamental freedoms. Now, you are contradicting yourself. You said you want the government to be representative of majority, but at the same time you are okay with blank-vote which won't guarantee any majority vote or representation. Clearly, I rebutted your arguments and you failed to rebut mine. Also, you kept adding and changing the parameters of this debate.
Compulsory Voting

Con argues not voting is a valid political choice and I agree. In compulsory voting countries the ballot usually has an option to represent a non-vote for voters who are not sure. I argue CV would secure every citizen a vote, ensuring proper representation from their government. There are also a few other logical benefits from CV. We know that discouraged and poor aren't voting in non-CV countries. Why not put in place a system where these underrepresented groups are assured a vote. Australia, a CV-Country, votes on Sundays and even accepts doctors notes to ensure fairness. The right not to vote shouldn't be mistaken as "your vote doesn't matter". CV may infringe on a persons fundamental freedom a little, maybe its worth it.
Compulsory Voting

Thanks for admitting that CV could be damaging. Low voter turnout should be addressed but not through compulsory voting because not voting is a valid political choice; and exercise of freedom of choice, movement, and association. Also, compulsory voting will create false democracy. Pro cannot just add conditions now, he should have stated his conditions like ‘educating voters,’ in round 1. This is a basic rule in debate. But granted it counts, still his so-called ‘educating voters’ is very vague and not in harmony with compulsory voting. We can increase voter’s turnout by informing and educating people about election, without necessarily forcing people to go to the polling stations because it violates their fundamental freedoms.
Lm Classic: Yraelz vs. Acer

It really has been fun. First, I would like to clarify what my opponent said in round 2. "It [The Sharigan] allows him[Kakashi] to see his enemy moving no matter how fast they are and it gives him the ability to counter it. " So clearly, my opponent has conceded the fact that Kakashi can see and counter Sephiroth. Also, my opponent states that, just because the team members are loyal to the team leader, they are going to try their hardest for the leaders cause. This is not true. Nowhere in the rules does it state that the members have to try their hardest. They will try, of course, but not their utmost hardest. For example, a football team. The coach is the team leader and his cause is to win the game. The players are also going to try to win, but they are not going to go against their personality. Even if the team members are completely loyal to the cause, and they try their hardest, Kakashi will too. If he knows that he can't hold back in this fight, he would have prepared himself to fight at full power (headband off), from the very begining. And since my opponent already conceded the point that Kakashi can see and counter enemy no matter how fast he is moving, kakashi will succeed in squishing Sephiroth to a point. (PS, this is not a new argument, it states my opponents argument of fighting at full power. ) In either case, there is no chance for Sephiroth to win. Also, my opponents seems to think that flash steps are slower than the speed of sound, but that is incorrect. As seen in the following clip, Ichigo appears to be in many different places at once, something he cannot do if he is only moving at the speed of sound (4:38). And about releasing bankai. He doesn't try to use it in the begining of the fight, that is why it takes him so long. He later masters it and cannot almost release it instantaneosly. He can also hollowfy very quickly. In the series, he has to do this many times to block opponent attacks (2:30). . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... And, as I already established, Kakashi is a genius and will send his clones instead of him. When he sees alice, who has absorved sentry's power, come out to try and capture all the clones, he will use kumai on her and squish her to a point. My opponent never rebutted the point sentry or (Black Alice with his powers) would be killed if they tried to exit the building. I would also like to point out that my opponent never said anything against Metaknight appearing behind alice and killing her. And, since this is the last round, there is no other otpion but for her to die. Once sentry and his powers are destroyed, there is nothing my opponent can do. Emma Frost, who is now in her diamond form will be destroyed by Byakaya or Kakashi, as I stated in round one. This leaves poor Vash, who now has no chance for survival. As I stated in earlier rounds, kakashi will use kumai and squish Vash to a point. True, undeniable outcome: Team Pro annihilated, pwned, obliterated, squished to points, and overall destroyed.
The Bible is Provably False

I should probably justify myself in choosing this version of the bible just in case. This bible does not list many of the miracles of Jesus because Jefferson, just like Pro, was a Deist. Jefferson did include many of Jesus's parables in his bible which could've easily been debated upon. However, Pro was trying to go for the simple argument of the bible (such as the King James Version) being scientifically inaccurate. The Jeffersonian Bible contains parables such as: when Jesus kicked out the traders from the temple, or the parable of the dishonest servant. Unconditional forgiveness and hypocrisy are two such morals of this bible that could've been debated on but they were not because Pro forfeited.
The Bible is Provably False

So my opponent has forfeited the debate. This is because I chose a version of the bible that has barely any material that can be refuted by modern science as well as moral material which can be debated upon fairly by either side as being moral or immoral. My opponent says he is a deist so he should be familiar with this version of the bible as it was compiled by a deist (Thomas Jefferson). The Jeffersonian Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, is a bible with selections carefully selected by Jefferson that coincided with his deist beliefs. This bible is also notable because it excludes many of Jesus's "miracles" as well as his virgin birth. Hoping to refute Genesis (easy for anyone to do), this bible also does not include the story of the creation of the world.
The Bible is Provably False

I decided to discuss this topic due to my conversion to Deism 2 months ago. I wanted to discuss the Bible, specifically whether or not it is provably wrong, and whether or not this matters to Christianity as a whole. Rules: 1)The Burden of Proof is on me, the pro, to prove the bible is wrong. 2) The word wrong, in the context of this debate, has the following meanings: Factually incorrect, meaning that the bible promotes a provable falsehood. AND Morally wrong, meaning that the Bible advocates actions or ideas the would be considered morally offensive in today's society. 3): To prove is defined as: to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument:* 4)The version of the bible with which we shall be debating on shall be chosen by the contender, providing that is accessible online and written in English 5) The first round will be used for acceptance, and to list the version of the bible being used in the debate 6) The second round will be for each side to state their case, and not to directly refute the opponent. 7) The third round will be for refuting the opponents argument 8) The fourth round will be used for rebuilding your case, addressing questions posed by commenters and the opponent, and to conclude the argument. 9) Each side will be respectful of the other persons opinion and religion to the best of their ability. 10) Each side will make their debate readable and coherent *Taken from the Oxford Online Dictionary of American English I look forward to discussing this. Thanks to whoever decides to take up this argument.
We should euthanize people who breaks a major bone

Troll. AD HOMINEMShould be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem. Ad hominem attacks are not valid rebuttals. Which is not to say that the every statement about the person in relation to their arguments is an ad hominem attack. Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be. Ad hominem attacks are personal attacks. They are not tolerated. (Ex. : "Well, you're a cop, so your opinion is wrong")-Exerpt from Post #10 of the highlighted "NEW VOTERS READ Me" thread, posted by Airmax1227Who's Airmax? A DDO moderator. You can find him here:. http://www.debate.org...The "NEW USERS READ Me thread" can be found here. Look for post #10. . http://www.debate.org...Now let's take a look at the rules for this debate. "No ad hominhem keep it civil guys. ""Racism is discouraged in this debate"But, alas! Look at the next lines. "Blacks or "African Americans" are allowed to accept this debate. ""Absolutely no Jews. If you are a Jew you immediately lose this debate and forfeit all your points. "Not only has pro broken his own rule regarding racism, but he has also made an ad hominem attack by insuating (and basically outright saying) "You are black/Jewish, so your arguments don't count. ", which again, is a violation of the rules of this debate. CONCLUSION: Since pro has broken his own rules, I automatically win this debate.
We should euthanize people who breaks a major bone

The thing is that the Ad Hominem is not directed towards you. You are a Christian therefore that is not a ad hominhem attack towards you. I have never directed a Ad Hominem attack towards you. Even if I did a Ad Hominem you haven't defended your Ad Hominem. You said I am a troll. Making that just because I am a troll my arguments don't matter. I still haven't seen a argument you posted for this debate. I suggest arguments go for me.
We should euthanize people who breaks a major bone

I admit. I read that one wrong about black people. But that doesn't excuse the one about Jews."I have never said that just because you're a Jew your arguments don't counts."You did when not allowing them to accept. I am saying that Jews are not allowed to accept this debate but they have the freedom to express their opinion on the comments. Jews can even post there own arguments in the comment"But you've set it up so that it won't matter and won't affect the outcome of the debate if they comment. Thus because they are Jews, their arguments (in the comments) don't count under the way you have set this up.CONCLUSION: STILL AN AD HOMINEM.
We should euthanize people who breaks a major bone

"Troll" As I say that is a Ad Hominem. You are calling me a troll and assuming that my arguments are denied because I am a troll. You have already broken a rule. "Not only has pro broken his own rule regarding racism, but he has also made an ad hominem attack by insulating (and basically outright saying) "You are black/Jewish, so your arguments don't count.", which again, is a violation of the rules of this debate." I have never said You are black your arguments don't count. I said that Blacks are allowed to accept this debate post there arguments and have a fun time debating. I have never said that just because you're a Jew your arguments don't counts. I am saying that Jews are not allowed to accept this debate but they have the freedom to express their opinion on the comments. Jews can even post there own arguments in the comments. I am not saying just because your a hew your argument is invalid. Regarding the racism. I said blacks are allowed in this debate this is not racism but merely tolerance. Jews are not a race. A Black person can be a Jew. Does that mean they are Jew. No their still called by their race a African American. I have clearly not broken any of my rules. In conclusion I have clearly haven't broken a rule. And my opponent wasted a round of arguments. Good luck to Con next round.
rap battle (uncut)

ok before I begin I asked you if you wanted it to rhyme and since you did not answer ima say no. ROUND 1 BEGIN.>I'm back and ready to rap... I don't care who you are or where you came as long as your mean to mean ill be mean right back but anyway you think you guts you aint got nothing accept frowny face sitting in the corner waiting for something any thing but nothings coming you have what you want or what you need so instead of sitting there and acting all cool wake up and notice the thump reality knocking at your door.
rap battle (uncut)

Welcome to DDO, your going to regret coming to the site This is like David vs Goliath, except the giants going to win the fight On a metaphorical scale, this is not even close i'm over half your height So when you see these bars get ready to run and be filled with fright I would burn you more but your round was as short as your cock So don't bother posting the next one, I'd advise you to stop I'll rock and sock you , and then pop you with a glock and watch your drop This is one hell of a beating, because i'm going to beat you till you cry and never stop I'm like michael the arch angel turned dark angel painting a picture of your inevitable death This battle is going to end in such a tragedy, it's going to be worse than the ending to Mcbeth Call me whiter white, because the way I'm cooking you is going to be more precise than how he cooks meth By the end of this battle, your going to be so depressed you will kill yourself and draw your last breath
Pornography should not be banned

People have the right to do what they want to do. Don't want to look at porn? Don't look at itThis is a ridiculous thing to say. Murder, theft and rape could be justified with this logic. Just because you have a right to do what you want does not meant that that particular thing is correct. We aren't infringing on anybody else's rights, we are simply not allowing them to do something which is incredibly detrimental to the rest of their life. To summarise:Porn is bad for one's health in almost every aspect. Pro failed to refute my arguments, failed to affirm the resolution, and failed to make a solid case.
Pornography should not be banned

My opponent makes some bold statements in the last round:You can do whatever you want. It is you who makes the choices. If Suzy wants to show off her breasts to masturbating men at 30, she could do that, because she has the right to.Yes, you are correct, "Suzy" has the right to do whatever she wishes. This does not make the thing she wishes to do right. You aren't talking about pornography here, rather the porn stars involved. This opening argument is weak. You seem to think that, by banning porn, we would be banning free will, but this is just not the case. It is the role of the Government to stop things which could cause harm to a great number of people, which pornography does, and has been proved to do, on countless of occasions.I will be giving some opening arguments of my own on the case of pornography:Pornography warps one's impression of a relationshipPornography can affect a relationship greatly. Statistics have shown again and again that pornography warps what the mind thinks, giving it a distorted view of sexual relationships. In 2004 Dr Jill Manning found that 54% of divorce cases involved one partner who was sexually obsessed with pornographic material. In 1988 Zilman and Bryant investigated porn, making couples view sexually explicit material. During the seventh week they were asked to rate their happiness. The results were almost unanimous: Each participant felt that their partner was less sexually appealing, and also felt less happiness when it came to their relationship.Porn is a problem. It is viewed by far too many children (About 90% of children aged 8 -16 have been exposed to explicit material on more than one occasion) and causes far too damaging effects.It also causes a release of dopamine, which the body then builds up a resistance to. This dopamine is associated with euphoria, which the body craves more and more. My opponent can't argue that porn is not extremely detrimental to our society.http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...http://www.foryourmarriage.org...http://www.psychologytoday.com...http://simplemarriage.net...http://www.covenanteyes.com...
technology is on the rise

Hello again everybody, I am very sorry for the delay in posting my argument. I have been very busy and exams are next week. Anyways, back to the topic... My opponent has forfeited and I will ask you all to vote Con. Also, I thank my opponent for the good debate, while it lasted. Anyways I am busy so I will leave it at that, I just wanted to finalize this debate. Thank you and have a nice day!