BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
$10.10 Minimum Wage is Good

It is important to show who is actually in minimum wage jobs. According to a Pew research they are "Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19) [1]". These are generally not the people raising families. Second, this shows that people move above the minimum wage as they get more experience showing that people don't get stuck there that much. My opponent also claims the current federal minimum wage is not enough to et out of poverty. $7.25 minimum wage * 40 work week * 52 weeks in a year = $15,080 for one person. The poverty line held by almost all states for one person is $11,670 [2]. This is above the poverty line, and you can't even factor in taxes since someone of that low of income won't even pay income tax. Also, it is important to note a lot of states have it higher than the federal minimum wage already [3]. I would also like to know the source of my opponent's third point. Sources[1] . http://www.pewresearch.org...[2] . http://aspe.hhs.gov...[3] . http://www.dol.gov...
$10.10 Minimum Wage is Good

Thank you for accepting this debate, which I am positive will be an interesting way to learn new views on the fascinating issue of minimum wage. First, by July of 2016 (at the current rate we are going) the number of people affected by whether or not the minimum wage will be about 27.8 million people. Second, it is very to difficult for people to not get stuck in minimum wage jobs for their entire lives, especially in our current, tough economy. Third, researchers believe that increasing the minimum wage doesn't kill jobs at all, but actually would give the economy a boost by channeling more pay to low income workers who are likely to spend it. Forth, the current minimum wage of $7.25 is not enough to get workers and their families out of poverty. The minimum wage even falls short of the poverty line for a family of two people ($16,000 annually) none the less families of three ($19,000 annually) and families of four ($24,000 annually).
$10.10 Minimum Wage is Good

I hope we both can come to an understanding of each others viewpoint. Firstly, I will address the unsourced poll. This is a logical fallacy called Bandwagon which is "You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. [1]" I will now explain why a $10.10 Minimum Wage is not good. 1. Inflation Any increase in the minimum wage will increase prices. "Price of relevant inputs - if the cost of resources used to produce a good increase, sellers will be less inclined to supply the same quantity at a given price, and the supply curve will shift to the left. [2]" Minimum wage increases the cost of labor. This increase will cause the supply to contract and have fewer products at a higher price. 2. Cost of Living The cost of living varies from city to city, so a one size fits all will not work. For example, "A salary of $50,000 in Toledo, Ohio should increase to $103,114 in New York, New York [3]" Obviously, if these two cities would have a minimum wage it should not be the same. If you set the minimum wage higher than the market value of labor it will cause inflation in those cities, and it could be too low in other cities. In the end, nothing got better. 3. Unemployment If the price is above the market price this will make quantity supplied of labor greater than the quantity demanded, aka Unemployment. First, when minimum wage increases, businesses fire existing employees. Second, now being able to earn more, more people look for jobs. This cause increases in unemployment. 4. Outsourcing If it becomes cheaper to produce the product outside the country than inside those jobs would be moved to the other country. This raises unemployment even more; however, prices won't rise as mucha if any, but less people have jobs to earn money to buy the products. Sources[1] . https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...[2] . http://www.netmba.com...[3] . http://www.bestplaces.net...
The only thing that works to get rid of bad behavior and destructive lifestyles is making a qual

I'm sorry I only saw "qual" when I accepted this challenge. Nevertheless, I can win this debate. Therapy and treatment works very well, and sometimes all you need is some alone time to think things through. Making a quality decision is definantly not the best way to do this. I am very sorry for my bad grammer/spelling. In addition, delinquints wont make a little decsision and say their good little pupils. No, they require hard work in jail and then trackers. No, making a quality descision is not the only way to get rid of bad behavior, though I admit its a very good way and effective.
The only thing that works to get rid of bad behavior and destructive lifestyles is making a qual

I didn't realize they would cut my statement. That should read, " quality decision".I have never seen anyone overcome a destructive habit for any length of time without making a decision to quit that had quality in it. When a decision is one of quality, that is it. There is no turning back. They become anchored in their minds. If they make a decision that is just wishful thinking, it will fall apart like a cheap watch at the first pressure from their minds or other people.In other words. This decision is forever.
The only thing that works to get rid of bad behavior and destructive lifestyles is making a qual

You are right, I can certainly prove that you are wrong. First of all, not everyone has the same ideas of discipline. You can most certainly talk it out calmly, or go as far as to take it to a disciplinary camp. Second of all, qual is not an actual word. This is my opening argument. I await my worthy competitor's ansers patiently.
The only thing that works to get rid of bad behavior and destructive lifestyles is making a qual

I contend that all the " therapy" and " treatment" nonsense is not working to in any meaningful way. Especially government run programs..A quality decision by anyone will move a person out of bad behavior into sound living. By definition a quality decision is one that from which is no turning, about which there is no debate. Each of us has the capacity to make that kind of decision. Con can certainly make his point that I am wrong.
School helps people in the future

School prepares you for the future because it teaches you how to become an everyday worker. Think of it this way, your boss doesn't want you slacking and not doing your work in a everyday environment. Well thats what school is an everyday environment where you complete assignments and whether you do them is up to you or not. However in a common work place if you don't do your work you end up fired, or in an almost same way you fail the class. Which if you think about it is almost like failing your job.
School helps people in the future

I'm going to try to keep it professional since you just decided to throw it out the window with your childish insults. I mean you really going to insult my intelligence over a few grammatical errors? What are you Mr. Perfect? By the way you sound a lot more credible without your head stuck up your arse. Anyway I never said schools were completely pointless; To sum it up I was saying that everyone doesn't need to wake up every morning to go to a physical school because people can learn everything they learn at school in the comfort of their home. That goes for primary and secondary school. Not so much college since it really depends on which major the person is taking up. I do agree with you that we should not always look to other people to teach us something and sometimes we can take matters into our own hands if we want to gain further knowledge about a topic. Although learning a topic on our own does not have to be carried out at a physical school. Half the things that are taught in schools these days will be irrelevant to a large portion of our everyday lives especially if most people are not pursuing careers like doctors, dentists etc. That is why there is such a thing called home schooling. Physical schools are basically like a day care for parents while they go on about their days. You do a bunch of assignments that someone created to keep them entertained in which they will only remember a small percentage of especially if people find the information non-essential, you eat lunch, they keep you active with sports or other extracurricular activities, then your parents pick you up and you do it all over again everyday of the week. Point is half the things we do at school are not guaranteed to make us smarter or lead better lives. Those things will guarantee a higher success rate only when combined with life skill lessons that will effect us in the long run and will be more effective since we will be using the skills we learn every day.
School helps people in the future

School CAN prepare you for adult life, but there is no guarantee; you must take school, like life, into your own hands. One point brought up by anti-schooling proponents is the lack of direct correlation between school and "reality," i.e. life without a teacher directing what is mandated. A common thread here seems to say school neglects financial knowledge; that can be rectified. The true problem with schools is often how they're taught. STEM courses can be incredibly creative classes, but they're often taught as memorize-able classes where discovery is unimportant. The point of schools is to help you help yourself. While poor teachers and classes can hinder learning, one of the most important things I've learned from school is how to take things for myself. If a teacher is bad, I teach myself. It's not about money; I can make money. Before someone points out that the dropouts ran our computer renaissance, I would point out that schools should help us help ourselves, including when to drop the regimen of standard paths and start on our own. (I have a hard time acknowledging an argument that says schools are useless when the authors could't even compel themselves to spell check and add superfluous capital letters. We have English classes to learn about the art of Rhetoric and persuasion; you're a lot more credible if you sound well-educated and intelligent. For the middle schoolers here, give high school a chance. If the curriculum doesn't work for you, take matters into your own hands.) life isn't about waiting for someone to teach you.)
School helps people in the future

School is good for anyone who wants to join a profession that requires lots of math or science. For example, a zoologist or Statician. Maybe at one time school was designed to discipline children in a way that helps them complete their assignments and stay motivated, but this is 2018 and most kids get bored, or don't want to seem smarter than other kids or don't want to get bullied later on for asking a stupid question in class so they do the minimum work required to pass their classes. And bigger schools have bigger class sizes meaning the teacher can't always get to have a one on one time with every student. So therefore the school fails to discipline them in that area. When I graduated I was literally able to look back and say "wow what the hell did I learn?" Maybe I tackled a few math problems successfully, learned some new vocabulary, and a bit of geography but really I could have learned all that in the comfort of my home. What tools did the school give me other than how to succeed in a job working for other people? How about teaching us how to become entrepreneurs, how to get and use a credit card, how interest works, taxes etc? And sure some of those things should be taught by the parents but what about the kids who have no parents who know about these things or even care enough to educate them on these things? If schools want their students to graduate being fully prepared for the future they need to start giving them the necessary tools to not only survive but to also excel and move forward to bigger and better things in this world.
Johnicle's tournament resolution.

Redundancy isn't appreciated. Just remember all that I said and you'll vote for me. Ill go over his "voting issues" 1. I cited a piece of evidence in my first argument. His definition on the round is what got him out of the arguments, making me have to debate "hypothetically". When I did begin to debate hypothetically, he said I need real world evidence, ignoring what I presented before. The only evidence I could have possibly presented in this round is evidence saying that the fundamentals of NCLB are flawed, and I did. This went unanswered and the answers he gave were non responsive to the argument. Learning for the test stifles creativity and stops teachers from teaching things that are useful to kids in America, and is therefore bad. Remember this evidence I provided, and this voting issue he says should go his way actually goes mine. 2. I find your redundancy and inability to actually debate the topic as annoying. Theres no reason to vote against someone for how they wrote their argument. 3. I did. 4. This "voting issue" mirrors your intelligence.
Johnicle's tournament resolution.

At the point in which you make such a retarded argument, I will let you have it all. He doesn't want to debate. This isn't even a debate anymore because hes being so ridiculously stupid with what he is saying. What argument can I possibly make in this debate round when he doesn't want to debate? He thinks that whoever chose this resolution wanted there to be no wins on the neg. Not once has he made a single argument or used an ounce of logic, just defined one word and said "look i win" but thats not going to work today, because judge, you are not going to allow it. Because of his stupidity neither side, nor spectators, no judges has learned a single thing; drop him for wasting all of our time. Remember everything that I said in my last argument. That even though something can be "ideal" it doesnt make it good, it can still be bad. Remember the examples I provided. None of this logic went refuted. Also remember that I argued the fundamentals of NCLB are flawed. Therefore there will never be a form of it that has no flaws. He doesn't argue for NCLB at all, the underlying mindsets that are present. He could have proved that the "learn for the test" mindset is a good mindset, arguing against what I said. But he doesnt, and he fails. I won the argument that the underlying mindsets of NCLB blow so there will never be a good version. But even if you buy that NCLB can be "ideal", you will see that even within his abusive, stupid argument, there are flaws. He says that the ideal version of NCLB has no flaws. Sure, you can have that. But it still wouldnt be beneficial to the wefare of the United States. So it can have no flaws. It can be perfect. But it is not going to be beneficial. He fails the resolution once again. And apparently I hold the burden of proof now. Thats stupid. He's the affirmative debater, he has to prove the resolution true. And this next part of his argument is where he loses all credibility, and I no longer assume he has a brain stem. He says that I have to provide empirical evidence that the resolution is incorrect. So what is it now? I can't be realistic and point out empirical evidence that NCLB is flawed, and at the same time I can't argue that the ideology of NCLB is flawed? What can I argue? I have tried to argue both ways here today and the only way he gets out of the argument is by saying "this argument doesn't apply because X- argue a different way", and when I argue the other way it is the same exact response. The only way I will hold any respect for you as a debater is by you submitting an argument with only the words "I lose" on it. This was a complete waste of time and theres no way youre going to win at this point.
Johnicle's tournament resolution.

My opponent states that I have proven that the NCLB laws have flaws. Yes, I agree, but only when applied to the current form of the program. I stand behind my original statement that an IDEAL form of NCLB would be beneficial because all problems have been eliminated. Any falacy that my opponent can bring up on the NCLB laws is not a plausible arguement because if that problem were translated to the 'ideal' form then it is no longer an ideal form and thus does not apply to this debate. My opponent also brings up the idea that there is no ideal form possible in today's reality. While I assure you that there is I will simply address my opponent's argument for now. He claims that because there is no ideal form in reality then the ideal form is not acceptable. In responce I point this out: the resolution specifically asks for an IDEALISTIC form of the laws, my opponent demands a REALISTIC form which is NOT IDEALISTIC and thus his demands are not reasonable nor applicable to the resolution. Thus my idealistic form of the NCLB laws may not be realistic, but because they are properly idealistic we can assume they stand as proper evidence in this resolution. My opponent also has the burden of proof in this debate. He is the negative, thus he must provide emperical evidence that the resolution is incorrect. You can easily observe the fact that he provides no evidence what so ever as to what is wrong with the resolution. Thus he cannot be considered as its winner. HE HAS FAILED TO NEGATE THE RESOLUTION AND I HAVE EFFECTIVELY AFFIRMED IT. thank you
Johnicle's tournament resolution.

"No Child Left Behind Act- a massive federal intrusion that impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools"- Ted Rueter Teaching to the test does not ensure that students receive the education needed to survive in the real world. No Child Left Behind is a bad thing, this is conceded as of my opponents argument. "What ever problems it has are eliminated", he says, proving he thinks No Child Left Behind has flaws. The fundamentals of NCLB are flawed, the underlying mindsets must be changed in order to cause something that will be beneficial to the welfare of the United States. No form of NCLB will ever have a positive impact on the United States because the idea in itself is flawed, no matter how different the new form of nclb is that the pro advocates. At this point I have made arguments that all forms of NCLB will always be negative, the affirmative doesnt make any arguments otherwise. The offense of the debate is being felt by the pro, when the con has to offense to argue against. When he doesnt give 1 reason why to vote for him, you have to vote con. "An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States" He goes off on how if NCLB is "ideal" it must therefore be "logically acceptable". But the context of the resolution makes this untrue. It says the form of NCLB is ideal, but the fact is that ALL forms of NCLB are not good. So even an "ideal" form is not actually "logically acceptable". By attaching "ideal" to the front of everything, you dont make everything "good". If I said im going to "punch you in the face ideally" You wouldnt find that a good thing Im going to put "Ideal dog crap" all over your face If you were to use an "ideal form of hair" to use as a biofuel, you would still not be able to use this "ideal" hair for positive. Thus, proving that the "form" of NCLB is "ideal" doesnt actually ensure that this will benefit society.
Johnicle's tournament resolution.

My argument for this round will be short and sweet, yet decisive. Any further support of my case will be given through the attacks on my opponent's case. First of all I will define the word 'ideal' which is in the resolution. Ideal: In a form that is acceptable to most if not all parties involved, perfection or extremely close there unto, logically acceptable. (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary) Since the resolution asks if an ideal form of the NCLB act should be accepted, then by the very definition of the word ideal it makes sense to do so. What ever problems it has are eliminated in an ideal form and thus there is no down side to passing such a law. If there is no down side there is only an upside and thus we should pass it. RESOLUTION IS AFFIRMED thank you
Resolved: North Korea should reunite with South Korea

1) The Korean War is still going on this war is a waste of time and US troops. the DMZ (de-militarized zone) at the 39 parallel is the spot where these troops are stationed at and they are just sitting there. they are not physically fighting there, they might as well be going to Seoul and drinking soju... oh that's right, they are... 2) Socialism this union of north and south should create socialism. the north is communist and the south is capitalist... when they unite, they will have socialism, the in between. 3) end to 6 party talks this will end the 6 party talks because now the country of north Korea will not be a nuclear threat to countries because it wont be a country any more. moreover, since they are already starting to disassemble the nuclear arms, if they unionize the country, they will successfully stop the nuclear arms threat.
Every school must have a uniform

Thank you for replying so fast to my argument and yes I am very much enjoying this debate. I have put my argument against my opponent in three points. Firstly: I would still emphasize on the fact that school uniforms are more cost effective. Some students try to dress according to the latest fashion in order to fit in the school.Unfortunately, many do not have the means to do so and may fall victim to peer pressure or bullying. In fact, surveyed school leaders with a school uniform or formal dress code policy in place believe their current policy has made a significant, positive impact on peer pressure (86 percent) and bullying (64 percent). Citation:http://www.naesp.org... Recently the Liberal Democrats held a conference about the cost of school uniforms across England. The education minister David Laws is to issue new guidance to end the practice of using a single uniform supplier, enabling parents to shop around for uniform. If schools decide to change their uniform, for example with a new emblem or colour, changes should be restricted to one or two items, preferably with sew-on logos. Changing from a one-supplier system could help families with the cost of school uniform. citation: http://www.theguardian.com... Secondly: School is a place where one needs to be disciplined. This is what helps a student to focus in his life and take important decisions. Only Choosing clothes does not make a person independent. A report shows that School uniform or formal dress code policy has made a positive impact on the following: Classroom Discipline (85 percent) Image in the Community (83 percent) Student Safety (79 percent) School Pride (77 percent) Student Achievement (64 percent) Attendance (44 percent) Citation:http://www.naesp.org... Thirdly: School uniforms are not fashionable but the students look smart and confident in their uniforms. To show their individualism they can do innovative work that will benefit their schools wearing their uniforms proudly. So I conclude by saying that school uniforms are necessary for all the students.