BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

Employers have to compete for workers the same way they have to compete for customers. If Ben's Carwash charges $10.00, and Kristina's Carwash charges $7.50, Kristina will take Ben's customers. If Ben's Carwash starts at $10.00 an hour, and Kristina's Carwash starts at $7.50 an hour, Ben will take Kristina's workers. My opponent mentioned people who are so down and out and desperate for work that they will accept any job without even knowing what the rate of pay is. What my opponent is overlooking is that when the government mandates a higher wage, employers will hire fewer of these desperate people. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 an hour worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7.00 an hour, even if the government demands it. The law of supply and demand, which is going to operate no matter how hard the government fights it, says that when the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. That's why environmentalists like higher gasoline taxes, and anti-smoking activists back higher cigarette taxes.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

I agree that supply and demand is a great thing and works well in most economic situations, but this is not one of them. There are two fundamental flaws in my opponents argument: Supply and demand does not work for jobs and that companies will either choose to or be forced (by market forces) to do what is ethical for their employees. Supply and demand does not work for jobs. Supply and demand is a great thing when it comes the price of goods, like a stereo or a television, but not when it comes to jobs. You see, when you are making a decision to buy a stereo or a television it is not something that you absolutely need. Those things are luxuries so supply and demand works by balancing how much people want a T. V. (demand) by how many are available. In our modern times when everything can be mass produced supply is normally decided by how many have already been sold. However jobs are not a luxury for most people, they are a necessity, because people need money to eat and pay for a place to live. Therefore when people are looking for a job (especially in hard economic times, like this one) they are likely to take the first job that comes their way. People are given the choice of either working or starving and faced with a decision like that people are much more willing to take what they can get. Think about it, how many people out there have interviewed for a job and accepted it without even knowing what the exact rate of pay was? I know that I have done this before and I'm sure that others out there have done the same. Employers are not ethical when it comes to workers. There are many examples of this throughout history, I'm sure we all know about the child labor practices and the rock-bottom wages that employers used to provide before labor laws came into effect. However, there are still unethical behaviors that go on today. It is unethical for CEOs to take million dollar salaries and also accept million dollar bonuses while their workers earn minimum wage. And speaking of minimum wage let's talk about it. Even assuming that minimum wage is eight dollars an hour (which it is not in most states) if you worked 40 hours a week you would bring home around $950 a month after taxes. With that amount of money this is what you are expected to do: Pay rent, pay utilities, buy gasoline for your car, get food, pay for health and car insurance and any other expenses you might have. You would be hard pressed to just pay for an apartment and utilities with that amount of money, and that would leave you without food. The minimum wage already doesn't provide people with enough money to live. Abolishing it would be horrible for the citizens of our country. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal and his further arguments, as I'm sure he has them, as I have mine.
Minimum wage laws should not exist.

Minimum wage laws are not only unnecessary but counterproductive because competition for workers keeps wages up and wage controls discourage hiring. People are going to go where the money is. For example, imagine a janitorial job was advertised for hire. If the wage is $100 dollars per hour, thousands of people would want the job. If the wage was $1 per hour, you probably wouldn't find anyone to do it. Supply and demand is the fundamental principal of economics. The supply of workers goes up as wages go up and demand for workers goes down as wages go up. Therefore, as the minimum wage goes up, the number of people employed goes down. When the minimum wage goes down, the number of people employed goes up.
POFO debater only please.

Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Definitions: Successfully- Achieving the desired effect Mitigate- decrease Year- 2009 Contention 1: Money into economy Whereas the Economic Stimulus Act is giving roughly $106 billion dollars to citizens that qualify, spending will increase within the nation. When this occurs companies are able to profit in turn mitigating the current recession. The recession is caused by citizens who're incapable due to debt (for the most part) from purchasing goods. As companies suffer due to loss in profit due to lack of buying, the economy suffers. Contention 2: Federal Reserve A)Money and Rates: The Federal Reserve had injected $24 billion into the U.S. banking system and lowered the federal funds rate below the usual target rate of 5.25% to help stabilize the economy, August 9, 2007. Since then, the rates of the Federal funds rate have been reduced to its current level of 4.25%. Basically this means in addition to the economic stimulus alone, the Fed. Reserve is working with the banks of the U.S. to help lower the amount that banks are charged when they make an overnight loan to one another. This helps the economy by taking less money away from the banks, allowing it to fuel the economy, and at the same time giving direct funding to the economy in banks. This helps mitigate the economic recession. B)Foreign and Central Banks Through actions between the Federal Reserve and foreign central banks such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Swiss National Bank, the Federal Reserve was able to alleviate some funding pressures by making greater liquidity (ability or ease to convert assets into cash) available. Lines were established between the ECB and the Federal Reserve to swap currency, which funds non-U.S. institutions that would usually go to the interbank market as opposed to the U.S. Through liquidity provided from the ECB's short-term funding of about $500 billion, markets have been able to recover on an international level. Essentially U.S is working with foreign banks to circulate money, helping to raise the value. Pressures on the economy are being alleviated through the liquidity of the Federal Reserve. Also, through the ECB's funding in the interbank, some markets are able to recover. Contention 3: Hirer wages Higher wages are an easy way to increase economic activity in the sense that it increases the amount people are able to spend on U.S markets. Now it's easy to say that there are no guarantees that the money will be spent on personal ventures, but the fact of the matter is that many Americans are in over their heads in debt, and this hurts companies when these citizens aren't able to pay. This increased wage can easily help to pay back loans, and debts acquired through the years and this directly influences the economy. This may look like a costly method, but it is effective and will essentially benefit companies in general, and perhaps save this nation from facing a great economic recession.
The Roman empire was nothing special and was not that great

1. The Roman empire was tiny compared to other Empires that are over looked in history for example the British Empire 2. Rome had few things original it just took from all the other civilizations it conquered like its sword from Spain its Legions from the Greek Hoplite's also it took the Greek religion and gave it a tiny twist then called it its own most of its siege and sailing equipment from Carthage and Egypt its architecture was much Egyptian and they're cavalry was based off of the Macedonian Companion unit. 3. The Empire spent most of its time dealing with political problems and crushing barbarians until they over expanded and collapsed 4. There military was a joke there entire military was stolen and they couldn't even use it right their Legion was a Hoplite with a Spanish shield and sword their cavalry we're Macedonian Companions the siege equipment was Carthaginian and Egyptian same thing with the navy and the archers were Nubian style with armor. Then when they had stolen and Frankensteined the greatest military units in the known world they sent them to fight barbarians then lost the Goths and Saxons and Celts ripped the Roman army apart not to mention what Hannibal and his Carthaginians did to them the military was a joke and that's giving them a lot of credit. I look forward to the next round.
The Roman empire was nothing special and was not that great

I believe the Roman empire was small and insignificant we just make them out to be hero's. Really the Romans built a small empire around the Mediterranean that included France and England which was split in half and conquered by barbarians. All Rome did was go around take out smaller civilizations take their technologies and move on. Compared to empires like Mongolians British Germans and Americans Rome is nothing even the Macedonians had a more productive empire Rome only took it when it collapsed.
Diana Was Murdered in an Assassination

Doesn"t seem a great deal of use saying a whole lot in this round give my opponent forfeited the last round. So I"ll sum up Spousal homicide is not rare Sometimes the murderer will hire someone to do it Sometimes they will try to make it look like an accident There is no logical reason why people in the royal family would be above having a mind to murder There was motive to murder Diana due to her relationship with Dodi, possible pregnancy, the fact that Charles wanted to marry Camilla, the fact that Diana spoke out and knew too much about family secrets. There was the means to do it " namely all of the apparatus of the intel services. There were 58 errors in the autopsy report. She was embalmed before the autopsy within hours of dying In CCTV footage just before leaving the Ritz, driver Henri Paul exhibits no signs of drunkenness At the 2007 inquest, there were more than 500 documents the jury didn"t see. And 84 witnesses
Gay Marriage

Gay marriage without a shadow of a doubt should be completely legalized. It is unfair and unjust to say two people who care about each other can't do whatever they want with their relationship within the confines of the law. If something that has no negative effect on an innocent party, especially any effect at all, then it should be legal; gay marriage should be legal because what two consenting adults agree to spend their time doing, especially if it's none of your business, shouldn't be punished. One of the only lasting anti-gay marriage debates left out there is the bible, which all conservatives love to point at, however to let a book of religion guide the way we run our government, that, my sir, is the merging of church and state. To merge the separation of church and state is to step on the toes of our founding fathers, spit in their face, and raise you middle finger to them. That is to say, merging of church and state, is a foolish, fascist idea and cancels every point that our American ancestors tried to make; without ideas like the separation of church and state, what was the point of Revolution? To welcome an idea like merging church and state and then call yourself American is an insult to our fathers and an insult to me, and that is why I hate Republicans. Then, of course, there are a few people that are anti-gay marriage and have the argument that it is "publicly disturbing and gross" and to that I say, "who cares? It isn't illegal for a person to kiss or hold hands with another straight person in public, why not gay people?" gay people are grossed out by your heterosexuality, and even though I'm heterosexual, sometimes I am too, when you have one of those annoying, cutesy couples near you in public. Some people, though, are worried about the children. Out of all the arguments against gay marriage, this is the best one, but it isn't seen much and it still isn't very good. Some say children need a man and a woman for optimal raising of child. Then why isn't divorce illegal? And if divorce was illegal, would it really be any better for a child to be raised by constantly bickering parents who hate each other? From a guy who was raised by a single mother, I know there are far more factors than "are the parents gay or not?" in the raising of a child. Thank you for your time.
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

As mentioned, I cannot do round 5 due to time constraints. Voters, give PRO conduct because I have to forfeit a round. However, I would like to mention that I am winning the debate because I have efficiently proved that at least one of the proposed states should not be added to the union, and thus winning the debate. , which is all that I had to do, as CON.
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

Again, thank you for a great debate, and great arguments :). There is a good chance of you winning, this I conceed and accept willingly :). I think I have made my case quite clear in the 4 rounds previously :). Yet, I will close with the following arguments for each proposd state.Puerto Rico: your arguments are just fine, and I like them :). I see no reason to elaborate here.State of Jefferson: you are correct, too much bias, but I thought it was a legit source. I think they should make a state to solve border disputes.DC: Correct, I forgot they were a district. Silly me, i lose there.North Colorado: I agree...I don't intend to start a political problem, I just think it will resolve some things.Thanks again for the debate, we should do another one sometime :) I had a good time.No problem if you can't do round 5
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

Thanks for this debate. I'm going to be busy in the following few days, so it might be possible that I have to forfeit the last round due to time constraints. If that does happen, I apologize in advance. ------"I feel that Puerto Rico could be lifted out of poverty if we all pitch in"We don't have the moral obligation to bring Puerto Rico to prosperity when we have our own states (Mississippi!) failing in terms of educational ability, corruption, and (get this!) financial stability. We can't really say that we should help foreign, proposed states when we cannot help our own states. This point of yours is negated."In the case of DC, they are a city, yes that is true. But they hold most of the government offices, and they are very wealthy"Okay, two things:1) A city state in the union will not work. Arguing in favor of DC statehood when they have less people than NYC is illogical. If we allow DC to get statehood, then we should grant all other big cities to do this as well.2) One of the main reasons why DC statehood would blow is because of the fact that they hold most of our government offices. If we grant DC statehood, they would have an unfair advantage over the other states. We are not going to be offering some states the ability to have more influence over the senate than the others, that is immoral. Point negated."Statehood to DCwould also in the long term benifit the country, so Maryland and Virgania aren't always fighting over who owns it"They don't fight over it. DC is its own "sovereign" district." In the case of North Colorado, no I am not in favor of gerrymandering at all"Then you are not in favor of North Colorado, since this state would follow the exact definition of gerrymandering. Not a very good idea."North Colorado voted for Bob Beauprez for the most part in the most recent governor election, but he lost due to the liberals in the southern half of the state, which I conceed, is fair and square poltics"Good for them. But we're not debating whether they voted their own way, we're debating whether they ought to be their own state. I guess you are in favor of a single-party country, since that would resolve political conflict, as well! "They have no representation in some of their counties in the California State Senate" Good for them, but since they have such sparse populations, I don't see this as a bad thing. The San Antonio area should have representation, but a county with 5 people should not have equal representation in the senate. "state of jefferson website"Very very biased source, don't use these in debates since they are so one sided."They need to become their own state so they can have a true democracy."We're not a democracy. We're a republic. True democracy doesn't work on a scale such as this. Don't be crazy.-----Rest my case for round 4. I have sufficiently proved all of the proposed states should not be granted statehood, so I win this debate. I apologize again if I forfeit the next round due to time constraints. Thanks for instigating this debate, as well as understanding.
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

First off thank you again for this debate Lexus :) and I am sorry it took so long to post my round 4 arguments. Ok, so let's look at what you posted :). I feel that Puerto Rico could be lifted out of poverty if we all pitch in. America could bond together under the spirit of brotherhood and lift them out of poverty, if they were granted statehood. They would benifit in the long term, Puerto Rico's citizens could finally have a say in who becomes the US President, and who their senators and governors are, these are appointed by the president. (CIA). In the case of DC, they are a city, yes that is true. But they hold most of the government offices, and they are very wealthy. Statehood to DCwould also in the long term benifit the country, so Maryland and Virgania aren't always fighting over who owns it. In the case of North Colorado, no I am not in favor of gerrymandering at all. I just think it would solve a lot of political problems there. North Colorado voted for Bob Beauprez for the most part in the most recent governor election, but he lost due to the liberals in the southern half of the state, which I conceed, is fair and square poltics. However, Colorado has had a number of political issues, if the North were to become their own state, this could cease easily. The State of Jefferson has a legit case for statehood also. They have no representation in some of their counties in the California State Senate. (state of jefferson website). They need to become their own state so they can have a true democracy.I rest my case for Round 4.Thanks again for the debate, I am really enjoying it :)
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

This round is just going to be a bunch of rebuttals, I don't really see a reason to make any more constructive "parts".----- Rebuttals:" A city state of the USA could very well be problematic." Thanks for conceding to that fact. Remember, you have to prove that every single one of the "states" in the resolution ought to be made states, instead of just most of them, or I win by default."Puerto Rico does have a high poverty rate this is true, but I think if they became a state we could help lift them out of it slowly but surely."Mississippi has a pretty high unemployment rate, and as part of the Union, they ought to have lower unemployment rates/poverty rates, since automatically being a state equals having low unemployment rates. Yeah, no." good Americans. "inb4 NYC"In the case of North Colorado, I do like resolving political problems, and I think Colorado needs reformed"OK, I live in a pretty republican state, but I live in a kind of liberal city (Lincoln, NE, just for a fun fact), so should we make that its own state, just to resolve political conflict? You also haven't answered my question, are you in favor of gerrymandering to resolve conflict?"The State of Jefferson would take a lot of work, yes. They would really create a lot of border disputes"#Concession"I will explain more in the next rounds."You should just make 1 huge constructive speech instead of making it throughout the rounds... that would help a LOT."Thanks again for the debate, I'm enjoying it, and you have a lot of good points."I'm loving this debate, thanks for instigating it. You make some good (but refutable!) points, looking forward to more rounds.
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

Thank you Lexus for your great insight and for debating me on this topic first of all :). Now where to begin...oh here we go. DC is a very small area, that I can conceed to :). They are a very wealthy area, but also a city as well. A city state of the USA could very well be problematic. However, I think that they should also be given statehood because they could benifit the US economy in the long run. Puerto Rico does have a high poverty rate this is true, but I think if they became a state we could help lift them out of it slowly but surley. It might take a while, but I think we can do it, together as good Amercians. In the case of North Colorado, I do like resolving political problems, and I think Colorado needs reformed. The dividing of Colorado would help ease the tensions of poltics there, for instance, the recent governor's race.The State of Jefferson would take a lot of work, yes. They would really create a lot of border disputes, however, it could be resolved by Congress. They might yet be able to be a viable US State. I will explain more in the next rounds.Thanks again for the debate, I'm enjoying it, and you have a lot of good points.
Puerto Rico, State of Jefferson, North Colorado and DC should be made states

This should be a good one :). Ok, so looking at these proposed US States, here's why I think it's better in the long run to grant them statehood. Puerto Rico has been a territory of the United States of America since 1898 during the Spanish-American War. They have had several referendums on statehood, and in the most recent in 2012, 61% chose statehood (CNN). This proves Puerto Rico's people, at least the majority desire to have their flag as a star on the United State flag. Now in the case of the State of Jefferson, this one has been around for a very long time. Granted, it would be a hassle with state boundraries, but the State of Jefferson would finally have it's own state and this disagreemant over poltics and borders would cease. North Colorado, a proposed state of 11 counties in Colorado is mostly Republican, the rest of Colorado is mainly Democrat. Granting statehood to North Colorado would elimnate at least some of the politcal diffrences and issues there. Now in the case of DC, you have an interesting proposal. DC is a city, but it also has all the government offices and such, and statehood would establish who really owns these buildings and such. I'll elaborate more on these arguments as we go on :). Thanks again for the debate Lexus :)