BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years

I'm not sure how I prove trillions have been spent overseas, but I know the Iraq and Afghan operations cost the country around 2 trillion based on C.B.O. estimates alone. All US citizens see for it is a destabilized Iraq, that now might pose a threat in terms of terror. How much aid do we give to Egypt, Libya and down the line. Yes ,some of the aid given to countries over seas creates jobs, but one could easily assume that if the money were left in the taxpayer's hands, they would spend it on something creating a stronger economy. Our government seems to believe in the " broken window economic strategy" when it come to war logic and military spending. I'll stand by my opinion that the rich are better with money, and that is how most of them got there. When they have the money to invest we all have more in the end. As far as deficit spending goes, it can be a good thing or a bad thing. Reagan brought the National debt to a trillion on cold war military spending. I would say it was reasonable to do so then, but now it is 16 trillion and we have everything we already really need.
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years

"I believe when the rich have control of the money, they create more money and we are all better off in the end." Feel free to believe this. But the problem is, you haven't proven it. I've provided evidence to the contrary, which you haven't rebutted. The rich have control of most of the wealth in the United States, and yet most people are still worse off as a result. Your model has been tried, and has failed, as I have thoroughly demonstrated in my opening argument. "The poor keep getting poorer for reasons such as overpopulation, or perhaps free trade agreements with countries where the workers can't compete." Actually, the poor keep getting poorer because they can't donate to politicians for tax breaks. They keep getting poorer because Ronald Reagan et al. cut social programs that benefit them because he deemed them "welfare queens." The poor keep getting poorer because the federal minimum wage is only $7.25 an hour, and multinational corporations like Wal-Mart won't pay a living wage. Therefore, they depend on food stamps and welfare for their survival, and are thus subject to GOP-imposed budget cuts. In such a way, corporations like Wal-Mart and McDonalds are the biggest welfare queens in this country. Also, your economic policy of Reaganomics compels you to endorse free trade agreements -- that's part and parcel of "less regulation." Less regulation includes fewer barriers to trade. So if your contention is that free trade agreements lead to poverty, you're conceding the debate. "Spending on military doesn't have to equate to wars, or the price we pay for them. I think it becomes a fine balancing act that when one has weapons far superior, wars are avoided." That's quite true, but we already spend more on the military than every other industrialized country combined. Is your contention that military spending creates jobs? If so, does that not undermine your contention that government interference is bad for the economy? And why should we spend more on the military, but not on programs that help consumers, who are the real job creators in this country? "I guess I'm lost in the debate as to what one thinks of when you say "Reganomics"" First of all, it's "Reaganomics." Second, I gave you the textbook definition in my first argument: it involves lower spending, lower taxes, lower inflation, less spending on social programs, more spending on the military, and deregulation. To support Reaganomics--which your position as Pro compels you to do --you must defend all of these policies. "Regan was most noted for the trickle down economic phrase, so I equate that with Regonomics." It is quite true that "trickle-down" has become synonymous with Reaganomics. "He also spent huge sums of money the government didn't have on military, and I don't see that as sustainable." But that's part and parcel of Reaganomics. If you're claiming that increasing military spending is unsustainable, you're conceding that Reaganomics is unsustainable.
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years

I don't think it is fair to use time lines. I believe when the rich have control of the money, they create more money and we are all better off in the end. The poor keep getting poorer for reasons such as overpopulation, or perhaps free trade agreements with countries where the workers can't compete. Spending on military doesn't have to equate to wars, or the price we pay for them. I think it becomes a fine balancing act that when one has weapons far superior, wars are avoided. I guess I'm lost in the debate as to what one thinks of when you say "Reganomics". Regan was most noted for the trickle down economic phrase, so I equate that with Regonomics. He also spent huge sums of money the government didn't have on military, and I don't see that as sustainable.
Reganomics applied over the last 30 years

You have still yet to prove the following: (1) that "trillions" are literally spent overseas, or to specify exactly where that money came from (2) why "Reaganomics" would seek to prevent trillions from being spent overseas, if you're speaking of wars, because Reaganomics calls for more military spending; even though Reagan himself could be seen as center-left on foreign policy--or at least I would consider him as much--Republicans after him, e.g., Mitt Romney, have been largely pro-war. Therefore, it is your policy, ipso facto, that calls for money being spent in wars. (3) that the "trillions" that are spent for wars--and, yes, wars are expensive--went overseas primarily, as opposed to defense contractors, who seem to like people--Republicans and Democrats--who fearmonger. (4) that your policy will "allow everyone to become rich," when I've demonstrated to you that, as the rich have become richer, everyone else has become, for the most part, worse off. Moreover, you haven't addressed my criticisms of your policies at all. So I will only say this, and will extend my arguments from this point, until I have a point of yours to rebut.
Can't rationally argue for any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions

Thanks for taking on the con position. First I wish to address a few of your statements: "All religious beliefs can be categorized into two categories: either theistic on atheistic" This is actually incorrect. Disbelief is not a religion. Do you disbelieve in Zeus or Santa Claus ? Is that disbelief considered a religion ? But anyway this technicality is not so important. What you are basically suggesting is the famous "Pascal Wager" http://plato.stanford.edu... There are a few problems with this type a reasoning: 1. Many theologians have used this same argument to argue for their own specific religion, see: - The Islamic kalam tradition which was discussed by Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni (d. 478/1085) in his Kitab al-irshad ila-qawati al-adilla fi usul al-i'tiqad or A Guide to the Conclusive Proofs for the Principles of Belief. - In the Sanskrit classic Sārasamuccaya, Vararuci makes a similar argument to Pascal's wager. So you have an equal reason for being, say a Muslim, as you do for being a Protestant Christian. So why are you not a Muslim ? Moreover I can take this even further and say: If you don't call god by the name "1" you will go to hell. I could make the same argument and replace "1" with "2" and so on for every possible number. According to your reasoning there is a small probability that one of these arguments is true and so you should accept one. So how will you choose ? I mean the same amount of evidence exists for the claim of an afterlife being true as does for any of the statements I've just made. Is there a real reason to take a claim with no evidence seriously, no matter what the consequences are ? 2. Richard Dawkins offers the Anti-Pascal wager Richard Dawkins argues for an "anti-Pascal wager" in his book, The God Delusion. "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc." 3. The whole idea of believing in a god because of this wager is an insult to the intelligence of such a supposed being (god) and turns what is intended to be a faith born of love into a faith born of cowardice. Its basically saying, "well I might as well believe in god because he may have threatened me". Its like me saying if you don't say you like me I'll shoot you. It is, after all, possible that god would be so insulted by the reason you choose to believe in him that he will send you to hell anyway. 4. In any event the kind of reasoning you propose, is reasoning based on convenience, not truthfulness. I can use this type of reasoning to justify the existence of Santa, if I feel it is convenient for me to believe in him. For the above reasons I feel that your argument is very weak and in fact irrational as well. Therefore until you address these arguments the resolution stands affirmed.
Can't rationally argue for any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions

"Your job as con is to find a rational justification for believing your specific religion, why you choose to believe it specifically." I believe in the Protestant Christian Religion because I prefer life over death. Let me explain. All religious beliefs can be categorized into two categories: either theistic on atheistic. An atheist believes in the destruction him or herself upon death. A theist believes that there is an afterlife. If there is no god, which I will consider likely for the purpose of debate, they are both destructed upon death. If there is a god, the atheist is destructed and theist lives. No matter the odds of there being a god, theism is the best way to secure life, which is the path I prefer and choose to take.
The religious teachings of the bible are scientifically accurate

I see that I get the joy of debating the typical christian. The claim that the bible is correct because it is the bible is circular reasoning. Saying there is no proof against it so it must be real is an argument from ignorance. Crypto offers no logic what-so-ever to defend the bible. Some cases where the bible contridicts science. 1) jesus walking on water. This would not be possible as the surface tension is not great enough to support human weight. jesus would need to have feet the size of boats to accomplish this. I would imagine that if his feet were that big, someone would have noticed and wrote about them. 2) jesus photocopying fish and bread. This is not possible because matter and energy cannot be created or destoryed, only change form. 3) Virgin birth. Many "virgins" have claimed this, it seems that one got away with it. There are many more, but these are just some examples.
Communism

* Yes and how is that wrong? * The USSR was ruled by the Communist party there or Bolsheviks. Meaning that it was and oligarchy. Sidenote: I would like to ask if my opponent could please actually use factual evidence for his arguments. If this is factual evidence that my opponent is presenting then i would like to ask him to please list his sources. COMMUNISM . I Communist countries have very low crime rates, that is an undeniable fact. Source:. http://en.wikipedia.org... CONCLUSION I apologize for my short argument but refutes and one new argument to the table is good enough. My opponent has not proven his point and has no evidence.
Communism

Argument number 1Under the system of communism, people can get by without working hard. Because everyone(except for the leaders) is all equal, they get paid all the same, so nothing motivates them to work hard.Argument 2Under the system of communism, the government has the power, and the people have no freedom. The people have to listen to the government, and the government makes all the decisions. The people have no control of their own lives.Argument 3Under communism, people cannot chose their leaders. The USSR made it so that people could vote, but they only had one candidate to choose from, so it did not matter weather they voted or not.I await my opponent's arguments.
Communism

COMMUNISM IN RUSSIA . I After the period from 194-1923 Russia was in a constant state of warfare. I will show a bracket of casualty's in WW1 and the Russian civil war and the total death and wounded total. Proving that Communism brought the country out of a warring dark age. One which wrecked the country and Russia lost upwards of 13 million people and 10s of millions more wounded. Population of Russian Empire right before WW1: 175,100,000 Military Deaths: 1,811,000 Direct Civilian Deaths: 500,000 Excess Civilian Deaths (due to famine or disease. ): 1,000,000 Total deaths: 3,311,000 Death as Total % of population: 1.89% Military Wounded: 4,950,000 Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . II Communism effectively industrialized the country and made diseases like typhoid fever fall to almost 0%. CHINA . I China was invaded by Japan and repelled it while having a massive civil war overlapping the war. Communism was put in place because the people were unhappy, it is still in place today and the current corruption has come from Capitalism. . II China had excellently low crimes and even with the reforms still has good crime rates. Something which many capitalist countries can't say that. EDUCATION . I Education was not bad, yes if you lived in the country was poor. It is also horrible in rural places all over the world, something which should not be criticized since that is no fault of communism in specific. . II Education in big cities away from the collectivized farms were perfectly fine and taught basic mathematics, history, and some science. Language and writing were taught as well. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY . I Actually my opponent simply states that it is wrong to not have this. You don't explain why, stating this does not mean you have proved your point. . II In the book, The Leviathan: By Thomas Hobbes. A book widely recognized by many modern countries and philosophers. Explained how a very powerful central government is the solution to all problems. In turn arguing for Autocracy being Communism,Monarchies,Oligarchies,and Imperialism. REFUTES * Of course crime rates in communist countries are very low, the police forces are much larger. * Communist countries like China produces products for the western world as a whole. I really don't see how their products are bad since so many people use them. * In true communism the communist party shifts around the leaders. Therefore if the party, a large amount of the population. Approves if it is a good leader. CONCLUSION My opponents core points have been refuted and I have shown how communism has done great things. I urge a vote Pr!
Communism

Rebuttals 1. Under communism, you get food and shelter from the government even if you don't work hard. There is no motivation to work, and the result of that is bad products.2. People should be able to control their own lives, people have the right of privacy and decisions. Under communism, the people have no freedom, they cannot even control their own lives. Think, would you want to have your life controled by the government, or be free to express yourself?3. Exactly. They cannot choose their own leaders. "Communist countries have very low crime rates, that is an undeniable fact." Crimes are not reported due to fear of the government and communities trying to keep the government out of their little loops. The Government aways squash dissension. Tiananmen square is a good example. And the guy who was killed in England by Polonium and the reporter who disappeared in Moscow reporting on Putin's continued KGB ties.New arguments: Education- The government is in control of all education. The government does not want people to know much about other countries and capitalism, thus leading to ignorance.Abolition of Private property- Under the system of communism, one cannot own property, all land is in control of government. Again, no freedom or liberty for people. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...http://history.howstuffworks.com... http://www.marxists.org...http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
Did the resurrection of Christ happen

I concede CMT. I. Historicity 1. I concede CMT, thus conceding this point. 2. The NT is not historically reliable. For instance, most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark is unreliable due to a severe lack of knowledge about the political, social, and geographical conditions of Judea at the time described.[5, 6] It is commonly thought that the writers of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew used the unreliable Mark as a source, thus hindering their reliability.[7] In fact, all that is agreed about Jesus by most historical scholars is that he was a preacher who taught throughout the Galilean countryside and was sentenced to death by the Romans.[8] Multiple scholars disagree that his tomb was ever empty; for instance, Bart Ehrman.[3] Mark is unreliable, and Luke and Matthew likely copied from it. 3. The Pauline epistles are the only source that mention such appearances, and these appearances are without proper confirmation.[9] There have been allegations that Paul made multiple inaccuracies regarding the life of Jesus, and there is no confirmation for these sightings.[9] Helmut Koester demonstrates that the majority of the supposed sightings were later edits to Paul, and Paul never actually mentions most of the sightings. Those sightings that are mentioned are especially - almost deliberately - vague.[4] Koester contends that the more well-described sightings of the resurrection are based on untrustworthy sources, and are of questionable reliability.[4] Furthermore, historians often have agreed that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is a post-Paulian interpretation, thus of lower reliability.[10] II. Inference to Best Explanation 1. The following are Pro's assumptions: God exists, this God had supernatural abilities, and resurrected Jesus via these abilities. On the other hand, the assumptions of - for instance - the stolen body alternative are: the body was stolen by followers, and they had hallucinations of Jesus. But since I've also questioned the credibility of the missing body and the appearances, I don't need to invoke any assumptions. 2. As for background knowledge, Pro concedes that resurrection is a supernatural act - something which is outside the lines of background knowledge in science. While the Earth may not be a closed system, a human body is - that is the reason resurrection is impossible. Death is a result of high entropy conditions, so resurrection - within the closed system of the human body - would be a shifting to a low entropy condition. 3. See points 1 and 2, thus my point has greater explanatory power. Vote Con. III. References 5. http://archive.org... 6. Nineham, Dennis, "The Gospel of Mark," p. 193 7. https://books.google.ca... 8. http://www.amazon.com... 9. http://www.patheos.com... 10. http://infidels.org...
Did the resurrection of Christ happen

Good luck. I have very limited time, so I apologize in advance for a short argument. == Skepticism == Doubting any claim is critical to one's understanding of history. Skepticism is the rational way forward from any random assertion. The main reason is because either we: 1. Assume all claims to be true and cancel the claims proven incorrect 2. Assume all claims to be false and cancel the claims proven true I hold #2 to be the correct position in any circumstance, because if #1 is true, then any unfalsifiable claim is most likely true. But unfalsifiable claims are completely unnecessary to any explanation, and the scientific method rejects such claims by default. [. https://en.wikipedia.org...] Furthermore, under #1 there would be multiple contradictions arising by reductio ad absurdum. I will seek to demonstrate this via Russell's teapot analogy. If at the Cartesian location (x,y,z) there is a certain teapot between Earth and Mars, then at the same Cartesian location (x,y,z) there cannot also be a kettle. Yet both claims are unfalsifiable assuming they are both invisible, and, as such, both are presumed to be true - thus entailing a contradiction. This means we hold #2 to be true, therefore we doubt all positive claims until further proven. Jesus' resurrection is a positive claim; thus, it should be doubted until proven true. As such, the burden of proof in this debate rests with Pro to prove the resurrection. The lack of evidence is sufficient urge to vote Con. == Biased sources == The first non-Christian mention of the resurrection is from the mid-second century, that of Lucian. Yet historians agree that he most likely gained his information from Christian sources. [. http://www.amazon.com...] Thus, there's a significant fear of bias among historians for any textual mentions of the resurrection - the majority of related information being from Christian sources. There are no mentions of resurrection by non-Christian sources except much, much later, and most of them are externally influenced by more biased sources. == Christ myth theory == The position that Jesus was resurrected assumes Christ myth theory is false. While I don't necessarily agree with it - and I don't even need to defend it in this debate, since that is not my obligation - the point is Pro has no reason to assume it is false, especially since, as established by my first contention, doubting a positive claim is the default position.
smoking should be banned

thanks for the website even though it contained all about why smoking should be banned... well here is my argument.. tobacco use is the major cause of preventable and premature death and disease worldwide, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC reports that 46 million Americans age 18 years and older smoke cigarettes, 443,000 smoking-related deaths occur annually in the U.S. Smoking affects the population, causes premature deaths and is a substantial financial burden to society. Population Smoking affects the population in many ways. It affects smokers' health and controls their smoking habits and use of time, and the spiraling cost of tobacco makes it an expensive pastime. Secondhand smoke affects others and pollutes the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, children are susceptible to the effects of secondhand smoke because they are growing and developing. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have increased risks of sudden infant death syndrome, middle ear infection, asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis. Preventable Deaths Annually, one of every five deaths in the U.S. is related to smoking, due to conditions such as pneumonia, bronchitis, lung cancer and emphysema, according to the CDC website. Smoking may affect sexual performance and increase the risks of heart disease and infections. Deaths attributed to smoking varied from state to state during the years 2000 to 2004, with Alaska reporting 492 deaths and California reporting 36,687 deaths, notes the CDC. The good news is, according to a report from the CDC, some states show signs of improved health of their citizens and a decrease in smoking rates, deaths and health care costs due to increased awareness, education and resources available to help people fight the smoking habit. Cost Smoking puts a financial burden on society. According to the CDC, this burden continues to rise, with approximately $193 billion spent annually in the United States---$97 billion from lost productivity and $96 billion due to smoking-related health care costs, respectively. The Society of Actuaries reported in 2006, which is the latest data available, that secondhand smoke costs the U.S. around $10 billion a year: about $5 billion in medical costs associated with secondhand smoke and $4.6 billion in lost wages---youth exposure was not included in these costs.