azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: Pay For Performance

As a tipped server, I'm probably biased as far as this goes. That said, I am still divided when it comes to tipping. When I go out, I tip out of respect for etiquette and the person helping me, but even at 20% I can't help feeling like I'm tossing scraps. On the other end of things, I appreciate receiving tips as it makes it much easier for me to support myself while going to school. I feel guilty, however, every time someone goes the extra mile to help me out at say, a bookstore and they're still getting paid minimum wage. Society tells me that bookstore employees are not generally people you should hand a couple dollars to for a good job.I've often wondered how tipping has affected the dynamics of customer service over the centuries. It seems as though many people I come into contact with use a trip to a restaurant to experience what it would be like to have personal servants. Anyway, I agree with Loudacris about tipping based on performance. It's gratifying to have a job in which my competence pays off, unlike some places where the person working their ass off gets the same crappy wage as the one messing around on their cell phone all day.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: Pay For Performance

As a bartender myself, and having had every form of income be from a restaurant service position I absolutely support tipping in America. I make $3.15 an hour as a bartender but have made as much as $700 on a a 13 hour shift. How much you make directly depends on how hard you work. What's wrong with that? Yeah, I've had great nights. I've also had horrible nights too. Try working in a bar in downtown Phoenix during the day when it's 115 degrees outside. You think anyone's around to tip you? Let's also look at the failure rate of restaurants and bars. Nobody would even attempt to open a restaurant if you had to pay your staff even minimum wage. Two things are guaranteed to happen: price for your meal goes up to cover labor costs, or the failure rate goes up even higher further discouraging people to open restaurants. One more thing, European servers and bartenders do receive a salary and depending on location, pretty good ones. The tip is then considered to be in the bill already, which doesn't mean that the servers get tipped at the end of the night by their employers. It just means they are in fact being paid. I worked in a restaurant and a night club in Switzerland. Yes you still would like to be tipped regardless, but 10% would have always sufficed.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: support

I like the idea of a tip because you can give them more money if they do a good job and less if they do a crappy job... there are more areas where I wish we could do that! A bad tip from me is 10%, a good one is 20%!
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: support

Food Servers depend on their tips because their wages are low so tipping should be the norm.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: support

I definitely support a usual tip. I am a big believer in compensation and a regular tip is a great way that many societies have incorporated this into daily life. However, I don't like a mandatory tip.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: support

I tip for good service always directly to the person in question. I've recently discovered that if I pay a service charge on a credit card that person doesn't get the money in addition to their wages which is slap-bang out of order.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: employers should pay fair wages

Service workers should be paid a fair wage by their employer. Tipping just encourages poor labor practices by keeping minimum wage workers from banding together and demanding pay increases or benefits. As a consumer, I should not be expected by society to supplement an establishment's labor costs. States in which tipped workers are paid below minimum wage should change their laws.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: employers should pay fair wages

Customary tipping is for the birds. It should already be built in to the price of the product that you're buying. Why should I have to pay a bartender $1 to pull a beer out of a cooler and hand it to me. It's ridiculous.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: Pay For Performance

In theory, you should get better service if you do. However, you'll notice that I singled out tipping bartenders per drink as a kind of crappy tip opportunity. I would much rather (and usually do) leave one tip at the end of the night. The "pay-per-performance" aspect makes more sense then.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: oppose

A waitress works in a café for low pay, which involves bringing coffee over to people.I work in a warehouse for low pay, which involves heavy lifting.Where's my tip?
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: support

The difference between you and the waitress is that you, at the very least, make minimum wage...the waitress does not. It is built into the wage standards in every state that certain workers, including waitstaff, are not subject to the minimum wage laws and the employer is not obliged to change it. Add to that the mandatory % tipping to the bus boy (s) and bartender from your tips. If you think waiting tables is easy, think again.When traveling to another country, and most especially in Europe, the "Service Charge" listed on the check IS the tip. You are always free to add to that for good service and it is greatly appreciated. If you're not certain about the service charges ask the Host or Hostess or check at your hotel.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: Oppose

Screw tipping...Increase wages.Simple as that. Tipping occassionally, when its DESERVED is fine,but, Customary Tipping is bullshit. I recently went to a lounge (which wasnt anything spectacular, just a regular lounge) and the staff inquired why I didnt tip, they said it is customary to tip!! well the service wasnt anything special, the waiter never came to the table other than to take our order, why would you say I have to tip? and this is when MINIMUM WAGE IS $9.50, excuse me for saying, but they can go Fk themselves if they expect a "customary tip". For those who make $3.00 an hour, I wouldn't think twice on tipping if the service was good, but for those who make good money and ask for customary tipping...eat my shorts.
Debate: Customary Tipping
Side: Oppose

Coming from a part of the world where tipping is not encouraged, I can argue for and against it. Servers would feel dishonored because tipping equates to donating to pan handlers. Providing a tip in Japan, means you feel sorry for their profession, and means you look down on them. Its almost aristocratic.If one has to rely on their bonuses, then something is already wrong with one's profession. Its bonus, not a guarantee.People that suggests it's to ensure better service rendered, also have a weak argument. If this was true, one should tip prior to the service not after. Think first class tickets, one pays more in advance to ensure a better service, "before" said service is rendered. Tipping "after" only grades the waiter on how well they performed. Case in point, one cannot get better service after the service is already rendered right? It also does not ensure they will always get a tip either regardless how well they performed. To suggest that the recognized diner returns reinforces the waiter to maintain a higher level of performance does not make sense as one might not get the same waiter, and one might not return to the restaurant either.Service is fundamental part of the establishment's business model. A waiter's job is defined, and hired by management, the restauranteur. The diners do not hire the waiters and therefore should not receive the burden in contributing anything beyond to their already paid wages. The menu price is the contracted price between the diner and the establishment. Waiters should not be considered a middle man contracted out to serve the diner. They represent and are part of the establishment. The diner should not be obligated to pay an addition beyond the menu stated price especially if the service charge is already included. Therefore waiters should not expect a tip. This reinforces the legal transaction of trade as a business model. If tipping is considered a gift, then waiters should not get taxed by it. (monetary gifts under US$13,000 per year is not taxed by IRS)
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

It should be banned in all public places and at home if you have children.You have the right to harm your own body, but you don't have the right to harm others. It may be your choice to smoke, but it is the choice of those around you to inhale second-hand smoke.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Smoking of tobacco should definetly be banned for numerous reasons (e.g. kills, costs the NHS a metric sh*t-ton of money), but on the other hand smoking things such as marijuana which have very few side effects and can be used medicinally should be legalised.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Yes many people are dying, the only reason tabacco companies are winning is because when they point out people who are smoking they say they have never been better. This keeps the debate live. Most models of marbolo ended up dead. it has to be banned.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

smoking should be banned just poison is banned because they are the same, well, almost, people smoke for pleasure but poison is stealthy and quick while smoking takes you slowly. It's like someone gave you a drug that coverts pain into stress relief
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

I think smoking should be banned. There is no point to smoking at all because if you keep smoking you could get lung cancer, heart disease ,cardiovascular disease ,respiratory disease and many different diseases. It is bad for your health and you could die from smoking. Also when you smoke you age faster.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Do you have any idea how many products people use a day that are unhealthy for them and don't even know it?At least with smoking it's a choice. The consumer KNOWS it's bad for them, but they CHOOSE to continue using anyway. And hell, who cares if someone chooses to die faster. It's a choice.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Smoking does in fact harm one's health.But, if it is harming our health, why does the government have to intervene in such a problem?It is your own health and if they want to suffer, shouldn't we give them the freedom to suffer? We never forced them to smoke and have lung cancer. Did we?
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I can guarantee smokers are very aware of all the risks involved in smoking. There packages are covered with warnings of all sorts. It is their choice to use cigarettes NOT yours or the governments. Just let people have freedom and stay out of their lives, honestly...
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Smoking should be banned because:1. Passive smokers get more harm than active smokers. It means people surrounding that smoker are at a greater risk of getting heart disease. In order to support my argument I will give you a link to the article which proves my words http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/273/13/ 1047.short  And if it is banned, other people will be in safe2. Smoking in public places is equivalent to drinking, throwing trash on the street. These actions are banned, but why smoking is not? It is also causes a lot of inconvenience for people and society.We should be considerate and think about other's wealth too. At least smokers should think about their own health and try to give up smoking
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

I think it should be banned, only because of the fact that not only the people that are smoking are dying but because of second hand smoke. It kills others that may be smoke free. Plus there are over 200 poisons in tobacco smoke alone. This kill your brain cells, it hurts your lungs, and it's not healthy either. Smoking should be banned because it's not fair to the people that don't smoke but get smoked around. They could die because of someone else's bad habit.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Smoking of Tobacco and Cannabis should be banned. First, they're both bad for you(i know people always get mad when i say Cannabis is bad for you, but look up Cannabis and psychosis or Cannabis and mental disorders, and you'll find plenty of evidence that it is bad for your brain), plus, if we used all the land we use to grow tobacco and traded that with food plants, world hunger would end tomorrow.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Even though you say they should be banned, would a ban truly be effective at reducing the number of smokers vs. moving the problem somewhere else?Even when cigarettes are highly taxed (NYC, Spain), cartels spring up to provide them in the face of high prices. A significant underground economy would certainly accompany a total prohibition of cigarettes, as shoving legitimate suppliers out of the market would increase alternative suppliers' incentives to capture consumer surplus for cigarettes.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Everyone know that smoking can kill you and no one around you wants to be with you so if you cant stop buy a FREAKING NICOTINE PATCH OR SOMETHING
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

yes if you smoke l then later in your life you will have heart problems! people that somke are pretty much killing themselves!
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Nowadays the problem of smoking is actual. In my opinion, nonsmoking people should not take a backseat, because they are innocent victims and hostages of a disastrous social phenomenon. We should combat this problem, because it bothers us to live. We need to help smokers overcome their addiction. Firstly, we should convince smoking people, that their harmful habit exposes to danger their own life. In fact, every cigarette contains a lot of harmful matters. Second, we can offer psychological help. Psychologist can help those people, who smoke and explain them that it is a waste of money. But the best method of refusal from smoking is willpower. The third thing, which we can do, is to tell about life without cigarettes. The health can become better. Heart rate and blood pressure will come in standard, the level of carbon dioxide and cough will decrease. The risk of lung cancer will be decrease. Therefore, smoking is a bad habit; it is not the best way to get rid of stress, but the best way to kill yourself. Smoking is egoism, every person should think about people surrounding him. It is not stylish - it is disgusting.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Smoking should be banned in ALL government facilities.In ALL privately owned places, it should be up to the owner to allow or prohibit it.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Yes, in the UK, the percentage of British smoker's in 1979 was 45%, by the early 1990s is was 30%, by 2010 it was 21%.So while it is decreasing, it is doing so very slowly, and during this time, many people are dying. Around 107,000 people died in 2007 in the united kingdom due to smoking-related diseases, 86% percent death's from lung cancer are from tobacco smoking.Banning smoking would prevent many deaths from happening.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Yes, it should be because it didn't give any healthy benefit to all people. It ruin human lung that may result in cancer and I think government especially law makers should be vigilant by this smoking problem.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because they can shorten the life of a normal human.Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because it can give you lung disease.Smoking cigarettes should be illegal because it can make you lose your teeth.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Yes it should. Not only smoking affects you, it affects the people around you... 2nd hand smoke
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Yes in my view smoking should be banned in public places. Whoever wants to smoke should do in his/her private space.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

While it's obviously not healthy so is a bunch of things we don't even know about that we come in contact with everyday.And while we may not know about those things we know about smoking. And we CHOOSE to continue to smoke.It's a choice, it's not like anyone is forcing anyone to smoke, and we know the effects.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

You raise a good point but tell me what do you think about companies that know the effects but still sell them do you think that's fair for the customer? I don't see why cocaine is illegal and smoking is legal
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

They give proper warnings for the customer. They don't really hide the fact that the product is bad for you.And because the degree of effect they have on the consumer. And the time it takes.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

then how about innocent child that they didnt know anything and just inhale smokes. how pity they are
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

It's only a choice for the people smoking. What about the children at home that develop asthma because dad was exceeding his rights? Or people in linking places you didn't choose to have lung problems?It's not fair to those who are forced to inhale second hand smoke by no fault of their own and despite their choice to be free from it.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Good point but some people have no choice as I said in my argument there is second hand smoke, so some people really don't have a choice. It's not fair that others choose to do it and others suffer with them even though they try to stay clean.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Not true, due to current laws you can't smoke in that many public places. Smokers generally can only smoke outside or in private homes. So, if someone is choosing to stand next to them it's their choice again. No where outside does a nonsmoker have to be that close to a smoker to get any effects.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

To some extent it is their choice, however to some extent it is not.Firstly, Nicotine is a very addictive substance caused by smoking, making it very hard to come off smoking. Secondly, many children are encouraged to smoke, when their parent's smoke, again it is extremely hard to resist this, as most of children's hobbies come from their parent's.Therefore i believe smoking should be banned.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

People say the only reason why it's not is because the tobacco companies pay so much money to the government. I agree that in an ideal world, cigarettes would be banned, but in the worlds current state, I have to disagree.In the US, the government takes around 16 billion USD, just from cigarette tax. On average, that's about a third of the cost of a cigarette packet, there's then the corporate tax on the companies, the wages, the advertising, there's simply a huge amount of money in it. Even if they wanted to, most governments would have big problems banning cigarettes.And yes, I know this question was probably meant in from a social aspect, but if you want it to be realistic, you have to look at every aspect. And also, I don't smoke cigarettes, I'm not defending smokers.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

To me, an ideal world would be one that people are free to put any substance in their body.So really, smoking wouldn't be banned. Hell, it wouldn't even be regulated. Completely up for the people to decide.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

In my ideal, yet realistic world, there wouldn't be such a thing as cigarettes. They're such a pointless idea, smoke them, they'll taste awful and mess up your lungs, and eventually you'll feel like crap whenever you don't and use them as a way to feel normal again.But when you're talking about substances, I'd say that weed & hash should be legal, in comparison to the positives, the negatives really aren't that big a deal. In my ideal world, they'd be fine. With sensible use, it's great fun and has little negative effects. And where would there be a need for cigarettes?
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Good concept. As to all those who debate against smoking I think we must find a way to challenge the "it's their choice argument".
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

But smoking puts harmful substances into the bodies of others as well. Is that ok in your perfect world?
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

In a perfect world, tobacco wouldn't be harmful... and nothing else would be either.--------------
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I tend to agree with you there. However, the health costs far exceed the money made through taxation.I agree that the difficulties in banning cigarettes would be too great. Here are some of the potential problems:- It will turn 1/4 of the population (the number of smokers) into criminals.- The wasted resources into policing it.- Does anyone remember what they learned at school about prohibition and its effects?- The even more dangerous black market cigarettes.In Australia, various governments have taken steps to reduce smoking:- A blanket ban on all cigarette advertising and sponsorships.- Graphic images depicting the effects of smoking.- Anti-smoking TV advertisements.- Huge taxes on cigarettes.- Recently, plain packaging has been introduced with the most of the front containing a graphic warning.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: Yes, it should

Without looking at statistics, I can't say I'm surprised. But banning cigarettes would most likely not eradicate smoking, most probably not reduce it that much as it'd be so hard to enforce, as you implied. And it'd be years before there's a recognizable easing off in hospital bills, whereas it'd be today that tax is lost.Yeah, Australia's taken a good step against smoking I'd say. I'm English, and there's attempts towards banning cigarettes being put on show, shops can still sell them, but only if they're asked for. It'd reduce casual smoking a bit, I guess, but nothing major. I'd say these are all steps in the right direction.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

Very good points man. it would defiantly cost the public a lot to police it, especially when dealing with dangerous drug cartels.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

If they want to do it, let them do it. If you wanna go around banning everything harmful to the human body you may as well just nuke us all and be done with it; because almost everything is harmful to the human body in one way or another.
Debate: Should smoking be banned?
Side: No, it should not

I think that people have the right to have vices, because control over one's body regardless of others' objections is important in a free society. However, it's important to recognize that whilst also recognizing that smoking imposes a social cost--medical expenses and human capital degradation due to cancers, hypertension, and other health problems, the effects of which are not confined to the smoker. Bearing this in mind though, increasing the price of smoking generally is more effective than a blanket ban. Traditional cigarettes and cigars could also be phased out in favour of e-cigarettes as a harm reduction measure.