azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Being wilfully ignorant of the last 100 years of economics is not "thinking outside the box".I'm not ignorant, I just don't follow it unquestioningly as you do.You give yourself too much credit.Apparently not enough.The minimum wage is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so.Money is not needed. Asserting that over and over doesn't make it so.Since money does exist and there are too many greedy idiot who are very eager to abuse it and nothing is done about them, then that does mean a minimum wage is needed.I know exactly what your views are like.No you don't. Asserting that you do is a delusion, you know nothing about me.You've outlined them clearly here.All my views? Hardly a small fraction.You are a Marxist communist.Nope, I'm not.Don't blame Russia, the Russian people are fine,Only a part of Russians are fine, not all. I live right next to Russia, so I know much better what I am talking about when it comes to Russia.your ideas are bad.Nope, they're not.You're simply taught to think that some views connected to very bad events are bad. If you hear or read a view like that you immediately ascribe that to a specific worldview and to the specific events that happened in relation to that. It's... stupid.You're obviously very young.Age has very little to do with mental maturity. If you lack the capacity to think and come up with good or better answers then you're not exactly intelligent, or just not that intelligent.You shouldn't tell others they need to think when the farthest you've gotten is Marxism.Again you and your pointless predetermined "views". How about breaking the walls of your box?Once again, these are famously debunked economic theories.And as you should've understood already, I do not care about any existing views. I use my own mind to make my own views, not take some existing flawed ones and stick to them.Enough of this nonsense.As I see it, you began this nonsense.Adhering to some specific predetermined views sounds like religion, doesn't it?You're obviously too lazy to read up on and study the history of economics and politics and you hide behind "thinking for yourself" as an excuse.I'm not lazy, I simply don't waste my time with pointless crap. Politics are for idiots, mostly. And I don't hide anywhere. How is using my own mind hiding? You are hiding if you can't and don't want get away from what you were taught to believe or follow.Being knowledgeable about a topic does not make you less able to think critically about it, just the opposite.So, you are knowledgeable and you strictly adhere to it, like religious people... I'm fairly certain you know what they are like. You can have critical thinking if you are knowledgeable and you have an open mind. Although having previous knowledge about something specific is not always necessary.Critical thinking is questioning and coming up with alternatives. You don't seem to be able to do that. That's bad for you, not me.Your ignorance has lead you face first into the cement floor of economic theories.Well, ain't that sweet, and dead wrong.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

I didn't read any of this. I'm just going to make my case and leave it to you to counter.If you read nothing then why should I?Are you too lazy?
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

No, because most of it had nothing to do with the issues, so I cut out everything that wasn't essential. It's your turn now.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You resulted in bringing in everything that wasn't essential, not me. I simply replied to your arguments. And no, It's your turn, if you ignore my arguments.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Not true, you are the one who brought up how knowledge somehow hinders your ability to make decisions, everything else spawned from that asinine statement. My actually arguments have been made before now, you've just never actually countered them. If you refuse to do so, I'll have to take it that you can't.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Not true, you are the one who brought up how knowledge somehow hinders your ability to make decisions, everything else spawned from that asinine statement.You led it there, not me. As I said, I simply replied to your arguments.Knowledge can hinder ones ability to make right decisions, if it is accompanied by some other factor or factors.Religious people have knowledge about their religion and they don't think outside of it, they cannot or don't want to or are afraid of doing so. You and your precious money based economics is exactly the same. You deny all other possibilities without really thinking about them, as you have so clearly indicated.My actually arguments have been made before now, you've just never actually countered them. If you refuse to do so, I'll have to take it that you can't.I have countered your arguments... as much as they required. Not my problem you cannot comprehend what I said.The very first post up there is mine. You countered it. Things went on and you began ignoring my arguments. If you ignore mine I will ignore yours.Debating is not about ignoring your opponent. At this point I am not surprised you did not know that, considering all else you don't have the capacity for.And you call me immature? Grow up.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

You see what's going on right now? It's the same thing that happened before. You're ignoring my arguments and responding to inessential things. You're merely obfuscating the issue to cover up for you inability to defend your position, and you're unable to defend your position because you're incredibly ignorant of the issues your trying to debate about. Knock it off. You have my arguments. If they're so easy to dispute, then do it. Put up or shut up. Hey, if you actually have already countered them, then all you need to do is copy and paste, right? Well, I'm waiting...
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You are so stupid...You see what's going on right now? It's the same thing that happened before. You're ignoring my arguments and responding to inessential things.I am not the one who ignored your arguments. There is only one of your arguments I ignored, because you ignored mine which preceded yours and partly another previous one.Inessential? Then don't introduce inessential or stupid things!I gave clear reasons to why there must be a minimum wage, not my problem you cannot grasp them.You're merely obfuscating the issue to cover up for you inability to defend your position, and you're unable to defend your position because you're incredibly ignorant of the issues your trying to debate about.Obfuscating? All I have done is dispute your arguments. You are obfuscating the issue, or rather trying to. I gave some clear reasons in my first argument as to why there should be a minimum wage, you must be very stupid if you cannot comprehend what I said there.I am able to defend my point. But you aren't, all you've given me are flawed and biased views and opinions.I'm the ignorant one? I know what money is and I see the flaws it has and thus I have come up with a better way. Yet I gave clear reasons to why there should be a minimum wage, since our civilization is based on money. You are close-minded and thus ignorant.Knock it off.That's something you should do.You have my arguments.I have them, I disputed them (except the ones in your post I ignored for a obvious reason).If they're so easy to dispute, then do it.I did, but you are unwilling to understand them, even consider them. And you ignored some of my arguments.Put up or shut up.That is exactly what you should do.As long as you keep providing me stupidity I will keep disputing all of it.Hey, if you actually have already countered them, then all you need to do is copy and paste, right? Well, I'm waiting...Copy paste??? So stupid... Read my arguments above and dispute them if they have flaws, including the ones you ignored. And don't give me flawed nor idiotic arguments, that means thinking with logic.It's like fussing with a religious idiot who just keeps providing pointless crap over and over, and ignoring everything I say. You're such a moron. Are you too egotistical to see yourself? Ironic, isn't it?You do know what ironic means? As you've shown many times you don't know the meanings of some words.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

^ You see? This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Stick to the issues, please and thank you.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

^ You see? This is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Stick to the issues, please and thank you.So, this is what you descend to if you are unable to handle something you initiated. You should've sticked to the issue, and not provided some stupid arguments.Grow up, mentally, please and thank you.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Re-read the last comment you sent me before I outlined my arguments. Literally nothing you said was on point. The only one even close to being relevant was you citing the definition of economics, which by the way does NOT prove that money is not integral to the market.Once again, if you refuse to counter the arguments I've outlined above then it's clear that you can't. If it's so easy, then go ahead.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

You sir, are one of my new favorite debaters on here .
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Ha! I just saw this now. Thanks =p--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You just don't know when to stop.As I've said already, you initiated the whole mess. And I gave clear reasons to why there should be a minimum wage.Money is not necessary for our civilization to be successful. In fact, it'd be better without money, as I have also explained how and why.Or is the problem you're not getting me because you fail to include certain important aspects? I'm not talking about what is in the books, I'm talking about reality, how it is in real world.Once again, if you refuse to counter the arguments I've outlined above then it's clear that you can't. If it's so easy, then go ahead.Read the above. If you still don't get it, read again.Seriously...
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Mmmm I understand now. You think asserting something enough times makes it an argument. Look, you've said that an economy can function without money and in fact is better because... greed will stop existing without out money somehow I guess. This is not an argument, this is what you're trying to prove. So, my question to you is, without money, how will exchanges be carried out?
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Mmmm I understand now. You think asserting something enough times makes it an argument.How many times did you insert things?If you keep asking and saying the same things over and over I will keep repeating if i don't get bored.because... greed will stop existing without out money somehow I guess. This is not an argument, this is what you're trying to prove.Never said it. Not to mention proving it.So, my question to you is, without money, how will exchanges be carried out?Everyone will get everything they need for free. In fact I said it up there somewhere.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Insert things?... What? Whatever, I'm just going to ignore everything you say that isn't directly relevant to the debate. But seriously, assert and insert aren't the same thing...So, everyone will get everything for free. Great. So how will, say, car companies know how many of which types of cars to make? Normally they would look at the sales of high-demand cars and use that money gained to produce more like-vehicles which would in turn lower the cost of said car, but without money this is not possible. So, what is your alternative?Second question: Since there will no longer be any money to be made in the American market, foreign businesses will start funnelling out of America. Since America is a country of consumers, this means American's will either have to leave or live in poverty unless a solution is found. What is your solution? Just for fun, consider that the only reason why china doesn't call on our debt is because China earns so much money from selling to us and without that promise of American dollars, they will lose interest and demand their money... and since we no longer have any money at all let alone enough to pay off our debt to the Chinese, China will technically own the U.S... making us literally slaves.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Insert things?... What? Whatever, I'm just going to ignore everything you say that isn't directly relevant to the debate. But seriously, assert and insert aren't the same thing...You cannot even notice if someone makes a small mistake, like confusing a word, and automatically go for thinking it was meant exactly as it was written.Haven't you made small spelling errors or similar, ever?So, everyone will get everything for free. Great. So how will, say, car companies know how many of which types of cars to make? So, what is your alternative?Isn't there even currently a demand for things? Aren't people's needs being recorded? Aren't people being asked about things they'd like, what they'd not like? How many products leave the stores and how many came in?How many cars to produce does not come from the money they get, it comes from the number of sells, from the number of cars that go to people and leave the stores.Ever heard of communication?Normally they would look at the sales of high-demand cars and use that money gained to produce more like-vehicles which would in turn lower the cost of said car, but without money this is not possible.Without money there is no point nor need to use money (because there would no money in the first place...), they would simply begin producing them. Without money things would be much easier and faster, there would be no need to wait, for something like money, or stop if money ran out.Second question: Since there will no longer be any money to be made in the American market, foreign businesses will start funnelling out of America. Since America is a country of consumers, this means American's will either have to leave or live in poverty unless a solution is found. What is your solution?Just for fun, consider that the only reason why china doesn't call on our debt is because China earns so much money from selling to us and without that promise of American dollars, they will lose interest and demand their money... and since we no longer have any money at all let alone enough to pay off our debt to the Chinese, China will technically own the U.S... making us literally slaves.America??? If you looked again perhaps you'd notice a word "globally" in my first argument, also I've said human civilization a couple of times. I'm not talking about just one country, I'm talking about all of them. Neither does the debate itself have any elaboration about the extent.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

You don't see the problem. The flow of money allows for pre-emptive understanding of where to pour time and resources into. If things aren't ready-made, then everything will have to come from order, which means you won't know what's in short supply and what has been over-produced until after the fact. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that since acquiring goods no longer takes any trade-off, people will over-consume to ensure that they don't miss-out on a particular good. This means everything will have an artificially high demand and deferred consumption will go through the roof -- and without any sort of standard medium of exchange to act as motivation to sell said products, they will become wasted capital. This means the government will have to have an infinitely increasing tax rate to stay on par with overconsumption. The problem is, without a standard medium to compare value with - they'll have to take unused items, which brings up two questions: How will they know how much of which items to take, since they all have an indeterminable value? Also, the people won't own up to which items the don't need because from their perspective, any one of these items could be in short supply next and therefore are worth holding onto. The state will simply have to take things at random (assuming they are first able to determine value in an unstandardised economy). So, are you advocating routine theft by the government?The things is, seeing that there's a shortage isn't enough, you also have to know how much raw materials to pour into that sector of the economy to compensate and without the ability to base your choice off of price fluctuations, it becomes impossible to tell how much more needs to be produces at what rate, especially with artificially high demand. You need a more accurate method than words.You're short-sighted. This change you want will have to start somewhere -- and for this idea to catch on it will have to start in a country that has significant influence over the planet. These same problems will come up wherever it starts and threaten to halt the expansion of your ideology unless they're solved. You need some kind of solution here.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

You have been taught something and you cannot see pass that. Without money there would be no over-consumption. If you go to a shop you see massive amounts of different goods, it would be similar but no money would be required. Are currently produced and consumed goods being counted? Yes.Production and consumption would always be in harmony, with slight over-production to ensure no shortages.The production of goods is not based on how much money you get, it is based on how much were sold and how big demand there is.Goods ordered from factories are based on the number of goods consumed and on demand, not how much money they got from selling them. You order however is necessary and it will cost as much as it will. With no money you'd simply order and get.How much raw materials need to be used is determined by the quantity of goods to be produced, not by money.You are short-sighted and close-minded. There are no problems in my views, you cannot understand them because of your biased opinions.As humanity is slowly becoming smarter and smarter, then one day, assuming we won't kill ourselves first, money will be abolished.Abolishing money would solve so many issues. Very many criminals would lose everything, or would they simply continue from the good of their heart? Greed would almost completely be gone, why hoard or keep things if it is all free? There would be no wait for money to begin some work, if people and resources are available you'd simply get them, or get them as soon as they are available. There would be no worrying of running out of money. And people wouldn't be so miserable because of lack of money for some items and they wouldn't have to worry about paying rent or worry about running out of money. Currently all of it is rather impossible, as most humans are far too stupid (different and higher education would be necessary). Management of economy would be with far less waste (as currently there is a lot of money that is not used).But since currently there is money then that means there must be a minimum wage, otherwise it would incline heavily toward slavery, as it in truth is even with current minimum wages. The jobs that have minimum wage are also necessary, someone has to do them. Or would you rather people stopped doing those jobs? Abolishing minimum wage would not solve that issue, if anything it would make it worse. Why aren't they being paid enough currently if there is money for that?
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Also, it's "cannot see past that," not "pass"...You clearly don't read much.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

You never make minor mistakes? I have noticed a few times that I have written your instead of you're.You clearly don't read much.Haven't lately had time for much reading. Priorities first.You must be rather stupid to even make a comment like that. As it is completely irrelevant.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Yes, you are the semi-literate economic ignoramus and I am the idiot for pointing it out. Makes perfect sense.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

So stupid...
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

Don't be so hard on yourself.Wait a minute... How did you get away with posting a message less than 50 characters???
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: No.

It's easy.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

Simple magic.
Debate: Should the minimum wage be abolished?
Side: Yes.

You don't understand. Listen, since things are now free, people will overstock on goods that are in high demand because, why not? It's free! People will "purchase" extra vehicles and summer homes and expensive foods etc. This will result in massive shortages of said goods since everyone will purposely over-comsume to insure they don't miss out. Also, since resale value no longer exists, we will be over-producing on goods that will never circulate their value. We will run out of high demand things and the people will move on to less "expensive" things. This process continues until people have over-consumed on lesser goods to the point that they too become scarce, thus causing crippling poverty. What's worse is that this "locust" like shifting in demand will require the constant construction of new machinery to meet the specifics of these radical market fluctuations; All of which will become virtually useless once demand moves on, thus wasting further capital. Even the USSR understood these problem and implemented government control on distribution to counteract it, and you don't think any solution is needed? Get real. Supply and demand only work because things in low supply have the potential to be expensive. Greed is a human quality, not a money quality. Animals have been known to display acts of greed. They don't use money, so how do you explain this? It's as though there's some intrinsic biological trait that drives animals to over-consume... Which makes perfect sense from an evolutionist perspective. The more food and shelter you have, the easier your life is.Your ideas are utopian. You're ignoring human motivation. When you separate labour from profit, you remove one's motivation to work hard or innovate. You end up with a problem known as (and yes, this is another one of those pesky economics terms that people who actually know what they're talking about use) the Free Rider Problem. Since everything is free whether I work hard enough to meet the hyper-inflated demand of whatever-good-it-is-I-make or not, I have no reason to worry about coming up a bit short, or producing poor quality products, and I certainly don't have any reason to invent something to revolutionize the industry. You see, the problem I listed above is actually the best case scenario of events. What's more likely to happen is that business owners will catch on that incentive has hit the floor and demand is shifting too rapidly to keep up with anyway, so the market stagnates. The only thing even approaching a solution that any human being has ever come up with is a rapid expansion of state control over production and distribution, which has proven to only prolong the catastrophic failure of a money-free system. You can't worm your way around this. These problems exist and require some kind of solution. What's yours?I'm ignoring your argument on minimum wage on the grounds that it assumes the very thing you're trying to prove. You need more than, "... it would incline heavily toward slavery..." to prove slavery would occur without the minimum wage.