BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We do not need the Federal Reserve

Andrew Jackson did not destroy the economy, the bankers contracted the money supply after he ended their privately owned central bank. It's like Brexit, the Brittish people demanded their nation back, so the banksters withdrew all their investments and created a very short lived crisis, and now they're trying to blame nationalists for something that they did. The bnksters caused the crisis of 1836 by contracting the money supply, they caused the depression of 1873 by passing the Coinage Act of 1873, they caused the crisis of 1893 by withdrawling all of ther stocks simultaniusly, and they started the crisis of 1907 by telling everyone there was going to be a crisis- they even caused the Great Depression through their private Central Bank by creating a bubble then contracting the money supply. They then tried to blame all of it on the gold standard or not having a central bank or something like that. Having No Central Bank causes a given economy to become more stable, it simply means that there is no prvate bank manipulating our money supply.
We do not need the Federal Reserve

So my opponent is trying to claim that we need the Federal Reserve because Andrew Jackson was such a bad guy- but it turns out that all of what he claimed is just bullsh*t. Andrew Jackson wasn't a maniac and he didn't "kill anyone who wasn't white," what he did do is stand up for our National Sovereinty and preserve our freedoms.ll my opponent has done is launched a number of ad-hominid attacks that he made up.
We do not need the Federal Reserve

THANK YOU! You make this very easy for me. The first president to disagree with a Central Bank was Andrew Jackson. As you may know, he was a crazy LUNATIC, who said this quote, "My only two regrets in life are that I did not hang Calhoun and shoot Clay." (1) He was also known for massacring anyone who wasn't white and was a murderous FREAK. However, because I am limited to only 10000 characters, I will not go about his mental disorders. Anyway, his actions were DISASTROUS and he utterly DECIMATED the economy. (2) So yeah, without a central government, we would be screwed as a nation. Now you said that the Federal Reserve only causes bad things. I am curious what you mean by that. (1) https://en.wikiquote.org... http://first-thoughts.org... http://www.answers.com... https://www.lewrockwell.com... (2) http://www.lehrmaninstitute.org...
Derek Jeter is overrated

I only wanted to hear your side of the argument first because I just wanted to know exactly where you stand, and now I know. You've cited a few different accomplishments of Derek Jeter. To name a few: 1. .317 Batting Average 2. Mr. November 3. Nine time all star 4. Career hits 5. Five time World Champion 6. .975 fielding percentage 7. 3 Gold Glove awards These seven points address the following: Jeter's offense, Jeter's clutch ability, Jeter's defense and Jeter having the reputation of being a winner. I'm not saying Jeter is a bad hitter, he boasts a career .387 OBP, well above average. But the argument that i am making is that he is overrated. That doesn't mean he is bad, just that he is worse than he is made out to be by the media. If he were a spectacular hitter, he would have an OBP above .400, superstar quality. Next, Jeter's clutch ability. That homerun in the first ever baseball game in November gave him the nickname of Mr. November. As we both know, he also is known as Captain Clutch. But is this the case? There have been studies done to determine whether clutch ability exists. The results? Luck. The studies showed that most if not all of clutch ability is determined by luck. There is a statistic called Clutch. It shows how a player does in higher leverage situations. If Clutch ability were a skill, then players would have positive Clutch numbers every year. This isn't the case, their clutch numbers fluctuate year after year. The same goes for Jeter. So is he clutch? No, he is not. Defense. There have been many studies done on Jeter's defense. Fielding Percentage is a poor statistic to look at, it doesn't give any indication of a player's range. Stats like Ultimate Zone Rating or Defensive Runs Saved are more reliable. Jeter's range continually ranks at the bottom of the league for the shortstop position. He has poor range. The only reason he has any gold gloves is because of the few good plays he has made. Diving into the stands? That pretty much secured the 2004 Gold Glove for him. But no, he is not a good fielder. Right now, over his career he has cost the Yankees over 100 runs with his glove. The World Championships mean nothing when assessing Jeter. That is a team accomplishment, not a player accomplishment. Bad players have indeed played on winning teams before. Also, back in 2004 when the Yankees acquired Alex Rodriguez. He was one of the best shortstops in all of baseball the year before. If Jeter really cared about the team, and wanted to win, he would have forfeited the position to Arod, doing so would have helped the team. He wouldn't even consider doing such a thing. So, based on a few good plays he's made and a few key hits he's had, the media praises him as being one of the best all around players. This is not the case, and this is why I believe he is overrated. Not to mention, this leads to him being overpaid, which restraints his team's payroll flexibility and the ability to sign other good players.
The United States Will Lose the War on Terror (Esp. Iraq & Afghanistan).

Well it is clear to both of us how the situation has come to what it is today. And I find it interesting. Instead of both giving history lessons, I will get back to your subject. To make sure I truly understand better, I believe you are actually refering to the US having another 9/11 scale attack. You also understand that killing every terrorist would be impossible, and you understand we will have to continue to fight terrorism around the world. However, you believe the tactics that are use at the moment will result in loosing. No war is ever like the one before. Military personnel will always have a new challenge. The battle today takes us to civilian population, with an enemy who hides trough the crowd. At the moment, the battles fought are needed to stable the region. This can be accomplished, unfortunately no one has a magic button, and only through trial and error we will prevail. No, I do not wish this to be the case. Lives are too valuable. Today many people see the war on terror as the US only. Not true, and you know this with all the other groups around the world. The position we hold is critical, there is no doubt. We can win or lose depending in our actions to come. Recently North Korea came to an agreement with the US about the Nuclear weapons. Just because we are fighting in the Middle East, does not mean we forgot about the rest of the world. Since 9/11 many "experts" said there will be another attack. Well it has been years, some have tried and failed do to our constant offence. We cannot let our guard down, and that does not mean we need to fight the world. But it means be alert and ready. The media could be our enemy, when they continue to say negative things about the president and the war, they influence people. How much coverage they aired to the NOK nuclear weapons. Do they really care? But it is more important to continue to show another suicide bomber in the Middle East. If the explosion did not affect Americans or its allies, why bother? Why do I say this, because it was like that before we got there. Sick people want attention; show it on the media, which is what they want. Suicide bombers are brained washed. We need to go after the big fish. And that is what we do. I believe this war could be won. But if people think bombings in the Middle East will stop, they need to realize that is how they lived. As far as another attack to the US, we cannot let our guard down. The moment a person thinks he lost, they give up the fight. What is the media telling us? At the moment, people say Bush has brought this country to recession. Did he really? In closing, the outcome of the WOT is a personal decision at the moment. Who would have tough John McCain would be the nominee after running his campaign on pocket change last year. And every one was sure Hillary would win. What I mean by this is that once people make their minds towards a conclusion, they forget is not over yet. The only certain thing in live is death.
The United States Will Lose the War on Terror (Esp. Iraq & Afghanistan).

Forgive my short opening argument, but I believe this is obvious based on the current circumstances. Not only is the United States qualitatively losing the war in Iraq, but the general War on Terror as well. Even disregarding the notion that you can't defeat an idea, we are still going to loose. I outline several basic reasons for this below: 1. The two major terrorist organizations in the world are not located in Iraq or Afghanistan (primarily). Hezbollah and al-Qaeda are not based in either of these countries. The two of them together are far and above the rest of the world's terrorist organizations in terms of effectiveness, structure, planning, etc... Fighting them on the ground in two countries will NOT be successful. 2. We cannot win against the classic insurgency that Iraq forces are perpetrating without a major change in US policy. What we're seeing here is the same sort of activity as in the People's Revolution in China, The Vietnam War, and as the French saw in Algeria, which, incidentally is one of the major reasons they are not willing to commit forces to Iraq. 3. The coalition of the Iraqi forces is of such composition that they are clearly willing to band together to destroy the United States. Consider that al-Qaeda is working with other Muslim sects, which is something they traditionally did not do. Also, we see al-Qaeda working with remnants of Saddam's regime, two groups that were at polar odds for literally decades. 4. The terrorist organizations are arguably better funded than the United States military. If you examine the monetary commitment per troop compared with the relative success of the forces. You will find that the terrorist organizations spend less per enemy defeat (death) than the United States military does. This has mostly to do with the fact that the US army is better equipped, but it's also a problem if the terrorist organizations continue guerrilla warfare or practice a war of attrition. This is just a basic outline of some points... I'd like to keep the focus of this debate on Iraq and Afghanistan as they apply to the general War on Terror. If it will please my future opponent, I'd like to abbreviate War on Terror (WoT), War in Iraq (WiI), al-Qaeda (AQ), and Hezbollah (HZ) to save space on these concepts we know by association, but take a lot of our precious characters. I look forward to an interesting and involved debate. And if you're out there reading this, I'd be interested in debating how we CAN win the War. Not that we ARE... how we CAN. I look forward to a rebuttal.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

I will letter my points to make referencing easier. "I understand your premise, but the premise is incorrect. As I understand the position, a person who fits the original proposition does so from the perspective that taking a human life doesn't warrant losing your own. They take this position for the following reasons: 1. Two "wrongs" don't make a right". 2. What give the government the "right" to decide to take a persons life? 3. They find it incredulous that causing another death is a valid recompense for the initiation of the first death." a) This is true; those who oppose the death penalty believe that two wrongs =/= one right. The two wrongs in this case a BOTH killings, so they believe that killing is wrong. They meet the first criteria of the resolution ("Those who oppose the death penalty"). "Now, the basis for the on demand pro-choice perspectives are 1. It's a womans right to decide if she wants children. There are several cliche's involved with this premise "keep your laws off of my body" is the one that comes to mind immediately. 2. It's not a baby until the mother says it's a baby. 3. If a mother doesn't want a baby, the baby is better off dead anyway." b) The viewpoint I presented in earlier rounds was similar to your second point: some people believe abortion is OK because it is not yet a live human being, so it is not being killed. "To posture the fetus isn't alive is a scientific falsehood. it qualifies in everyway as an entity that lives. To say it isn't human is just as false, any dna test will confirm that this is indeed a human. To posture otherwise is in opposition to scientific fact." c) This is not a debate about whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether science is right or wrong. Science does contradict itself at times; this gives us the motivation to find the truth. Until the truth is revealed, some scientists will believe that life begins at conception, and some will not. This, in turn, will affect the people, and they will choose which idea they agree with. Global warming, for example. Some scientists believe it is a problem; others do not believe it exists. Until we find the complete truth, people will decide whether they believe in it or not. So, referring to points a and b, let us assume there is a group of people who think killing is wrong (point a; those who oppose the death penalty). Now, let us assume some of those people do not believe life begins right at conception; so aborting the fetus before it is alive is not killing, and therefore not wrong (point b; NOT opposing abortion on demand). So you can see that in some cases, these two ideals do not conflict, and therefore, that "Those who oppose the death penalty should [not always] oppose abortion on demand". Thanks again for starting this debate.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

I understand your premise, but the premise is incorrect. As I understand the position, a person who fits the original proposition does so from the perspective that taking a human life doesn't warrant losing your own. They take this position for the following reasons: 1. Two "wrongs" don't make a right". 2. What give the government the "right" to decide to take a persons life? 3. They find it incredulous that causing another death is a valid recompense for the initiation of the first death. -All thoughtful and sincere opinions. Opinions to be admired, and respected, whether one agress with, or disagrees with their conclusions. From hearts and minds that are big enough to forgive and have pity on those who showed no pity. It's a magnanimous position. Now, the basis for the on demand pro-choice perspectives are 1. It's a womans right to decide if she wants children. There are several cliche's involved with this premise "keep your laws off of my body" is the one that comes to mind immediately. 2. It's not a baby until the mother says it's a baby. 3. If a mother doesn't want a baby, the baby is better off dead anyway. Some would say these are high-minded thoughts. I cannot see the justification for that perspective. I see it more as "Self-serving". Someone who dsagrees might state that pro-life people live in a fantasy world where the "complexities" of life aren't understood. The common thread I see in each of these positions is the absence of concern for the victims of each scenario. For the victim of murder, it's true that killing the killer won't bring them back to life. What isn't factored into the scenario is at least two-fold: 1. Murder is an assult on humanity itself, so all of mankind becomes the victim, and must be protected. 2. The families of the murdered are due recompence: we call it justice. This brings the victims family a place to begin their closure. A place to say this is where I begin to live without the person taken from me. To conclude otherwise, in my opinion is naive. For the victim of the abortion, there is no justice, no recompence. While the mother may have her relief, she leaves behind a victim that no one but the person who stopped his/her heart ever sees. In the name of freedom, in the name of personal rights, the victim has no voice. Those who disagree explain this is simplistic and void of deeper understanding. Society must sacrifice some to insure the continuity of humanity and the individual within. To posture the fetus isn't alive is a scientific falsehood. it qualifies in everyway as an entity that lives. To say it isn't human is just as false, any dna test will confirm that this is indeed a human. To posture otherwise is in opposition to scientific fact. The positions are about convenience, not society, not the victims, and certainly aren't consistent. ps, good to have you back. ..
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

"When my wife carried our two daughters, they both had different personalities before they were even born. The oldest was very active, and even stubborn before her birth. I can remember a few times she would "stretch out" in my wifes womb . . . " This is not necessarily related to personality; you cannot determine one's personality without communicating with them, and you cannot communicate with a fetus [in a way that would yield a personality]. This could be due to a more rapid growth than her sister, an uncomfortable position in the womb, or a myriad of other possibilities. "I said all of that to conclude that fetus is indeed a baby, a person, and to dehumanize the most innocent of the innocent; while imputing humanity to those who've apparently repudiated humanity is perplexing to me." Expanding on my earlier point about people having different viewpoints or reasons about their stance on abortion, some people are pro-choice because life does not start at conception. Some people do not believe that certain stages of a fetus are/is human, and they have no problem terminating the pregnancy if they are not killing anything. However, they may be against the death penalty because they believe killing is wrong. To conclude, to some people, abortion and the death penalty are mutually exclusive; they do not conflict with said person's morals. Therefore, they should not necessarily be pro-life if they oppose the death penalty.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

I understand the reasoning, but the idea that a fetus isn't a person is an idea I can't get my mind around. When my wife carried our two daughters, they both had different personalities before they were even born. The oldest was very active, and even stubborn before her birth. I can remember a few times she would "stretch out" in my wifes womb. My wife would use her hands and push Beckys' arm (or leg, whichever it was, I don't know) back in to stop the discomfort. You could see Becky "skap" the spot and insistently put her extremity back where it was! Her sister was quiete, and seemed to sleep quite a bit (her favorite hobby to this day!). I said all of that to conclude that fetus is indeed a baby, a person, and to dehumanize the most innocent of the innocent; while imputing humanity to those who've apparently repudiated humanity is perplexing to me. While I think a mother has the right to save her own life, almost any other situation would be inhumane. In the same vein, I think there are exception to the application of capital punishment.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

Some people take different viewpoints or have different reasons for their stance on the death penalty. For example, you may be opposed to the death penalty because it is inconsistent with other punishments, or simply because killing is wrong. The same goes for abortion. However, those who are pro-choice support the mother's free choice because they believe a mother's free will should precede those of the fetus', or the facts: during the window for abortion, a fetus is technically not alive. Therefore, it leads one to believe that abortion is not wrong, because there is nothing living that would be killed. Either way, that same person may oppose the death penalty because they believe it is inhumane to kill. To sum it up: Death penalty = killing Pro-choice abortion, to many people =/= killing. So these two ideals would be mutually exclusive.
Those who oppose the Death Penalty should also appose abortion on demand.

I often hear people denunciate the practice of capital punishment because it's inhmane. Although I disagree, I understand the perspective. What puzzles me is the large percentage of those whom I discuss the issue are, in fact; pro-choice. Some become reticent when I include partial birth abortion, but still support the practice for reasons other than the mothers' life being endangered. I find that to be a conundrum. . .
Construction of Islam

Part 2 Pro Arguments K) Mohammed was predicted in many religious texts, and that is a miracle i) Self fulfilling Prophecy The prediction is pretty vague. It just says that a “prophet” or “comforter” will be along shortly. The door is wide open for any power monger, crazed zealot, narcissist, etc to claim the roll. ii) Miracles are not miraculous Pro says that prophets have to perform miracles so that we know they're prophets. But the majority of miracles in religious texts are, at best, reliant upon the word of eyewitnesses. Unfortunately for Pro, there are people who have claimed to have seen just about anything you can imagine. There are countless UFO appearances [1], ghostly manifestations [2], and bigfoot sightings [3]. Now maybe SOME eyewitness accounts are credible. But the point is that a very large proportion of eyewitness accounts are probably false. I see no reason why the eyewitnesses of prophetic miracles would be any more trustworthy than flying dutchman sightings [4], particularly in a relative vacuum of scientific understanding and recording devices. iii) All prophecies get fulfilled eventually Pro's prophecy is really unspecific. But let's say that it were super specific! Lets say it prophesied that the next savior will have a birthmark shaped like like a double hammer. The chances of any individual having it are very low. But over a large enough population, and particularly over hundreds of years, the probability that someone will be born with the sign of the prophet is very high. Like here! http://www.metacafe.com... (sorry for the advertisement. Its the only clip of this I could find) iv) Confirmation bias Pro cites that many religions appear to have predicted the coming of Mohd. But he isn't telling you about all the religions that didn't predict a vague savior figure. There are literally thousands of religions [5*], so its unsurprising if a few of them jive with one prophecy of Islam. *This is a list of current religions. Of course a historical list of religions would have been better but I couldn't find one off hand. A cursory glance shows that most of those listed are pretty old anyway. L) Conclusion on the Koran, aka book #89758 Its a book guys. There are thousands of books. If a pristine book is produced during human history, I'm unsurprised. If we asked everyone to predict the outcome of superbowls for the next thousand years, one of them would probably get it right. This person would not be supernatural. They would be statistically inevitable. A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters bla bla shakespeare. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...