BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation

Lets be clear here. Changing money creation from Banksters hands to the Governments hands is dissolving the Federal Reserve. You can call your new system under the Government the Federal Reserve but it simply isn't. It is the one who controls the money creation who has the power. If you are simply just going to change owners from the Fraudulent Banksters to the Fraudulent Government how does that solve the problem for average Joe? Your plan does not address the issues of Fiat currency and it's worthlessness overtime. Since 1913 the Value of the Dollar has gone down 98% and the Debt the Federal Government owes has gone up over 5000 times. Yes you read that correctly. 98% and 5000 times. A Millionaire meant being wealthy not to long ago. Now in certain places you'd be hard pressed to find a 1500 sq foot shanty for a million dollars. You can't print yourself Silver and Gold. They have intrinsic value while paper or digital money does not. My solution is to do away with Fiat currency and it's inevitable collapse through Inflation/Hyperinflation. The average life span of a Fiat currency is 26 years. You don't get that with Silver and Gold. An ounce of Gold 100 years ago would buy yourself a nice tailored suit. Just as it would today (current value ~1300 USD). Returning to a Gold backed currency is one step but I do include Silver coins as well just for more stability. I would also like to implement that the money creator owners and employees be regulated to unparalleled highly transparent auditing and oversight. I mean that making the peoples tax records public, assets public and even an open to the public free tour of the Mint and Paper making areas. Transparency is king and secrecy is corrupt. You can't print Silver and Gold. Return to real money that has value.
The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation

I've read my opponents argument and he is on my side in eliminating the Federal Reserve but his proposal doesn't solve one of my main issues. -I agree we need to end the Privately owned Central Bank Scam called the Federal Reserve. -We need to audit the Fed thoroughly to try and find out how much they cheated and audit the owners where ever they are located, assets and all. Find out where all that money stolen has gone to buying up assets. Repossess stolen assets. -I agree we need to end Fractional Banking (Fractional Banking allows Public Banks and especially the Big Banks to Gamble in the Markets with highly leveraged "Investments" like Derivatives. If those bets go bad the losses will be asked to be paid by the taxpayer Again. Fractional Banking is simply printing money you don't have and lending it, it could never be regulated enough so a Bankster doesn't cheat and add some zero's to his own offshore accounts. -Through the control of Interest Rates and Inflation and Deflation the Federal Banksters know ahead of time what rates they will go to thus being able to place bets in the markets accordingly. Massive Insider information. We must end human controlled rate fixing. -I DO NOT trust the Government to print and control the money supply either as a Fiat currency. Fiat meaning moneys value backed by nothing. When you have a currency that is backed by nothing it allows the creators to print money to themselves. Money needs to actually be worth something other then what it's printed on. Worthless paper. It needs to be able to be exchanged for a tangible good or rare item like Gold. What we need is not a monopoly but competition to move to a new system. I agree with Ron Paul. HR 1098: Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 will essentially do three things: 1) repeal legal tender laws to remove the monopoly control of the Federal Reserve, 2) legalize private mints to issue coins to be controlled by anti-fraud and anti-counterfeit laws, and, 3) remove taxes from precious metal coins to ensure fair competition among new currencies. Going back to "some" Silver and Gold Coins set at a specific value will help eliminate this money printing dilemma. You certainly could use the coins or alternate paper and digital currency. Money needs to have value.
The Federal Reserve should be dissolved out of existence for tyrannical Interest and Inflation

The Federal Reserve is a Privately Owned Bank with the ability to Print Money from thin air and charge Interest on that Money to the Federal Government. They refuse to even let Congress audit their books. How much do they print for themselves? "Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States." -Sen. Barry Goldwater It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford "The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. "but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239 9th Circuit 1982 "The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers." -Congressman Louis T. McFadden "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." -Franklin Delano Roosevelt "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it"s issuance." -James Madison "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." -Thomas Jefferson "The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe." -Abraham Lincoln "Give me control of a nation"s money and I care not who makes it"s laws" -Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
Being able to drink at 18

I will hope that this debate will turn out quite fruitful. First of all, I'd like to say that the Pro's arguments are NOT logically adequate, and therefore, invalid. "A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still. "The Pro is implying that we should amend a law, simply because the law is broken by some. Should we allow murder, simply because there are a lot of murderers out there? Should we allow domestic violence because there are a bunch of wackos who beat their wives? (I'm using two extremes here). This is NOT a logical reasonNext, the Pro states,"Of course you can get kicked out of sports for drinking and it could cost you a scholarship, but if it's legal then teenagers can drink without feeling bad. "Is the Pro implying that we should amend a law, just to make the lawbreakers feel better? ! That's totally illogical. In the same way, it would be illogical to allow murder, in order for murderers to feel better. And then. .. "At 18 a lot of people drive drunk so they don't have to call their parents/ guardian to come get them and so they won't get in trouble the thing is that if it was legal they could call a parent or guardian to come get them and they wouldn't be in trouble for illegally drinking and then they still don't have to drive drunk. "Okay. .. first of all if you're 18, you don't have a guardian anymore. You are an adult. Duh. And also. .. if you're drunk, do you think you'd be able to call your parents? Like honestly. .. the pro is making absolutely no sense here. So far, the Pro has given NO logical reasons as to why the drinking age should be lowered. As the burden of proof lies on her, I technically don't have to give any reasons. However, I will. Alcohol has been proven to be a health impediment. Giving a teen alcohol will only bring them 3 years closer to a huge number of problems, such as cirrhosis, pancreatitis, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, alcoholic dementia, problems with sexuality, etc. Alcohol also increases the chances of a person getting cancer, especially breast cancer. Is it smart to give a new adult the reason for all of these problems? No, not in my opinion. At least wait until they've spent some time in adulthood. So, these are my reasons. I await the Pro's responseSources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
Being able to drink at 18

I think an 18 year old should be able to legally drink because, at 18 you can legally smoke and you can join the military. A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still. Of course you can get kicked out of sports for drinking and it could cost you a scholarship, but if it's legal then teenagers can drink without feeling bad. At 18 a lot of people drive drunk so they don't have to call their parents/ guardian to come get them and so they won't get in trouble the thing is that if it was legal they could call a parent or guardian to come get them and they wouldn't be in trouble for illegally drinking and then they still don't have to drive drunk.
Being able to drink at 18

"Even though alcohol hurts you health so does a lot of other things like smoking, using electrical devices, etc. "And? That still does not justify lowering the drinking age. Perhaps the other things like smoking should be prohibited to an older age as well (I'm not saying I support it, but I'm giving an example). The Pro has succesfully rebutted none of my arguments, and has used no logical reasoning whatsoever.
Being able to drink at 18

The Pro's clarifications mean very little, as she still has not given any logical evidence as to why 18 year olds should be allowed to drink. The only thing she says, that's close to rationalization, is"Ok first I will start out by saying i might have made my self unclear, but since at 18 you are legally allowed to smoke and fight for our country we should be able to legally drink."And? The pro has failed to explain WHY this is unjust, so her argument is invalid. Is she implying that anyone who is allowed to smoke or fight for their country, automatically gains the right to drink? It would be good for the pro to actually give LOGICAL REASONS as to why this isn't right. She has failed to do so, therefore her argument is nullified.And then,"Also i wasn't meaning law breakers should feel better about breaking the law i was meaning since it's not illegal they wouldn't feel bad about it." Lawbreaker: (noun) a person who breaks or violates the law. Legal drinking age is the age at which a person is permitted by LAW to consume alcoholic beverages.Therefore, anyone who violates the legal drinking age, breaks the law. They are lawbreakers"A lot of teenagers drink anyways before 18 and even though it's illegal they still."The point she has appeared to have made in the first round, is that people violate the legal drinking age. So? The words the pro has said, point to the law being changed for the convenience of the lawbreakers. I would like for her to defend that statement, or retract it.And also, the Pro has utterly ignored my point of drinking being a health impediment and hazard. I ask the pro to rebut my arguments, or accept defeat.Back to you, pro
Taxpayer funded abortion.

Looking forward to reading your court case. The IRS won't be happy. Imagine having to accommodate for everyone's beliefs. Sally doesn't want to pay taxes because she believes roads should be painted pink! George doesn't want to pay taxes because he believes taxes are immoral! Just ridiculous. You don't get to make exceptions for just your religion in the law. You don't have the rights you claim to have based on your "faith". There's thousands of religions, and even more beliefs. If we took everything into consideration based on everyone's beliefs, we would get nowhere as a society. "The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" - You posted this. You know what this means and how it is interpreted? It means that we don't take ANY religion into consideration when creating laws. We are a secular nation.
Taxpayer funded abortion.

Again, feel free to not pay your taxes. When the IRS comes knocking, go to court and fight it. If you're truly consistent, you won't pay this year and you'll fight it in court and attempt to use "spectral evidence" to prove your case. As to my "troll posts", they weren't troll posts. The Giant Spaghetti Monster is just as powerful as your god. You're being very disrespectful by calling my beliefs "troll" and I don't appreciate it. Also, if you come to this website with the position of "you won't change my mind" you're going to have a bad time. I suggest venting on twitter or facebook.
Taxpayer funded abortion.

Then I have the right to not pay for things that I don't believe in. The beauty of the First Amendment is that it doesn't discriminate. If you think it's your religious right not to pay taxes that don't fund abortion anyway unless the specific cases in the Hyde Amendment, then I don't have to fund endless wars, the pay of public employees I disagree with politically, and so on. Then I can just use an imaginary friend as an excuse for not paying taxes. I mean you're free to use your arguments in court and see how far you get, it's not like it hasn't been tried before though.
Taxpayer funded abortion.

I believe in the Giant Spaghetti Monster in the sky. I believe that presidents should have an IQ that is above 80. I do not believe that our current president meets that criteria, therefore I do not want to pay taxes because I do not feel like I am being represented. I also do not want my taxes to go to endless wars, which have 0 oversight from congress, let alone the public. I also do not believe that money in politics should be a thing. It should be 1 person 1 vote. Do I stop paying taxes and get put into jail because I have a justified belief that we are indeed living in a banana republic and not a representative Democracy? Rich people get to buy politicians, and buy legislation as a result. I do not wish to be governed in such way, as ordained by the Giant Spaghetti Monster. Now that that's out of the way, we live in a collective society. We pay for roads so we can all drive on them. We pay for things we don't want. Your religious freedom does not mean that you get to impose your religious beliefs on others. If you're still reading to this point and haven't yet ripped your hair out, I have some good news. We have something called the "Hyde Amendment". In U.S. politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape. If those 3 instances outrage you enough to the point where you feel that your "religious liberty" has been defiled, you are immoral.
The Shroud of Turin Could be Authentic

This debate is for Round 1 of the 2016 Spring DebateAs the Shroud of Turin is (possibly) an ancient historical artifact, absolute proof is impossible thus there will be shared burden of proof. Pro will argue that the Shroud dates back to the time of Christ and thus could be authentic. Con will argue that it is a forgery and thus could not be authentic.5 rounds, 72 hr argument time, 10k characters. Rules10k Charaters per round, 3 rounds, 72 hrs per round, Decide Winner, voting open to all.
2 + 2 appears to equal 4.

You claim, with no justification, that two plus two appears to equal four. I will grant you the premise that it appears so to YOU. How can you know that it appears to equal four to anyone else? We may pretend that it does because we know society ruthlessly persecutes those of us who voice our disagreement, with your brutal ridicule driving many of us to suicide, thus selecting for conformity. Apart from the problem of other minds, only applicable due to the semantics of the debate topic, I submit to you that the concept of arithmetic is a colonial invention (whatever that means). To many of the native tribes of Africa and South America, e.g., the Walpiri and the Piraha, there are no integers beyond two: only "many". (I do not know if they have non-integral real numbers that do not belong to [0, 2], and my preliminary research into this area has been fruitless.) It is unethical to impose "Western" civilization and the idea of "fourness" on them; if the Peano axioms are thought of technology, it would be a violation of the Prime Directive. Now, more seriously, you have not stated what number system you're working in. In Z and R, you're right. In the field of integers modulo 3, for instance, 2 + 2 = 1 (mod 3). Of course, in this system 1 = 4 (mod 3), but that's not the point. Just concede defeat. I don't want to go three rounds. :)
2 + 2 appears to equal 4.

This is a joke debate. I wanted to see whether anyone would actually disagree with the topic. If anyone contends, please say whether you're being serious or joking too. Thank you. The topic is 2 + 2 appears to equal 4. I will be arguing for the topic. 2 + 2 appears to equal 4 because that appears to be the case and thusly is. In conclusion, 2 + 2 appears to equal 4.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

"its chaos because, its not order, not intended"And where is your proof for this? BOP was on you, but you have provided none, Pro. ConclusionPro has not provided any evidence, even though BOP was on him the whole time, he just restated the resolution and denied any of my definitions that I provided, even though they were from a reliable source. The resolution has not been proven valid in any way, and Pro didn't make one single attempt. Even though I didn't have BOP, I even stated an example of random cause and effect not turning out into chaos. The resolution remains fallacious.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

"chaos has nothing to do with confusion.. the movement of leaves in the wind blowing is all chaos.."I don't understand how this is chaos, in fact, it has nothing to do with chaos. Pro also states "chaos has notihng to do with confusion," but the definition, once again is:"a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order."No one is confused by leaves blowing, in fact, Pro still does not provide any evidence to support the resolution.The resolution remains fallacious.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

Pro, again, provides no evidence to support the resolution. Allow me to provide an example the opposite of the resolution.You are running late for the bus, you run out the door and forget your lunch. You get on the bus and open your bag. You just remember that you put you put it in your bag last night. You find it in your bag even though you did not intend it being there. There is no chaos involved, you are not in utter confusion because you remembered that you put it in last night, no confusion is involved.That is an example of cause and effect without chaos.BOP is still on Pro, and he still hasn't provided any solid evidence to support his theory. The resolution remains fallacious.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

DEFINITION OF CHAOS: a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order. [1]DEFINITION OF CAUSE:a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. [2]Hello, vi_spex! "any non intended cause is chaos"For chaos to happen UTTER confusion might take place after the cause and effect.DEFINITIONS:Confusion: lack of clearness or distinctness [3]Utter: complete; total; absolute [4]Therefore, BOP is on Pro, he must prove that cause and effect leads to nothing but a complete lack of clearness/distinctness.Cites:[1]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
Vote moderation standards are an overall benefit to the site

I actually don't have time for this. Electioneering is a 24/7 commitment and requires a lot of adderal, and taking time off work. I have slowly laid the seeds for over a Month, but even then the sheer effort is incredible. Hell when I lost to BSH1 It took my body 2 weeks to recover. If a losing election takes that much effort you can not even imagine the consequences I will pay for all this effort. I urge all voters of this debate to also vote in the presidential election. vote me for president by bolding my name in the following thread please. http://www.debate.org...
Vote moderation standards are an overall benefit to the site

So this has been a heavily discussed Topic in the forums recently, and while I am doing a similar debate with Wylted on voting quality VS quantity, I wanted a debate more specific to the problem a lot of members have raised lately.While this debate may share some of the same elements as my debate with Wylted, it focuses more specifically on the issue of moderation standards. More than a few voices have voiced public dis-interest in the way moderation has affected voting. From my shoes, I have definitely seen changes since vote moderation has become a such a big thing, but to me these changes have been objectively better. I want to defend my views on this in a public debate where both debaters can discuss this in the most logical way that best escapes fallacies, uses sources and up to date information about the site's changes since vote moderation, etc. For a brief sort of framework prior to the start of this debate, I do not intend to defend specific moderation instances. I know moderation isn't perfect, and has messed up in the past. I am not defending the actions of specific mods in every case, and I do believe with good moderation there should also be discretion applied. I am defending the ideas behind the policies themselves, and want to prove how they positively impact site voting overall. I will be defending the current standards created by vote mod Blade-Of-Truth,(1) and how they have evolved through time to become as effective as they currently are. This debate is not intended to specifically tackle the individual points in the policies so much as it is about how enforcement of these policies has bettered voting. I have set the debate up for 3,000 elo minimum, with a select winner system. 10,000 characters to argue with in each round, and a 2 weeks voting period. Round 1 will be designated for acceptance, and I will begin my arguments in round 2. I am willing to change Elo standards for accepting depending on the opponent's history of debating and forfeits, though I'd prefer a more active vocal member in the forums about this issue takes this debate up. Good luck to whomever accepts this debate, I look forward to it. Sources: 1. http://www.debate.org...