BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

at 26 weeks the baby is viable, can live on its own. so hte whole blob of cells stuff is moot. the only reason i mentioend it hte way i did is because in that last post i responded to con ended with comparing it to a blob. con seems to say if it's late in the pregnancy dont abort? okay, that's my point. it's essentially the same as killing a two year old. con basically conceded the debate?
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

If pro had in fact read my argument, he would have seen that I said that a fetus was a ball of cells up to a certain point. However, yes, at that "certain point" the fleshy mass does become something more viable. This still, however, does not qualify as a human being. If a child could survive in "early birth" as you said, then certainly, don't abort it. But I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing the debate you set forth as the beginning. Let's stick to the topic, shall we? Don't distract my attention to something menial or arbitrary, it's quite dull. Furthermore, pointing out arguments I could have made is not advancing the debate--It's in fact helping me.
essentially the same thing: tiller's illegal late term abortions, and someone killing two year olds

con says at one point it's just a lump of cells but at other points says it's advanced enough to warrant distinction in late pregnancy. i'll just put this in the category of you being inconsistent. the only distinguishing point you make is how advanced the two year old is compared to the unborn baby. if the mother decided to give early birth to that baby though, it would be protected by law. to be sure, it is advanced enough that it is protectable aside from the arbitrary point of where the baby is in relation to the mother. if con had used the mother's autonomy at least he would have made an arguable distinction. as it sits now, he has no reason aside from the arbitrary location of hte baby to say it's not developed enough yet, when had it been born instead of terminated, by law it would have been advanced enough.
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

We are talking about the sum of currency in existance; if the economy grows, that won't help us pay off the debt unless the money supply grows accordingly. And the money supply can only grow by the US borrowing that extra money into existace! Enable to pay off the debt, there must be currency accomidated with which to do that, and every dollar of currency in existance must be borrowed into existance. Currency and wealth are different; if our economy grows our real wealth has grown, but our currency supply can only grow by borrowing it into existance. "Well you can't borrow yourself out of debt; you or I can't, general mottors can't, and the federal government can't. No one can borrow themselves out of debt, no more than like I said before- you cannot drink yourself sober, and that's what we're trying to do." - Byron Dale
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

First of all, none of the sources you provided are reliable. We can see them here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com... Sources say that it's possible to pay off the debt, even though unlikely: https://www.thebalance.com... However, it doesn't matter that it is unlikely, because the question is whether it is possible. Additionally, the source says that over time, the economy will grow so much that the amount of debt right now is insignificant. At that point, we will be able to pay off all our debt.
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

The United States owes 20 Trillion Dollars, in Dollars, so we need to pay them off in dollars. Only 15 of the 81 Trillion Dollar global money supply is in dollars. Our manufacturers would not accept Euros or Yen in exchange for their goods, and thereby we can only retrieve that 2 Trillion in foreign markets from a trade surplus. We cannot do the reverse of what we have been doing for the past 16 years without reforming our financial and monetary system, which you must argue we can pay off the debt without doing. This is because the United States stopped issuing debt free United States Notes in 1971, ended the exchange of dollars and gold, and demonitized silver. This meant that debt free fiat, or gold/silver, based money ceased being issued, but it was still legal tender and redeemable for Federal Reserve notes. These notes, being exchanged for Federal Reserve Notes, created a sum of money in the economy which was above the sum of debt owed to the Fed or to the banks. As time went on, the sum of money which was above the debt lowered as interest increased the total debt of the United States. As we were closer to a monetary system not entirely based on debt in 2000, we could have, theoretically, plaid off the debt. But in effect we would have destroyed most of our money supply. Today, however, the national debt exceeds the national money supply, making payment of the debt impossible.Here is my sources for Bill Clinton stealing from Social Security:http://www.dailykos.com...-http://www.freedomworks.org...http://www.nber.org...
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

Can you link to your source that Bill Clinton stole from the Social Security? Yes, it doesn't matter whether it will make the rest of the world go into more debt. What matters for this debate is the US, and I claim that we can pay off the debt eventually if we make more goods in the United States and end up with a huge budget surplus. The debt right now is 4-5 times it was 16 years ago. If we manage to reverse what we did, and get additional surplus with a rising GDP, then we will be able to pay off the debt. And the US can easily pay off its debt in theory, if all the foreign nations gave all their supply to the United States, keep that in mind. That debunks your first point. You have said yourself that the global money supply is 81 trillion dollars, and we right now have just under 20 trillion dollars in debt. http://www.usdebtclock.org...
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

That money which would go into our economy would be dollars, which are still below in supply the national debt. When we sell goods to foreign nations, they need to pay in dollars, and if we rake in a massive trade surplus, dollars will eventually run out in the international markets. We were never on the verge of paying off the debt save when Andrew Jackson did it under a gold money system not a debt money system. Bill Clinton only had a budget surplus because he stole that money from Social Security. P.S. the national debt was 4.674 Trillion 16 years ago. {1}Every Dollar in existence was created as an interest bearing debt, which creates enough money to pay the principal sum, but not enough to pay the interest. The only way we could pay the debt is to move to a honest monetary system, one based on gold or silver. {1}. https://www.treasurydirect.gov...
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

That doesn't matter; we can still eventually pay off the debt by a sufficiently high GDP growth and cutting enough failed programs. Keep in mind that the national debt was only 5 billion 16 years ago, and we were on the verge of paying off the debt at one point. Just because the rest of the world cannot pay off their debts doesn't mean that the US cannot pay off its own debt. We just need to produce more to get more money supply by selling to foreign nations, and then we can use the money supply to pay off our debt.
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

We live under a debt money system, this means that every dollar in existence was created by banks or by the Federal Reserve as an interest bearing debt. This makes paying off the debt impossible since there simply isn't enough money; the total global money supply is 81 Trillion Dollars, while the total word debt is 200 Trillion Dollars. {1} The total US debt is 19.9 Trillion while the total US money supply ammounts to only 13.177 Trillion. {2}{1}. http://money.visualcapitalist.com...{2}. http://money.visualcapitalist.com...
The United States Cannot pay off the debt

The national debt has only been increasing rapidly because of failed programs. For example, the US has paid a total of 1.3 billion dollars to Iran in the Iran deal, and it ends up getting absolutely nothing useful in return.Additionall, we don't know where most of the moeny we pay in taxes actually goes. The number of people in food stamps, for example, has risen from 33 million people to 45 million people in just 6 years of Obama, as shown by http://www.fns.usda.gov.... He has just been giving people too much of an incentive to go on food stamps, as the working class has to pay higher and higher taxes. The same amount of money could easily be invested in improving the GDP, which was at its slowest recovery right after the great depression. The US has gone a total of 10 years in a row without a 3% or more GDP growth, and Obama is the first president to not have a single year of 3% or more GDP growth. Trump's economic plans will be able to get the GDP growth back up, which can in turn pay off the debt eventually. The idea is as simple as getting more jobs in the US to produce more. Our globalist system has made a lot of goods produced out of the United States, which is not good and will certainly end up increasing its national debt. Furthermore, we have invested a lot of money in two completely useless Iraq wars for the corporate's selfish interests, which we could easily end the conflict with ISIS. Whistleblowing orgnanization WikiLeaks emphasizes on how the US had in fact created ISIS: http://thefreethoughtproject.com... Since 9-11, the US debt has quadrupled from 5 trillion to 20 trillion. We have also invested a lot of money in the useless refugees program, which will do nothing to help the US in its national debt. We could just let other countries like Germany accept all of them, as their leader is extremely liberal and will accept them. Ever program we cut is a huge step to reducing the national debt.
should the us government gurantee health insurance for all residents

∙We already have health care for all residents. It's just that some residents don't want to pay for their own care. The government shouldn't pay for everyone's care, everyone should take responsibility for themselves. If the government is going to use my tax money to pay for everyone's health care, then I should have the right to make sure you and everyone else live healthy, and not eat junk food, smoke or drink, to keep the rates that I pay, down.
Teachers should be able to hug their students

1. It's like sex. People say sex releases chemicals that prevent cancer - no, it's when we want sex; it's when it makes us happy, that causes these chemicals to surface. In the end, it's not sex - it's happiness. Hugs bring happiness - it's not hugs. People don't need hugs; don't distort the argument with your weak analysis. 2. You need to learn how to analyze properly because your analysis is equivalent to an old xerox machine. Conclusion: You don't know what you're talking about because you use emotion instead of genuine evidence to support your idealism with. Other Conclusion: telling me I can't talk about my life, while you wank off hugs and take misinformation to support your wankology and then taking that wankology solely because you personally want to implement it into society while completely oblivious to the juxtaposition of the Universe. That doesn't make you a hypocrite?
Teachers should be able to hug their students

You are being very rude and disrespectful to me in your first paragraph. Rebuttals: 1. That is not a good argument. Hugs release Oxycontin that instantly heals the person. It shows security and warmth and helps people feel better. So to say that "Nobody needs a hug," is totally nonsense. 2. Why does it have to be something else? Hugs, once again, release Oxycontin that instantly makes the person feel better. "A pat on the back," or, "running hand through hair," does NOT release Oxycontin and therefore, hugs make the most effective type of affection. Conclusion: Every piece of information I gave sums up my argument for teachers hugging students. My opponent has been rude to me and has not valid points. Therefore, I have explained that teachers should be able to hug students. Don't bring this debate into your social life please, you are getting off topic. The argument is if teachers should hug students or not. Not that you "are the most loving person you will ever run into" That statement is very difficult to believe considering you called me a "fool" and were being rude to me in your first paragraph. Resources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.mindbodygreen.com...
Teachers should be able to hug their students

Please give me one logical reason why I shouldn't just shrug my shoulders to this idiocy. Then tell me why there is an "edge" to any discussion - this isn't a game, you fool; this is life. When you discuss with me, you will treat these ideas and discussions like everyone's life depended on it, not like you sit at your house with the A/C on clicking and clacking at your little keyboard you take for granted, got it? 1) Nobody needs a hug - thus why wisdom exists. Every wise man will tell you that they are the way they are because they were always alone and accepted their isolation. 2) Why does it have to be a hug? Can I not rest my hand on their shoulder? Can I not run my hand through their hair? Can I not take their hand and use it to point at the sky so they can understand that what they are feeling is normal and that there are people out there that experience far more pain than they do, that accepting this pain is a way of life? Mhmm? No? It's just the small little hug? And you wonder why you raise ignorant children that don't know how to face this treacherous society? You don't even realize what you're doing - unbelievable. I rarely get hugs - I am the most loving person you'll ever come across, in that I love like the Universe - you do good, I will reward you; you do bad, I will let you know by scolding you with consequences and the truth with thorns. Pain is life - life is strife. You don't understand this world. .. Life is both creative and destructive - the whole "hugs for everyone" is some watered down sense of expression that's just annoying and over-rated. Want to show you love someone? Tell them what they don't want to hear. Deal with the parts of them that they hide. Stop treating them like princes and princesses, when they are rotten eggs on the inside with an exceedingly rotten brain that cannot stand your affection drowning it in non-intellectual stimuli.
Teachers should be able to hug their students

And now you have a edge in the debate. Here are my rebutals 1) teachers should hug everyone! Everyone needs a hug weighed they realize it or not. 2) and if a child was crying then you wouldn't hug them first? Hugging is harmless period. It shows affection toward people and we all need then whither we accept them or not. Some children don't get enough hugs from family and friends, so to hug their teacher would mean the world to them. It's not choosing favorites, it's not harmful at all! And if you are afraid of having one student hugged more than the other, then the teacher can create a system! 1 hug for everyone when you walk in. It's a simple process and I don't know why people are so resistant about it.
Teachers should be able to hug their students

Hugging, itself, is over-rated. I love my parents more than those that hug their parents every day (because they never thought enough into what they are doing to stop it, which causes them do it more systematically rather than empathetically), while I do not hug them nearly as much. But when I do, it matters. Allowing strangers to hug your children in this world of crazy people, just makes it easier for lunatics to get to our children. Instead of being an idiot and worrying about the small trivial things in life - why don't you actually start waking up to the massive issues of this world that are far more important than your love - that is the very reason why your love will only cause more destruction than you really intended it to? Hugging students will mean either of the two things 1) the teacher is hugging everyone, just to hug them, which defeats the purpose of love or 2) the teacher picks who they want to hug, which again, defeats your annoying one-dimensional emotional trite.
Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

Reminder that this round is for closing statements only. Voting GuideMy opponent forfeited round 2 thus violating rule 2-2-2. Thus per 2-2-4, all seven points goes to me. Conduct: The following statements certainly warrant a loss of conduct:"This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent. " "I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise). " Grammar: My opponent's spelling and grammar has been horrendous and the format my opponent used is very difficult to follow. For example:"A child to a parents is like an economy to a government. ." This should read, "a child to parents are" Arguments: My opponent failed to address my arguments.
Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

Well then, Let's go and ask the 95% employed people in Singapore and Honk Kong how many of them earn enough to feed their family sufficiently? How many can have a single holiday per year and still hope to afford decent education for their children. Oh! That's right! Your forgot CHINA! The king of Keynesian! ONLY 4.100000% http://www.bloomberg.com... So just shut up you arrogant pig with your "OH LOOK UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IN AUSTRIAN NATIONS IS AWEEESOME!" The reason it's awesome in those East Asian Nations is due to there being no minimum wage meaning the exploitation of beggars to work for factories manufacturing goods for Nike and the likes is very apparent, this is more a cultural PROBLEM being misrepresented by my opponent as anything to do with AUSTRIA OH!... 4.3% https://www.google.co.uk... THIS IS HIGHER THAN CHINA'S hahahahahahahaa\so please give a substantial argument.My analogy to children was perfect. A child to a parents is like an economy to a government, it is their full responsibility to make flourish until their time is up and a new election can replace them perhaps (like when child can go to university). This is totally neglected by my very rude and abrupt opponent.So you can go and be a neglectful lazy government or a Keynesian one it's simple as that. I talk straight not like a coward.
Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

My opponent failed to address my opening statements. As such, I request that you extend those arguments.My opponent makes two analogies in the case for Keynesian economics: First by comparing children to the economy and second by comparing businesses to the economy. They are flawed because you don't raise a child the same way as you run an economy. The entire analogy is a false analogy.The second analogy is slightly more relatvent, but contains two fallacies: The first, my opponent assumes that Austrians are greedy, selfish, haters of poor people who want to deprive their employees of rights and would fire my employees just to make a cent; the second, my opponent assumes that Keynesians are wonderful do-gooders who put work before the economy and before the employees. These are of course, false. To make a case study, all what one has to do is look at nations where there is strong Austrian (or Austrian-like) economic run.The first, we will look at Singapore. Singapore is largely laissez-faire with minimum government regulations and no minimum wage. The results: In spite of the economic collapse, the unemployment rate is less than 3% [1. http://www.heritage.org...;] with an overall monthly income of 9,618 - or $115K yearly [2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;]. Now, we will look at Hong Kong. With the most economically free on the Index to Economic Freedom [3. http://www.heritage.org...;], it has an unemployment rate of less than 5%. Milton Friedman called it "the world’s greatest experiment in laissez-faire capitalism" [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...;], even though in recent years, more regulations has been given on the economy - including a minimum wage. The case study proves that in order to produce prosperity, we need to give the private sector enough breathing room to grow. I will expand more in the next round.
Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

If you have a child, how would you raise it?1) Be an Austrian and let them do whatever the heck they went assuming that their bad grades do not matter, never ever stepping in.2) Be a Keynesian, disciplining them when they do wrong, guiding them to a reasonable extent to make sure they stay within guidelines for successI'm sure you chose number 2.If you are the manager of a business how would you run it?1) Be an Austrian and let the employees do as they please, if the stats are bad you just smoke some marijuana and say "Don't worry, Be Happy" and assume the heads of respective departments will make good decisions despite consistent failure to do so.2) Be a Keynesian, being very closely influential on the decisions being made, how employees are paid/treated, on the spending and cost-cutting decisions and overall being a very attentive leader of a successful business.I'm sure you chose numbers 2.In fact, in every single context other than economics, I'm sure any sane person would be a Keynesian (unless they are a hippy, who quite frankly didn't do much other than allow the punk era to arise).Suddenly in economics it seems that neglect of duty as a leader, that liberalism (in the economic sense, not the sense of non-conservative) as opposed to socialism, is preferable.
Austrian Economics vs. Keynesian Economics

Resolved: Austrian economics is superior to Keynesian economics. NOTE: This debate is impossible to accept. If you want to accept it, please message me. Definitions: Austrian Economics: A school of thought that is associated with little government interference in the marketplace, the primacy of property rights and is generally associated with libertarian ideology.[1] Keynesian Economics: An economic theory stating that active government intervention in the marketplace and monetary policy is the best method of ensuring economic growth and stability. [2] Superior: Better than, of better quality, producing better results. Rules Rounds Acceptance only. Opening arguments only (please don't rebut) Rebuttals and Defense Rebuttals and Defense Closing statements only (1K character maximum). Other rules and clarifications If special circumstances arise, one side may ask the other to wait out his or her remaining time. No forfeiting or plagarism is acceptable. Please structure and format your arguments in a way that is easy to follow. Failure to abide by any points above will result in an automatic loss. References http://economics.about.com......; http://www.investopedia.com......;
Morgan Freeman renders your argument invalid. Therefore, you must die.

Before I start, I want to clarify two things: 1.) Morgan Freeman is obviously supernatural. I mean, look at this real picture of him. How can you deny he is clearly supernatural? http://www.failauthority.com... 2.) Anything supernatural is worthy of worship or else we will be killed, right? So it only makes sense to worship him. So therefore, we must worship this divine being that we do not understand or else we will all likely die for whatever reason. So anyway.... http://ts4.mm.bing.net...