BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Olympics: Abolish The Minimum Wage

Contention #1: Minimum wage increases unemployment.If employers could spend less money on paying each worker in a minimum wage job, they would hire more workers, reducing unemployment."In essence, minimum wage increases make it more likely that firms won’t hire new people than that they will fire current employees. For example, movie theaters have stopped employing ushers almost entirely." [1]In addition, a study done by AEIdeas shows a direct correlation between minimum wage and teenage unemployment [2] as shown in this graph: Every time the minimum wage is raised, teenage unemployment rises with it. Abolishing minimum wage would allow employers to employ more people in minimum wage jobs.Contention #2: The vast majority of minimum wage workers are teenagers and other people who don't need to make a living wage.According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 15% of employed teens earn minimum wage or less, compared to 3% of those aged 25 or older. [3] This is because teenagers don't have to support a family, or even themselves; thus, they can live on a small amount of money. Adults will find higher paying full time jobs if they have to support themselves and a family, which will happen with or without minimum wage standards.ConclusionMinimum wage standards don't serve their purpose of ensuring that people earn a living wage, and they decrease job availability, which in turn increases unemployment and hurts the economy.[1] https://mises.org...[2] http://www.aei.org...[3] http://www.bls.gov...
Leave Justin Bieber Alone

Probably because his neighbor just wanted his money and sold a fake story to get it. Also to answer your question, it's only affecting the neighbor. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " My opponent 's allegation is that the neighbor was lying, as far as the law enforcement knows, Justin Bieber has indeed 'egged' the neighbor's house. If my opponent can find an unbiased source which states that the Justin Bieber did not egg his house or that states that the damage was not as high as 20,000 US$, then and only then will I concede this point. My opponent also states that the crime is only affecting the neighbor. Even so, it is a crime and it has affected individuals around him, hence it was fair that he was dealt with. Also smoking marijuana with his father on a plane whilst abusing the pilot and the crew, hence this is why he should not be left alone and must answer for his crimes. I do not agree that paparazzi should be following Justin Bieber all the time, in any case he is not the only celebrity facing this as we all know too well. However, when the news states his crimes such as drunk driving, vandalism, resisting arrest etc it is justified because he has committed those crimes or was accused of doing so. Hence Justin Bieber should not be left alone as far as the media (as long as they are unbiased) or the law enforcement are concerned when he commits crimes. I patiently await my opponent's closing statements
Leave Justin Bieber Alone

Although I cannot confirm or deny that most of those stories are true, I can say that the charges for drunk driving, resisting arrest, and drag racing were dropped. He was in fact, driving with an expired license, but clearly that's not as big of a deal. Yes, believe that putting him in jail was appropriate because he needed to be taught a lesson. He has undergone immense amounts of stress caused by the media lately. How would you feel if cameras followed you around for your entire teenage life? It wouldn't be fun having people know where you are every minute of every day. And to answer your question about the egging incident, I'm not sure why the damage is so much. Probably because his neighbor just wanted his money and sold a fake story to get it. Also to answer your question, it's only affecting the neighbor...................................
Leave Justin Bieber Alone

I accept this challenge. Justin Bieber gets on the news so much because he is a celebrity and does things which could be compared to your neighborhood trouble-making teenager. My opponent stated that "When Justin Bieber smokes weed, it becomes everybody business..." Justin Bieber and his father smoked weed during an international flight from Canada to the US, even though the pilot had requested that they stop since the smoke was so strong that oxygen masks were needed. Justin Bieber and his father were abusive to the flight crew. That's two laws broken by Justin Bieber, which is why he was dealt with by law enforcement as appropriate. http://edition.cnn.com... Further down the very same source it states that Justin Bieber faced charges of drunk driving, resisting arrest, driving with an expired license and vandalism (egging of a neighbor's house). Hence this is why the Law enforcement has dealt with Justin the way it should, why should Justin be free of all of these violations of law? Is it because he is famous? Pro remarked that "If it's[the things that Justin Bieber does] not affecting them in any way shape or form then why do they feel the need to be rude towards him" Justin Bieber caused 20,000 US$ worth of damage when egging a neighbor's house (the vandalism mentioned earlier). I ask my opponent how in any way does this not affect anybody? http://www.mirror.co.uk... http://www.tmz.com...
Leave Justin Bieber Alone

Okay I'm getting extremely sick about Justin Bieber being on the news for every little thing that he does. Why do people even care? If it's not affecting them in any way shape or form then why do they feel the need to be rude towards him? When Justin Bieber smokes weed, it becomes everybody business, but when half of the population in the world smokes weed, no one cares. Yeah, he went to jail for a supposed DUI and drag racing, but the charges were dropped. I didn't see that making any headlines. Probably because people don't want to look stupid after calling him names for what they thought he did. If you have any arguments against this, feel free to be my opponent in this debate. Thank you.
Abortion is not Protected by the Constitution

Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional decision made by activist judges. It was based on the so called 'right to privacy' that was read into the Constitution, But is nowhere to be found. Is abortion legal, Yes, But it is not Constitutional. Abortion is not found in the Constitution. Jut like slavery was not found in the Constitution. Therefore, Roe v. Wade can and should be overturned and given back to the States.
Should OLNA testing be abolished

The fact that other counties do not do it says nothing but effectiveness, only eleven countries have free healthcare should it be abolished because everywhere else does not have it? And the thing about the pressure, yes I agree it is tough and yes people crack and break under it but that is another part of the life thing I said above. You in life are going to be put under a lot of pressure ten times what you have in school, different counties and schools have their way of doing it but the most important part of it is making sure you have the skills and proficiently to make it in life Unfair tests and tons of pressure is a part of the first bit, another thing if you think that the OLNA puts you under pressure that is nothing compared to college or any job involving other people. And like I said in the first part as long as you show you have the proficiency you don't need to take it And again like I said in the first one when you get rid of one thing because it is unfair or difficult what is to stop someone from getting rid of other stuff like required classes or having to legally attend school in the first place. People seem to think that high school is meant to be easy like it was in elementary and middle school. No High school is meant to help prepare you for college which it does not do a great job of, I can't get into all the reasons but the main one is high school helps you start to become a adult. College demands you are an adult which is a important thing to keep in mind when you talk about this stuff That is why it should not be abolished. It was nice debating with you
Should OLNA testing be abolished

Yeah you're right; life isn't fair; you have pretty good points there. Okay so why don't they do this in other countries? Why just in Western Australia? If I had the chance to go study and finish my education in another school, I would. And plus students who are doing OLNA are getting crushed under pressure and I'm one of them. And when they graduate and still haven't met the requirement they're gonna be even under more stress and pressure. The reason why they put this stupid OLNA was due the lack of education in many students; but did it make it any better? This standardized test hasn't even improved student achievement and and unreliable measure of students' performances. Yes life may not be fair but they don't even have this implemented in other countries. Its not just that, standardized tests are costly, to the point where it's placing a burden on state education budgets.
Should OLNA testing be abolished

I get where you are coming from, as a person who does not do well on most maths test I do, but it is the same reason that they have any standardized test, they want to know you are proficient with what you need, like I said before America is getting smarter and the tests that are common now a days years ago would be impossible years ago And another thing that tests do is show you how real life is. you mention do you think that it is fair that you failed and can't graduate because of numeracy? the answer is no I don't think its fair but you know what? Life is not fair this type of stuff happens all the time in real life and double so in college That is just the way it works and the sooner that people realize that the better off they will be. For example like I said above I am really bad at maths it just does not click in my brain and I hate it. But it is a required class to pass, is it fair that me someone who hates it and will just use a calculator anyways has to pass it? No, but again that is just the way life is. School and college is the perfect embodiment of this is meant to be the gateway into audlthood so that you do not get crushed under the pressure And as a adult unlike a kid. People are not going to treat you better then anyone else because while you are unique everyone else is just as unique as you are. and that is why it should be kept it is not just can you pass this (Which is something that happens all the time in real life) to me it is also a perfect example of life sucks deal with it
Should OLNA testing be abolished

I understand your point of view and it makes sense; but look even if they do have standardized tests in Australia or elsewhere, and even if students don't pass those standardized tests that doesn't mean they shouldn't graduate or not be able to do ATAR subjects. Like I could be getting As and Bs for all my subjects but then all of a sudden I won't be able to graduate just because of one stupid test, like for example numeracy which alot of students are struggling with. Does that seem fair to you? Western Australia is very strict when it comes to OLNA and expects them all to pass, but many of them don't, alot of students have finished year 12 without even passing it, and even if they finish school it's still going to carry on with them. And even though the government isn't trying to ruin students' lives, well they still are. I have just started year 12, and because I did not pass OLNA, and it was JUST NUMERACY I was told to drop ATAR and do general. Now does that seem fair??? And it is not about how well your skills are , even though you may be smart but still don't meet the OLNA requirement they'll wont make you graduate.
Should OLNA testing be abolished

You know what you are right they should get rid of it, and you know what they should get rid of state testing since all that does is make kids fail because the state requires them to be proficient in something They may as well get rid of required classes as well, whats the point in math? all it does is make kids fail graduation They should make school optional because all it does is condemn kids to something they may not want to do But in all seriousness no it should not be gotten rid of it is there for a reason, state testing required classes and even being legally required to attend school in the first place is there because America wants kids to become smarter so they can do better That is the whole point of the testing, and like I said above once you get rid of one thing what is to stop getting rid of everything else Its not like the government is having this just because they want to torture kids they want them to be able to function in the real world. So yes of course they are going to have tests to make sure you can actually do it. And I have proof as long as you show that you have the skills you are not even required to take the test in the first place I quote "Do we have to complete the OLNA? If you achieved Band 8 or above in the Year 9 NAPLAN reading, writing or numeracy tests you will not be required to sit the corresponding component of the OLNA (you will be considered to have demonstrated the standard for that component). If you did not achieve Band 8 in one or more of the NAPLAN tests, you will be required to demonstrate the relevant standard through the OLNA. You must meet the standard in each component to be eligible to achieve a WACE." So ya that is my argument I look forward to what your replies is Link: https://wace1516.scsa.wa.edu.au...
Should OLNA testing be abolished

IT DEFINETELY SHOULD BE There are some people who do so well in their studies yet when it comes to this test, they can't pass it due to either being stressed or less amount of time to answer the questions. And just because of one small test, students cannot graduate or do ATAR subjects. So basically they just determine one's whole future by just a bloody mini test, yet they are still smart and can still pass. Even if you get an ATAR of 97 they'll still bloody won't make you graduate like seriously?! Thats why it should be banned, its ruining students' lives who want to pass and want to graduate and become what they wanna be but unfortunately some of them aren't lucky due to this stupid standardized test they have implemented.
Quick Debate: NASCAR is not a Sport

Cool. I'll use your definition and show how NASCAR doesn't fit it. 1. NASCAR is not physical activity. You sit down the whole time. Sure, you're sitting down for a very long time, but a lot of nothing is still nothing. It's competitive, but this isn't enough to make it a sport as even board games are competitive. 2. This is basically the same as the above point, this just adds physical exertion. You aren't really doing anything, so where is this exertion? One would say that it gets so hot in those cars that it can be exhausting. That's not exhaustion, that's just dehydration over a long period of time taking its toll on you. If sitting down in a really hot place is a sport, then sitting in a sauna must also be a sport. 3. I'll conceded that it is a pastime, but this isn't enough to make NASCAR a sport, obviously, so point 3 doesn't mean anything. 4. Skill doesn't really come into play. I'll admit some sill is needed, but you're driving in a circle for a few hours. There's nothing dynamic about it, until somebody gets so bored that they stop paying attention and crash. Let's face it, even board games (especially ones like chess) require way more skill than simply driving in a circle for a few hours. I'll give them one thing, it does take a certain amount of skill to do the active equivalent of watching paint dry for 4 hours. To conclude, NASCAR meets maybe half the requirements it takes for us to think of it as a sport. This is why we don't normally think of it as a sport. If anything, chess IS more of a sport than NASCAR, because you spend the whole time sitting in both, but at least chess takes real skill. Thanks!
Quick Debate: NASCAR is not a Sport

Now I personally don't like NASCAR(Why must it be 100% caps?) at all. Or moreover I don't like most sports at all, especially for the sake of 'viewing' them. I think the term 'sport' can be loosely used for most things. For example, many chess players would consider chess to be a sport. I'm a chess player myself, and I don't typically call chess a sport, since most people don't see it as so. Is NASCAR a sport? To find that out we must ask "What is a sport?" I'll use a dictionary sources to help me out with this. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. 2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively. 3. An active pastime; recreation. Now NASCAR I would think fits into all of these 'slots'. Although 'physical' may be questioned. It has it's customs and is engaged competitively. It certainly gives physical exertion over time, lot's of skill involved I suppose. It's certainly a active pastime. Is NASCAR a sport? I think so.
Quick Debate: NASCAR is not a Sport

Yeah, the idea of it not being physical is always the one and only argument against NASCAR being a sport. The fact that doing it can cause strain should be a hint that it's a physical activity. I'll look at it in a different way. What is NASCAR? It has to be in some sort of category. I certainly would see it as a physical thing over a mental thing, in which I would call it a sport. Pro states that sitting can't be considered a physical activity. Think about it though, you're still doing a lot. You need to be focused every second, turning the wheel and switching gears, it does tire out your body. That's where it's physical and it surly does exert the body. I can certainly admit that NASCAR would be one of the least physical sports, but I also consider it to be quite obvious that it's something that is physical to an extent. Pro admits that NASCAR does take some skill. but you're argument might as well be stating that you don't like the sport. It may not be 'dynamic' to you but many people disagree. And if you don't think it's hard to be pro at NASCAR I think that you should try it out for a few months to open your eyes. I believe NASCAR to have fit all of the definitions of being a sport. Many people may argue it, but it's a fact, NASCAR is physical(Certainly not a mental 'game'). Thanks for the debate! I hope I get the chance to do this again with you!
PETA is a wonderful organization.

I also want animals to stop suffering. However how is PETA's method of killing animals any better than the abuse they would have suffered anyways? You mention celebrities and famous people who are advocates of PETA who can help find homes for animals. Many of the celebrities and public figures PETA uses as spokespeople often do not practice what they preach: Pamela Anderson's Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a "luxurious leather interior"; Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an official "okay" from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of abusing small animals on film; the officially "anti-fur" Eva Mendes often wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron's celebrated October 2007 Vogue cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, "Baby Phat" designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokesmodel despite working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal rights group. "The problem? Oh right cause human conscience shouldn't be bothered by the pain the orphaned baby animals go through? That fur is made by breeding foxes in pain and captivity, with no room or freedom, then bioling them alive and peeling their fur off because someone would rather wear fox than faux, that shouldn't bother anyone and no one should do anything about it...? That is wrong. PETA wants people to actually see what happens to these animals, by bringing change they are wonderful." Yes. humans conscience should be affected by any form of pain, however PETA targets children as young as 6 years old, usually without parental consent. This is the problem. Despite denunciations from psychologists and school officials, PETA continues to target children as young as six years old with violent and graphic propaganda. Sidestepping parents and school authorities, PETA lures young and impressionable children into radical activism with a coordinated effort including the use of graphic comic books,grotesque toys, schoolyard demonstrations, e-mail alerts sent directly to 65,000 children, and even a classroom lecturer with a felony rap sheet. http://www.consumerfreedom.com... Ingrid Newkirk has said herself "Taking care of animals cost more than killing them" So PETA is justifying killing animals because they claim taking care of them would cost more money? Once again I ask..Where does the 30+ million dollars PETA receives go to? My argument is that the organization PETA is unethical and the facts don't lie. Its hard to deny them when PETA has admitted to these cruel and unethical acts
PETA is a wonderful organization.

I would argue that PETA is indeed an ethical organization because of what it stands for. It stands for animal rights and the freedom of them. There are parts that I agree with and parts that I don't. Animals are not for people to own, sell, torture, test on, or anything really. Humans are just glorified animals. Humans are really no better than any animal and its time they acted as such. Animal testing is cruel, and many argue that it is a necessary evil, but is it necessary at all anymore? . http://www.scientificamerican.com... According to this scientists are now exploring using robots, this change only happened through animal rights activists, and the fact that animal testing isn't always correct. It doesn't give the right answers, it is still dangerous to humans, and its definitely not right for the animals. Of course that is not exactly PETA but it is what PETA stands for. The more organizations there are and the stronger they are the better chance animals will be treated right sooner. PETA is radical, but that is not always a bad thing, it opens people's minds to the real world problems. There is good and bad with every group, but I would say PETA does more good than bad if by nothing else getting other people to realize the real evils in the world being done to real animals that are really hurt by it. Some examples include: Mars Candy . http://www.marscandykills.com... I was unaware of this until I saw it on the PETA website (. http://www.peta2.com...) This website has more information on animal testing that PETA hopes to end . http://www.stopanimaltests.com... "Animals are routinely cut open, poisoned, and forced to live in barren steel cages for years, although studies show that because of vast physiological variations between species, human reactions to illnesses and drugs are completely different from those of other animals. " Care to explain that? PETA wants to end fur, testing, and animal cruelty. I support it for that, any group that tries to justify any of them is wrong and evil in my mind. As far as meat goes I would say that when real change happens and the animals are treated more humanely they would not have a problem eating adult meat but most likely less of it than most people do today. Vegans and vegetarians are great people that help the animals by not paying for them to be killed, but in my personal opinion I do not think it is necessary to be involved in PETA. PETA opens people's eyes and shows more real world people what exactly is going on, where make up and medicine come from, and urge them to try and stop it.