BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Okay, I'm going to attempt to hurry up and post my round so I'm sorry if I seemed rushed. I don't think I'll be able to cover everything, but I'll try to get what I can. First I'll address my opponent's points.Contention 1: Inadequate Increases cause poverty My opponent here goes on to debate that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will raise us out of poverty, but let me site one of my opponent's source's to indicate how much of an impact this will make according the the CBO which Pro sources a lot. It reads, about half way down the page, that the likely range of loss of jobs for the $10.10 per hour option would be a loss of 1 million jobs (http://cbo.gov...). Let's just do some simple math from what Pro has provided us here today. 1 million jobs lost subtracted from the 900,000 that will be lifted from the poverty line and that equals 100,000 people unemployed and living in poverty. Not to mention the other side effects from raising the minimum wage such as loss of jobs for teenagers. The last time Congress raised the minimum wage in July of 2009, 600,000 teen jobs disappeared within 6 months. (http://www.forbes.com...)With the last minimum wage teen unemployment percentages went from 14.8% to 27.1% (http://articles.chicagotribune.com...) The Inflation will also rise, as Pro fails to refute. But let's look at the minimum wage increase. It's going to go from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour which is over a 25% increase. This will cause prices to rise by 25% again. (http://newsbusters.org...) Pro continues to bring up the bellow the poverty repetively, but this is false. In fact Forbes has actually found that the minimum wage increase will only effect less than 15% of people below the poverty line. This number is way lower than what Pro had brought up in the previous rounds. (http://www.forbes.com...) Contention 2: Rise in minimum wage = decreased deficit.My opponent brings up this point in his last point in his last round, but this is another myth. According to PBS, more people would rise the prices in order to counteract the rising wages (http://www.pbs.org...) My opponent again failed to respond to my argument last round when I brought up inflation and the cycle of prices and wages. The fact that inflation fallows the wage increase would mean that we would surely see barely any change.
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Contention 1: Wage Increase= More JobsMy opponent begins his 2nd round argument that a wage increase will increase jobs, but we can see this is false for many reasons. For instance the wage will increase and the employers will have to either raise prices in order to shelter the burden of the increased wages (which we'll get to this in another Contention) and the second is that we have roughly 500,000 jobs lost due to the cutting of jobs in order for business can still compete with others at low prices. You see that CBO, a source that Pro cites several times actually argues my point. http://www.foxnews.com...) and (http://www.thenation.com...#) This will also hurt teenagers in the Workforce making employers having to cut down on their hours and/or favoring adults and a older population. Let's take Wisconsin for example when the minimum wage was last raised the unemployment soared from 15.8%-19.8%. (http://www.jsonline.com...) Imagine that on a US wide scale. http://www.youtube.com... Contention 2: InflationPro argues that we should raise the minimum wage to $10.10 to help the average Joe, but if that's the case why don't we raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour or why not make everyone a millionaire and have them make $million per hour? The answer to this question is a very simple one and it's simply causes prices to increase and inflation to rise. (http://inflationdata.com...) You see this is a lesson in supply and demand is that when the minimum wage is increased it will cost more for companies to hire and train employees causing more people not to be hired (see video), this results in less jobs, the costs of businesses also rise to keep up with the increased wages and that this ends up causing inflation. (http://www.goupstate.com...) You see this will be a continuous cycle. If you continue to rise the minimum wage then inflation will fallow causing the minimum wage to rise again and again until we end up with a problem like Zimbabwe. When the minimum wage was risen once more the US saw products prices increase via inflation by a factor of 10. (http://www.nytimes.com...) Pro source notes. Pro's 1st source (http://cbo.gov...) notes that by 2016 that an increase in minimum wage will cause a loss of 1 million US jobs. Pro please fix your 3rd, 4th, and 6th link for they are broken.
Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour will benefit the US economy

Increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour will mostly benefit the U.S. Economy. This will be my position in this debate.Con will argue that raising the federal minimum wage will either have no benefit for anyone or will hurt the U.S. economy.I will use numerous reliable, reputable sources to show that an increase in the federal minimum wage will grow national GDP by tens of billions of dollars and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. There are also other benefits to raising the minimum which I will demonstrate.I expect Con to use resources to demonstrate that a raise will either have zero impact or will negatively hurt the U.S. Economy.First Round is for acceptance only. Good luck!
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity:Justification for inequality.

See what I mean? christians have such a difficult time in following instructions. I gave my opponent one simple task in which he could not follow it. Its because his brain dead Kewpie doll with fake boobies who uses fiberglass con-dumbs for those really heated situations does not have a legitimate answer. The Rules were simple enough "Give the "why" gays should be stoned to death and also the "why" gays should be looked down upon. There is no "why" to the rules, only that his god hates, and hates gays at that and for no reason and thinks and believes that every---single---one---of---them should be stoned to death. Since my opponent is a christian, this is what he believes, or he disobeys his god. It is completely immoral to stone to death ANYONE who is gay just because they are gay for ANY reason even though the idiot bible does not give a "why". Its completely immoral, bankrupt, completely insane and absurd and cannot be paid any attention to. Now had my opponent paid any attention to the article in which this debate is based on, and the first part of this debate was taken from (as stated), then he would know that there are 11 parts to the entire "The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity" In which is clearly stated in RD1. Just because he is the typical christian, and can't read, nor comprehend, and doesn't understand what "11 parts" means, that's not my problem, that's his. This debate is only one part of eleven (oh and oh yeah some of the other parts have been covered in other debates)(oh and oh yeah, as stated, my wonder bore opponent who still clings to his uterus can easily read ALL ELEVEN PARTS, namely the entire article from which this debate is linked, AS STATED, in RD1. Nah that's far to difficult for our hero opponent to do any type of multitasking researching) Wow what a teardrop concept that my opponent does not understand. Again, that's his problem.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity:Justification for inequality.

First, I appreciate that my opponent responded. However, I find his response unfortunate. I hope all people involved in a debate can treat each other respectfully and coherently, assuming good faith of the other. In response to his claim that I need to read the rules (I can only assume "Give the 'why' gays should be stoned to death and also the 'why' gays should be looked down upon."), I say that I have read them. However, the resolution is not about the veracity of the Bible. As my opponent and I have agreed, it is whether or not religion is destroying humanity. To say otherwise would be a contradiction of his case. This is the crux of the debate: can my opponent prove what he is saying? So far, he has decided not only to avoid fulfilling his side of the burden of proof but has responded with insults which is truly disheartening.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity:Justification for inequality.

I truly hate christians like you because you CAN'T READ. What is so difficult about "reading"? Why is it so difficult for christians, and yes, I am separating them into one groups, because you like so many others constantly prove that you do not have the ability within your compound fractured little beady eyes to not be able to READ. Now you go right ahead and you READ the RULES and then get back to me, should you decide to do as such because this debate is about one topic and only one topic about how religion is destroying humanity. Got it? Oh and oh yeah, to slaughter you and every f--king thing you said, because you are such a weak link in the food chain, in answer to everything you posed, why don't you take a look at the very link right at the top of RD 1? Nah that to simple for you because your cabbage batbrain is always in reverse and cannot for a single second pay any attention to actual evidence from the outside just as the typical christian can't. Yeah I'm angry at you because you insult my intelligence because of your lowered, obviously, edumacation, and intelligence. And you make me look like a prince among ujnkissed frogs for eons. So once again, pay attention to the rules, or don't even bother responding. Sheesh.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity:Justification for inequality.

Thank you for offering this debate. For clarity, I would like to establish the resolution as I understand it: Resolved: Religion is destroying humanity. My opponent, the affirmative, has the burden of proof. He must prove that what he says is true and that it affirms the resolution. In response to his points I simply offer three contentions. CONTENTION 1: DEFINITIONS My opponent has used words like morality and god and discrimination and hate. However, he has not defined them and his use of them seems to be murky. For clarity, I ask that he define his terms. CONTENTION 2: MORAL STANDARD My opponent makes many statements about morality. For example, he calls god and the Bible and discrimination--among other things--immoral. However, how does he prove this? If he merely finds it distasteful, then that is merely a matter of preference. For example, I do not like ranch dressing; I find it rather gross. However, if someone likes it and uses it, I do not condemn him. However, my opponent has not proven that his distaste for "hate," "discrimination," and "god"--among other things--is more than his personal preference. To prove that these things are bad or immoral, he would need to prove his morality to be true and universally binding. Nothing short of that would warrant an affirmative vote. CONTENTION 3: FOUNDATION FOR RIGHTS My opponent also introduced the concept of "rights." However, he does not explain what they are, why they ought to be valued, or anything else about them. Why does one person have the right to live his life how he wishes (whatever that may mean) and another does not have the right to do so by discriminating? CONCLUSION While these ideals my opponent offers sound laudable, we cannot just take these for granted, especially since it is unclear what he even means by them. While we may like how the arguments sound, it only matters what has been proven. The debate will rely on this: has the affirmative truly proven the resolution (and his underlying assumptions) to be true?
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity:Justification for inequality.

My opponent cannot reasonably expect people to just accept his premises and the "work" done by pseudo-scholars he quotes without any warrant. The resolution, as stated, is "religion is destroying humanity. " As my opponent has refused to meet his burden of proof and has insisted to return my contentions with mere insults, a negative vote is warranted. My opponent has simply done nothing to earn an affirmative vote and his conduct alone deserves not only a loss of this debate on his part but also--in my opinion--a termination of his account altogether.
Rap Battle 9

Repition You know just what to do At least that's all I get from you You slim shady wanna be You gotta be the weakest sh!t I have ever seen Glad you could show up little Watson Sherlock's got you boxed in I see you fighten Rollin around and bitin Screaming that you shoulda put your teeth in Before I started reaming you with these hard set rhymes. I have a que"r a$$ photo At least I had the guts to show my face tho Instead of that boring a$$ sh!t You should quit, you got it all wrong in who there booing I see them shooing you off the stage while you are screaming your broken little rage
Rap Battle 9

My rhymes are grated? But YOU are cheesy! Mine are sloppy/overrated, yours are pleasing? Absolutely false, I'll shoot you like Eazy Straight Outta DDO, I'm goin' so fast, do you even see me? Cause I'm the Flash, I don't mutter but spit Speed of light melt you like butter, go quit Don't need a rhyme loan, got MY OWN, another, so lit This battle is my gold, my Bowl, brother, I own it The Titanic? Nah bjcth, I'm Captain Jack Sparrow Here to loot your @ss and start slappin' that barrow By barrow, I mean your mom, I'm packin that barrel Full a gunpowder like I pirate, I'm attackin' f@gs, farewell You say I'm gay, but then here's that no-no You go ahead an post a queer @ss photo I'm laughin' so hard it's like a tear gas promo You suck, crowds boo you, you hear that? "Go home!"
Rap Battle 9

Your rhymes are so grated Sloppy and overrated Flow is so gated Jumping around then hanging their baited. Good job on saying I'm muttering Kind of hard to read with all your stuttering My diction is perfection Hell I could loan you a rhyme Sometime cause it looks a lot like you're not doing so fine Your going to crash harder than the titanic in the iceberg Go up in flames like Hindenburg See my rhyme Drop like a dime See I don't need to call you gay You're doing ok Portraying that just fine I'll just keep slaying you with my rhymes.
Rap Battle 9

You talk about flow, but you're just a hypocrite Your nonsense really blows, and it's just shjt, so quit Know who else blows? your mom, that Bjtch don't quit On my c0ck she goes, so long, my djck's so big! Interested on how you thought I can't spell come right I MEANT semen, your daily men pleasing, you dumb dyke In this gun fight I'm unkind and shoot you, I'm the #1 guy Your nasty vag has fungi, kick your nappy @ss up high Shoulda passed this guy, he can't even pull a double rhyme Ima smash this fly (you), you know that it's trouble time Get my stabbing pike, thrust it in your butt hole fine I grab the mic and dab all night you know I'm gung ho, right? Your bars, well, some don't like, they're just like poison gas This aint WWI, so quit giving us that shjt, all the Doughboys pass Concede to me, it aint even, G, please just leave, you got no choice, @ss My bars don't quit, they are so quick, but you? Well, your voice, l......a.....g..... I didn't disable profanity, why would I ever do that? Then I couldn't say: My bjtches wiill cradle those damn titties, dyke should never shoot back, been nice, pvssy great
Rap Battle 9

you seem so focused on if I like men I think this hits home for you Back when your uncle used to touch you Have little flow I just might At least I know how to spell come right Aight I tried to be simple Lessen up that butt hurt a little You say you'll choke me like darth Vader Are you also going to have mommy issues too You think I'm wack Well think back To when your only quality was your sister had a nice rack I feel bad for her I really do Since she got a sex change because of you You showed her men aren't good Almost killed herself like your butt should. Wow so sad Had to disable profanity Afraid they are Going to make you mad. And you call be the baby
Rap Battle 9

Admiral Slaughter thinks I go easy on noobs to this site Only been on DDO one day and start a feud, is that right? Doesn't matter, I'll roast and barbecue you all damn night Cut you to bits and spit on you to make you stew, have a bite. Give lube to this dyke because he needs to get unstuck Cause his flow so slow, bjtch just leave in the dump truck!!!! When you spit even just one rhyme, it's just dumb luck Speed it up, (Admiral Slaughter gizzes), gross cum, yuck! Dumb fvck, not like that you fvckin' queer, what's with you? Why you always lookin' for guys to go and cum kiss you? Someone go ahead and give this guy one tissue Cause when he sees a guy he can't control himself, some issue... It's fun to diss you, I'll choke you like the dark lord Darth Vader Ima hard debater, stark hater, run you over in my car later! Bjtch just got on Debate.org, you're such an irate thot, wh0re In vain I got scores against this easy mof, he don't even start wager No excuses in the comments, that's pvssy shjt I'll abuse you even witha conscience, hey wussy, quit.
Abolish plea bargains

Imagine there are no plea bargains. Consider a scenario of a murder where the accused is acquitted in a trail. The accused is guilty. The evidence points to the accused being guilty. But for some mistake in evidence collection he goes free. Imagine someone who's innocent but being charged with murder. The prosecutor is able to convince a jury the accused is guilty. The innocent person is sentenced to the fullest extent of the law. Are either of those situations just? Those types of situations happen in real life without plea bargaining playing a role. Plea bargaining has played a key role in gaining information to take down criminal organizations. Who are anyone of us to say what a just punishment is? Most sentencing in a trail is left to the arbitrary decision of the judge. Who may have personal reasons for making his or her choice. Whether plea bargaining exist or not, prosecutor's still have incentive to gain convictions. Plea bargaining is optional. No one has to take a plea deal. The court system is overburdened in it's current state. Adding an exponential amount of burden to the court system would be disastrous. Any adult who understands how the world works knows it is unreasonable to say spend whatever it costs. The only way one could make such a statement is to have no idea what it is to manage money and responsibility in the first place. In a plea bargain both sides come to an agreeable solution. The accused is given a punishment the representative of the state sees fit to the crime. Oftentimes a judge reviews the plea deal. My opponent has not demonstrated how plea bargaining impedes justice. The scenarios pro paints could lead to injustice even in a trail. Clearly plea bargaining is not the determinant factor on whether justice is or isn't served. Finally my opponent keeps mentioning justice as if he alone has a perfect sense of it. Let me define justice:the legal and philosophical theory by which fairness is administered.
Abolish plea bargains

There are two main issues in this debate round: first, that this plan will cost too much and second, that plea bargains do not harm justice. First, assuming plea bargains are unjust, is the cost of justice too high. Both sides agree that justice is the purpose of our justice system. If we are not willing to spend money to achieve justice, our courts may as well shut down. Can you look a taxpayer in the eye and tell him "We can afford $700,000 to study methane gas emissions from dairy cows, but justice is too expensive." I couldn't. If plea bargains are unjust, then we should get rid of them whatever the cost. Hire more judges and cut the budget elsewhere! So the main issue you the judge must decide is the second point: Are plea bargains unjust? My answer is yes. Every time. Justice means giving somebody the punishment he deserves for his crime. Think about the two groups of people who take plea bargains. Guilty and innocent. If a person is guilty, he deserves a sentence of X. In the status quo, he can take a plea bargain and escape his just sentence. If an innocent person takes a plea bargain he is confessing to a crime he did not commit. If that is just, my opponent should win the round. My opponent made a few other statements which I will respond to here: If both parties agree on unjust terms, they are still unjust. The guilty receives "a punishment," but it is not the just punishment meeted out by law. Actually, there are examples of people will very little choice in the matter. That aside, refer to my first point. Clearly it is a mechanism, but as I hope I have showed, it is unjust. We can't know how often judges will be lenient or how often people will plead guilty, but we can assume that some will. Even if none do, I believe that solving this injustice is worth the cost. A judge is the one who should have power over sentencing. If he is lenient, that is not the same as a plea bargain. If you see the injustice of plea bargains, please help to stop them.
Abolish plea bargains

It should not be enough for pro to state their arbitrary opinion. You have a burden of proof as well. How is plea bargaining a miscarriage of justice? I did not contest that justice is the point of the justice system for two reasons. First, that is not the topic of debate. Second justice is the point of the justice system. Pro needs to adequately demonstrate that plea bargaining impedes the justice system. Not whether justice is the point. 90 percent of criminal cases are settled by plea bargains. The court system handling 10 percent is overburdened. Doing away with plea bargaining would load overburdened courts with exponentially more burden. Which would render the court system less effectual. Nations, states, counties, cities have budgets. There are a finite amount of resources. In adult society it is most reasonable to consider cost. Doing away with plea bargaining is not a plan. The notion addresses no issues that would result. It is uncertain how many criminal cases wouldn't go to trail without plea bargaining. There's no way to know if judges would provide leniency. If judges did provide leniency isn't that just plea bargaining with a judge as the arbiter. These are things pro couldn't possibly know and shouldn't state as fact. Justice is the legal and philosophical theory by which fairness is administered. Plea bargains involve mutual terms set by both parties. The guilty receives a punishment through plea bargaining. No one has to accept a plea deal. Plea bargaining is a just mechanism in the justice system.
Abolish plea bargains

Yes, the prosecution and defence get to work out all those details, and, in the case of a plea bargain, make absolutely sure that justice miscarries.Yes, a trial costs money, but if the justice system is not willing to spend money on justice, what should it spend money on? You did not contest the point that justice is the purpose of the justice system. In that case, we must spend whatever we must to achieve that goal.Even under my plan, not all cases will go to trial. Some guilty defendants will plead guilty to save the trouble of court, and in hopes that the judge will be lenient at sentencing.My opponent argues that the solution is not complex enough to fix this complex problem, but he does not explain exactly how the plan will fall short, or present evidence supporting his opinion. He has merely said that the problem is complicated.The issue you are presented with is still the same. Every plea bargain is a miscarriage of justice. Plea bargains are used in 90% of cases. We must get rid of this enormous flaw in the system.