BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Balanced Budget Amendment

My ArgumentsNational EmergenciesI agree with my opponent that things like NFL tickets and "Girls Gone Wild" videos should not be included in the spending, but that does not resolve the aid can bring us into debt. Nevertheless, it is the government's responsibility to help the peopleand that is why aid is sent. Here's an example. Let's say that when Hurricane Sandy struck, the government made $2.5 trillion and spent $2.5 trillion. This would be the situtation in which we would be under a balanced budget. Congress sent $51 billion in aid to help the victims. This would mean that we would have to go into debt to help the people hurt by this disaster. [1]RecessionsEven if my opponent disagrees that spending does not work to fix recessions, that does not change that Congress will still take action and do it. Even when recessions come, there is a sudden drop in revenue as my graphs have shown (if no one can find them check my gallery). This sudden drop in revenue puts the nation in debt and breaks the amendment. In addition, tax cuts drop revenue, so that's a mistake. Basically, the government would be force to sit and do nothing to help the people while the recession intensifies.Amendments and CongressThe problem here is how efficient the amendment will be and if Congress will obey. Congress and the presidents over time have broke several constitutional amendments. What makes this amendment any different that it will be obeyed. This makes the constitutional amendment inefficient to be effective and my opponent has not proven how the amendment can remain efficient enough to not be broken. [2]Sources 1. http://www.nytimes.com...2. http://dailycaller.com...
Balanced Budget Amendment

My ArgumentsI. War and National EmergenciesI am glad to here that the balanced budget is allowed to be broken in case of military or other massive national emergencies. However, this ignores times when a high a military budget is needed that even exceeds the total federal revenue. Ronald Reagan knew how to defeat the Soviet Union and the only way possible to compete with the Soviets in the military to raise spending, train the troops, build the fleet, and create SDI. The good news is that we now have no Soviet Union, but in the case of a future second cold war as well as the protection in our era of global terrorism, we need a military build-up. I always put the welfare of the American people first, but we also need to make sure they're protected. So even sometimes when we are not in military conflict, we might need a high military just in case. [1]I do feel that my opponent did not properly address national emergencies. When a hurricane hits, a tornado strikes, or a snow storm falls then the government should send assistance to help the innocent creatures stuck in this emergency. This means we need to spend money even if it does mean going into debt for the benefit of helping the American people.II. RecessionsWhat we see from this graph (http://www.debate.org...) is the sudden drops in recessions. When a budget is balanced and a recession comes, revenue has historically dropped. We see this is many cases: the 1920 recession, 1981 recession, 2000 recession, and the 2008 recession. However, the most notable in my opinion is the 1948 recession where we saw a massive drop in revenue that has not been seen since.We are not just discussing if FDR's New Deal was right or wrong. I argued that traditionally the poor needed to be relieved in some way when in recession. FDR tried a New Deal and this led to more debt, Obama tried a stimulus and this led to new debt, Reagan passed a massive tax cut and this led to new debt (along with keeping the Soviets at bay), and Harding passed a massive tax cut and this dropped revenue until Coolidge could get it together. Whenever an action is issued in a recession, there is a cost. In this case, the cost is revenue which could lead to the rise of debt.III. Congress Breaks the ConstitutionI am not arguing that breaking the Constitution is wrong, but I am arguing if this amendment will be efficient. If Congress keeps breaking amendments then this proves that there is a lack of efficency in enforcing the Constitution. The balanced budget amendment willd be no different.Sources1. Armchair General, "Ronald Reagan's Cold War." 2012.
Harry Potter is Gay

Now for the rebuttal. Shut up u gay idiot. Just then, I'm wasn't being offensive to gays. I'm just being offensive to you and u are also coincidentally gay. U know why? Nvm, You're probably to dumb to understand anyway. I'll just say it for the audience. The opposition is probably too blinded by the fact that he is actually gay and sees me as insulting his sexuality, So he has provided and reported information that is highly biased, And I recommend that you just ignore his abnormality and his chronic congenital mental disorders. I am highly certain that he has down syndrome as his intelligence seems to have failed him. Now ill move onto my argument. Harry Potter has repeatedly committed acts that prove that he cannot be heterosexual. After all, After having sexual intercourse with many males, Notably Ron Weasley and Dumbledore, Who can say that he is heterosexual? Furthermore, The opponent may try and dissuade you guys but stating that he is married to a woman and has had children with her, But who is to say that he was actually the father? He may have actually loved Ron Weasley but he was already taken, So he was stuck with his sister. thank you, Adjudicator and audience and I shall return to my seat for the against team to start their biased reasoning.
Harry Potter is Gay

Dear adjudicator, Fellow debaters and audience, Today I'd like to present my argument on the very fascinating topic of "Harry Potter is Gay". First I'd like to rebut the other speaker, Talking about how he is married to Ginny, But is classified as a 'Gay' because he has been involved with Ron Weasley, Dumbledore and Neville Longbottom. If I have male friends too and I interact with them, Am I gay? This idea is absurd and mikowang must be an extreme BIG DUMB to classify this is homosexuality. Moving onto my straight idea, Harry Potter is obviously not gay. In the Harry Potter series, Harry is married to Ginny. They had children and had been together for many years. Either Harry is a very good actor and endures the pain of being with someone he doesn't like very well, He is deluding himself into thinking that he is not gay, Or he is actually not gay. The last idea seems the most sensible out of these ones, And it is the one I'd go with and the one that most SENSIBLE PEOPLE (not you mikowang) would choose. Harry is friends with Ron and Neville, And Dumbledore is his mentor. If he is still gay with Ron, He is committing adultery of the highest degree; being in a sexual relationship with one's wife's brother - that is just messed up. If he is gay with a Long Bottom, There is nothing wrong with that. Long Bottoms are nice. If he is gay with Dumbledore, That's called necrophilia and that is not allowed on my Christian School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. In conclusion, Harry Potter is heterosexual.
War its beginning and its necessity

Rebuttal to the Origin of WarThe origin of war you refer to is an original theory of the start of war. I will agree that this is a likely starting point. However for one of the orginal groups to go to war, war was necessary. Man inherently looks to benefit from action, arguably man inherently finds way to conflict with other men. There will always be those who choose to go to war for no reason beyond the possible benefits. But the one aggressed upon will find it that war is necessary to survive.So since the start of time, war was necesssary for at least one of the conflicting parties.Rebuttal to Your Proposed ScenarioThough I do love Orson Scott Card, lets remember that the universe he proposed has aliens, and lasers, and had a kid that led the worlds army to victory. I will agree that if a world power became strong enough to conquer most of the world, the rest would follow, there is a flaw in the series of events you proposed.You point out that the final government would need to be a democracy to avoid rebellion and corruption, well democracies don't declare war on others. The only country with any democratic principles that ever has been the aggressor in a major war was Germany in WW2, if you count a one-party government that manipulates elections a democracy. Your events also propose an unlikely global war and that one country would be able to get other countries to join them. The scenario is highly unlikely, and would require war to happen so.... It kind of proves war is necessary for there to be no more wars.I am pretty sure my arguments still stand so....and since this is the last round I am just going to kind of end here with a summary.War is almost necessary for the one aggressed upon to survive. War preparartions are the only way to deter others from attacking you because you are weak. War will continue to exist, unless something really really unlikely happens. War and war preparartions are necessary.Thanks for the debate!
War its beginning and its necessity

I would have posted but you had not clarified your arguments enough and would have obviously clarified them in your next debate. I used the origin of war to prove why it was unnecessary. The proxy wars will continue. Unless the war era ends, the only way this could happen was if a single entity had hegemony over the earth (a government ruled the earth). The only way this could be done was if it was done the way that Peter the Hegemon did it (Shadow of the Giant, Orson Scott Card) by letting a global war play out but with as you said without nuclear warfare, and seizing the countries through democracy, as they start to lose their power due to their sheer number of enemies. And then seizing the few remaining countries. If that occurred then the aggressors would be incapable of forming an army because their odds of winning would be far too slim for any people to join them so the "Alpha tribe" trend would be reestablished. And once it has been established the only thing that could change it would be another sentient species with equal or better technology than us; because it takes two alpha tribes to break the trend. Defense of resources will not be necessary if there is nobody you need to defend them from except common thieves. This would be a job for a local police force. And how would rebellions be stopped? By democracy and the citizen direct power to vote to clear out the government on any level and obviously only those who are affected by the change. While what you say is true when you talk about history there have not been any wars between world powers, which would be where nuclear war would occur, so there have been many wars but they have not provided an opportunity for Global Thermonuclear warfare. Russia is providing hat opportunity as we speak.
War its beginning and its necessity

As an individual or group of people, you must prepare for war and be willing to go to war. My basis will be global thermonuclear warfare, personal defense, and history.1. Global Thermonuclear Warfare - Probably not the best idea title but I'll stick with it. This will act as both a rebuttal and and my main argument. The main point is mututally assured destruction. This means though we have nuclear weaponry, we wont ever use it. This idea was popularized in the famous movie, WarGames.You said: "the age of war needs to end because with the advent of nuclear weaponry the casualties will jump so much higher and War will become far too bad for it to continue."Since nuclear weapons will never be used, war will not end because of it instead proxy wars have become more popular. Look at Vietnam, Syria and Ukraine. (I left North Korea out because it was a more convential war).http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...2. Since humans grew from nature by the fight for survival, as long as another human or humans pose a threat to us, we will fight. Also as you said, as long as one group has to gain by fighting another group, conquering shall exist. War preparations will continue to be necessary because others will always have interest in your own resources. And by the idea of global thermonuclear warfare, if you have equal arms then direct battle decreases because no one has the advantage. This offers a form of protection for survival.3. History - Nuclear weapons have existed since the end of World War 2 yet there has been the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War on Terror. The middle east has a nice list going of wars it has fought/fighting. South America has had a few different wars. Nuclear weapons have not decreased then number of wars. Casulaties are also not increasing dramatically. Though the death toll for the Vietnam war stands at a few million over 20 years, the American Civil War lead to around a million deaths in only 4 years when medicine was horrific.You should have argued anyways in round 2, I am still trying to figure out you full argument :P Thanks for the respect (I feel like there is a better word) though :)
War its beginning and its necessity

*puts fists up ready to fight*Based on what you said my understand of your stance is:War and war preparations are not a necessity since it origination and /or today.I will argue that:As an individual or group of people, you must prepare for war and be willing to go to war. My basis will be global thermonuclear warfare, personal defense, and history.I am also willing to argue that:Humans were fighting with nature to survive since their origin to kill/destroy anything that poses I risk to our survival. Because of this, if other humans pose a risk to our survival then we will fight them.If your argument is that in a hypothetical world that humans could co-exist without needing to fight, well we don't live in this world do we :P so a debate on a hypothetical world that will never exist and really does not help in philosophical discussion seems a little pointless
War its beginning and its necessity

My place in this argument is that war id not necessary The most likely beginning of war was when a tribe gained some form of advantage over its neighboring tribes whether by a good leader a good crop return it doesn't matter. It took over its neighbors and gained more population so it had even more advantage in the next "War". I am going to call those alpha tribes. They conquered their neighbors and gained even more power until they controlled lots of people and land. At some point they are going to meet an enemy that has just as much power and population through the same process. They are both going to expect these battles to be over just as quickly as all the other battles. These are the first real wars. They fought the battles and when it didn't end they kept fighting still hoping to win. They used the same thing they used against tribes that at this point looked so weak to them; they used war, a process that shouldn't work because these two tribes are on the same level and have the same power. These wars continued into the time of the Roman, the Persian, and the Greek empires. They continued going by the same outdated progress into WWI and WWII. But the casualties went up as the power did therefore it became more and more terrible. The deaths became very numerous. And they still used the process that should only have ever been used against an enemy that can"t put up a fight. The only "acceptable" recent war would be the revolutionary war, where America should have lost handily. War is an outdated practice that should never continue to be used. You will notice I am not exactly shouting any replacements but the age of war needs to end because with the advent of nuclear weaponry the casualties will jump so much higher and War will become far too bad for it to continue. War isn't necessary because it is an idea that is far beyond it's prime.
Welfare is forced kindness and a form of legislated morality. It is inconsistent with liberty.

You are correct that the degree to which we must give is the big question. But that amount is based on how much the governement believes it is required to spend. Therefore, the government should do its very best make sure it is spending as little as possible and in such a way as to create benefit for those who are contributing. Low-income people pay little or now taxes, so, even if no tax money was spent on welfare, they would likely receive more benefit than would be commensurate with their contribution. They are able to enjoy the benefits brought about by government schools, roads, parks, etc. I think recipients of unearned benefit should feel fortunate. I'd go as far as to say a humble thank you is in order. Instead, these incidental beneficiaries vote to put more programs in place that will benefit them ALONE in the form of welfare and other wealth distribution schemes. These government projects seek to take money from the largest contributors in society and spend it SPECIFICALLY on those who contribut the least, in the name of morality. That is that point at which taxation becomes a tool to impose morality. Government must limit spending to that which is absolutely necessary and just, not on that which the majority considers kind. So taxation can become government-sponsored charity depending where the money is spent.
Welfare is forced kindness and a form of legislated morality. It is inconsistent with liberty.

The reason that I pointed out that welfare is a safety-net, one that is necessary, is to point out the difference. It is not charity. It is a government policy that is in place to save the bottom X% of our society from some of the negatives of a capitalist market system. If we use your logic on this subject, all taxes are forced charity, both to poor people and the government. For instance, your tax money that goes to your local high school or county school is forced charity because you did choose to go to them and give them that money. Or, money that goes to the war on terrorism around the world is a forced charity to the military, state department, and CIA. This is wrong in your mind because it is your money and no one should be able to tell you what to do with it. While that sounds correct in your mind, it is an elementary, black and white idea of private property and liberty in general. One must sacrifice to live in a modern, stable society with a stable economy and functioning government. The questions that we normally bat around in the Senate and House is to what degree we will sacrifice (in the form of taxes) to sustain the country. I do not consider my sacrifice of income to the state "forced charity" because I willingly give it to the state to do what they will with the money. If I do not agree with their distribution or use of those tax dollars, I will vote differently in the next election. That is the beauty of an elected democracy, if you feel as if these politicians who represent you in your district, state, so on are forcing you to be charitable, you can vote against them. I digress. My point is that if you feel as if welfare is forced charity, then all taxes are forms of forced charity, which is ridiculous. Taxation (with representation) is how the modern democratic nation-state survives. I think of it as dues to live in the best damn nation on the planet. By the way, I am in college so my rhetoric is obviously going to be academic as I have been righting papers for the past 3.5 years. However, my professor in this particular subject is a libertarian that I could not disagree with more. Oh, and yes the US is considered to have a mixed economy, funkeemonk.
Welfare is forced kindness and a form of legislated morality. It is inconsistent with liberty.

Ron Paul is considered "crazy" because he is in the very small minority. He's actually consistent. Everyone thinks he is some renegage or brilliant free thinker because he's consistent. Today that causes controversy. Unfortunate. First of all, you did not rebut my claim that welfare was forced charity and legislated morality. You simple pointed out that it should be referred to by a different name--"redistribution of wealth" to provide a "safety net." That's no different that calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers." Fine. Call welfare what you will. That does not change the fact that it is still legislated kindness (morality) and that it is being foisted upon us by the government. In your second paragraph you explained how the "safety net" helped "the losers of capitalism" and society in general, who benefited by a reduction in crime. In this paragraph you simply restated what I stated in my opening argument-- that many are helped by welfare (substitute your word for welfare). Now we're right back where we started. Most of the terminology you are using sounds like it came from a college or highshool text book, likely reinforced by a liberal professor. I'd like to hear some of your own thoughts on this topic, especially challenging my contention that social programs are nothing more than government-legislated morality. You're obviously in favor of the concept. All I ask is that you call it what it is and defend it.
Welfare is forced kindness and a form of legislated morality. It is inconsistent with liberty.

Hi, I accepted your debate because I have recently been taking a class on international political economy, and this topic comes up frequently (especially from those crazy Ron Paul people, just kidding... not really). First of all, the idea that welfare is a form of forced morality is wrong. It is a redistribution of wealth by the government to provide our society with a "safety-net." The taxes that we pay to government is then redistributed to people below the poverty line, in the form of welfare. This distribution of money to the poor is not charity, it is, like I said, a safety-net that is in place because of a problem that is inherent within a free capitalist market. This problem is the fact that some people simply get screwed by the market. You cannot disagree that in the game of capitalism some people do in fact lose. So, for these "losers of capitalism," who were in the majority during the 1920's and 1930's in both the US and Western Europe, the safety-net of welfare was created, and it eventually saved the free Western democracies through the adaptation of "mixed markets," which are markets that have a mixture of free capitalist market policies and welfare (or socialist) market policies. If you were to take this safety-net away, millions of people would be forced out onto the streets, crime rates would dramatically increase, and property values would plummet, among many other very bad things. Overall, taking away state-funded welfare would cause both the society and economy much damage. I hope I engaged the issue in question and I look forward to reading your response.
Welfare is forced kindness and a form of legislated morality. It is inconsistent with liberty.

The question of whether one should give up his property to another is a decision that should be left entirely up to the rightful owner of said property. For example, it is a nice gesture to give to charity, take out the trash for your elderly neighbor, or to just be kind in general, but it is typically a matter of free will as to whether an individual chooses to partake in these acts of kindness. If these once-voluntary deeds were suddenly forced upon us by our government, I think most would consider the new requirements a transgression upon our freedoms. Government-mandated generosity, or kindness if you will, is paramount to legislated morality-- the government forcing a particular moral or religious viewpoint on society as a whole. I find it a huge inconsistancy that most of those who would detest the thought of legislating morality (liberals) would have no trouble supporting the same in the form of welfare, or any other income redistribution scheme for that matter. Where is the consistency? I realize many are helped by welfare and see it as beneficial. Whether the benefits are worth the cost is a separate debate for another day. Nevertheless, I believe such requirements to be an assault on our free will and inconsistent with individual choice and liberty.