BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

I have talked about how terrible a recession is and how the government can fix it. Now, I will answer some of my opponents objections. My opponent worries that a country may default ad be unable to pay its debt. This is a concern, but not much of a worry, and should not stop a country from ending a recession. My opponent mentions how debt is always growing. But, when considering default the debt to GDP ratio is much more important metric. The GDP represents the revenue base the government can take taxes from. So, if a government has a lot of debt, but also produces a lot of GDP, default is not much of a worry as the country is producing a lot to repay the debt. Let's look at history to see if the current level of debt to GDP is a worry. (1) (2) Both, the USA and England. In England in 1950 debt was 2.5 times GDP, and now it is about .5 times GDP. In the USA Debt of .8 GDP in 1950 and now it is about .35 times GDP. Both, these countries have reduced the debt burden they racked up from WWII (which ended the great depression). So the claim that the debt burden will never be reduced does not hold any water as evidence shows that it has. To reduce the debt burden all a country has to do is pay the interest on debt, and the debt burden will decrease as GDP increases and because of inflation. In round 1 my opponent admits that most countries can pay the interest on debt, which is all a country has to do to reduce the debt burden and probability of default. Another measure of the probability of default is interest rates. (3) USA 10-year T-bill interest rates are as low as ever and have been dropping since the 2008 recession. USA treasury bills are regarded as RISK free by investors, the safest investment that there is. In fact, the real interest after the recession was negative for a bit, meaning that investors were paying for their money to be put into bonds so it is "safe". (4) For a brief time after the recession, credit rating agencies downgraded U.S Bonds from AAA (outstanding) to AA+ (excellent). But, now the credit rating is AAA again, the best credit rating possible. My opponent falsely equates the amount of dent to measure the debt burden, when rally debt to GDP measure the debt burden. Governments have reduced the the burden after WWII and the Great Depression, and the current debt burden is no where near the level it was in 1950. If governments can handle their historical high levels of debt, surely they can handle the current levels of debt which are no where near what they were back then. Further, my opponent admits that a country can pay the interest on debt which is all they need to do to reduce the debt burden. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ( 3 ) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

Most alcoholics at the early stages of addiction are convinced that they can control their drinking. They think they will use drink only to get through period of depression and then cut back later. But somehow they end up needing more and more of it. Deficit spending is fundamentally the same. You say "in better times the money can be paid back". How come there was never "a better time" in the last 60 years? In virtually all countries where governments adopted Keynesian models, the debt is consistently going up. It increases faster in recessions and slower during periods of growth, but it always changes in the same direction. We know how this generally ends for alcoholics. Why should it end differently for our economic system?
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

Thank you for accepting .I look forward to a good debate. It is very important for governments to be fiscally responsible. In normal times expenditure should be reasonable. However, receptions are not normal times. In a recession, the people of an economy are saving. Everyone is afraid to spend. This causes high unemployment and low output. As, when someone spends money at (for example) at a shoe store, the shoe store owner gets money to spend, and pays someone, who pays someone, and so on. When everyone starts "saving" this multiplier effect does not happen and jobs are lost. In a recession, there are unemployed people who want to work, and unused equipment/factories. And, this condition may last for a long time. This causes permanent damage to the economy and is unfair to the people who have to live through it. When people are unemployed/underemployed they will not get training that they can use in the future. If a recession lasts too long the economy will be worse when it is healthy. Also, it is very unfair for people to live through. People get much of their pride and self worth through their job. Recessions damage the quality of life of a country. People who graduate college in a recession year make less than those who do not years down the road. It is unfair to severely hinder the chances of success of a generation just because their is a recession. The good thing is that their is something the government can do about a recession. They can spend money. It would be great if this money goes to useful purposes, but even spending money on useless projects will help the economy. (I mentioned the multiplier affect briefly), That is, if a government spend $1, the person who receives it may spend say 80% of that $1, and the person who receives that may spend 80% of it and so on. This multiplier effect means that for every $1 spent much more economic activity is created. And, the government is the person who should step up and do this in a recession. Companies, people ect, are all fearful and will not spend. The government can save the economy from the recession (and all its awful affects) by spending. In better times the money can be paid back and spending reduced.
Governments should deficit spend in a recesion

According to the Keynesian theory, governments should balance the economy by overspending during recessions and saving during periods of growth. Unfortunately, Keynesian model totally ignores the political realities. While governments are happy to overspend during recessions, it is almost never in the interest of ruling politicians to cut spending back. Consequently, western countries that adopted Keynesian principles experienced almost uninterrupted growth of debt. At present, most governments (with the notable exceptions of Greece and Iceland) can still pay the interest by taking on new loans. However, the current system ensures that in the long-term the default is virtually unavoidable. Since, thanks to the Keynesian economics, the government is now a major part of the economy, its default is likely to result in worse crisis than the Great Depression.
It would be legal to breed Homo floresiensis for profit.

My opponent said in his latest post that this debate was not about ethics but legality. these words are synonomous. according to dictionary.com ethics means A set of principles of right conduct. this is basically the same definition of law/legality. as for your charming dead monkey story, it is irrelevant. The homo floresiensis are humans, for the last time. homo means human. the sapien/ floresiensis bit just specifies what type of man referred to. also legalizing hobbit sales for criminal activity doesn't help your case. actually all that monkey story says is that they WILL hang non humans for criminal activity, not that it matters since HOMO FLORESIENSIS ARE HUMANS!!!! their brains are about 1/3 the size of ours so they can't be trusted to operate machinery or be hired by industries as my opponent thinks. I think it is obvious that CON is the way to go. Vote con and you won't have to worry about hobbits stealing your stuff, losing your jobs to miniature people, etc. thank you and have a great day. xoxo barlow
It would be legal to breed Homo floresiensis for profit.

Before I start, I should like to think that I did, in fact, realise the true meaning of the word "cretin" and assume my opponent realised this, which is why when she copied and pasted my comment she omitted the ":)" at the end of the sentence! Anyway, she then continued: "They are humans but not equivalent to modern humans in intelligence or size, so owning them would be unethical and a huge liability. " This may well be true, but this debate is not about ethics, it is about whether or not it would be legal to breed hobbits for profit, which I have shown that it would be. So, just to reiterate, in addition to making fantastic pets, they would also be highly prized for use in industry. But wait! There's more! Any villains reading this will no doubt have spotted that the 3ft average height of adult hobbits would make them ideal burglars. Criminals – here's a golden opportunity for you to do your illegal bidding by hominid proxy – and best off all, there's no danger of having your collar felt by the Old Bill. That's right! If the filth turn over your gaff, all you have to say is: "Do me a favour, guv! You're having a bleedin' bubble, ain't yer? I ain't never seen them sparklers in my life before - and geet yer flippin ‘ands of me, I know my rights. If you want to know who twocked the bling, copper, ‘ave a word with my bleedin' hobbit, innit! " The police won't be able to touch you, or your hobbit, for that matter. The last time a non-human was convicted of a crime was when a monkey was hung as a French spy after being shipwrecked off the coast of Hartlepool, England, during the Napoleonic Wars. * So, there we have it. Because Homo floresiensis are biologically distinct from Homo sapiens, they are therefore not human in the eyes of the law and it would be perfectly legal to breed them for profit. *Source: . http://www.hartlepoolunited.premiumtv.co.uk...
It would be legal to breed Homo floresiensis for profit.

My opponent said: "Incidentally, don't you think it was a bit unkind of the Royal Society to call the poor little hobbits "cretins"? " In regard to my source saying: "New research from the Proceedings of the Royal Society B raises the possibility that Homo floresiensis was nothing more than population of Homo sapiens that were endemic cretins. " Do you know the definition of cretin in this context? They were not being unkind. According to The Free Dictionary, a cretin is a person who is mentally handicapped and physically deformed because of a thyroid deficiency. And according to South Alabama Glossary of Pathology and Medical Terms Cretin is CRETIN - one whose physical and mental development has been retarded or arrested due to thyroid deficiency. Therefore it would not be smart to as my opponent stated: "Industrial corporations would also be very interested in buying them to operate dangerous machinery" as they would be at risk of hurting themselves and others. they are not really intelligent as modern humans are to operate 'dangerous machinery' They are humans but not equivalent to modern humans in intelligence or size, so owning them would be unethical and a huge liability. My opponent also suggested "they would also avoid having to comply with health and safety legislation. " this is poppycock. Having hired 'Hobbits' would not exempt anyone from having to comply with health and safety legislation. For example: Animals on set of movies have to have humane officers present. they are legally bred for profit but have many regulations about their safety (as they should).
It would be legal to breed Homo floresiensis for profit.

Several recent studies are discovering that "Homo Floresiensis" are in fact "homo sapiens". as they are humans it would not be legal to bred and sell them. this is slavery. According to Anthropology.net March 5th, 2008 "New research from the Proceedings of the Royal Society B raises the possibility that Homo floresiensis was nothing more than population of Homo sapiens that were endemic cretins." "The authors of this new study suggest that what is now looked at as Homo floresiensis is nothing more than a group of Homo sapiens who lived on an island that was deficient in iodine." Several recent studies are discovering that "Homo Floresiensis" are in fact humans. as they are humans it would not be legal to bred and sell them. this is slavery. Also my opponent said "only homo sapiens are considered to be human" this is not true. According to Animal Diversity Web Homo is Human. sapiens and floresensis are just variations. According to National Geographic Despite its smaller body size, smaller brain, and mixture of primitive and advanced anatomical features, the new species falls firmly within the genus Homo. This was also in the National Geographic Article and I found it interesting given your demeaning description of them as 'pets' or 'work-hobbits' "Given that Homo floresiensis is the smallest human species ever discovered, they out-punch every known human intellectually, pound for pound." It is also unethical. I doubt any court would rule in your favor.
It would be legal to breed Homo floresiensis for profit.

For those who don't know, Homo floresiensis, nicknamed "hobbits" are a diminutive human sub-species who are known to have lived on the Indonesian island of Flores as recently as 10,000 years ago, when it is believed a volcano wiped them out. However, Flores is very remote and it is possible that a pocket of hobbits survived the eruption and their decedents are living on the island, undiscovered, to this day. I would be interested in leading an expedition to Flores in the hope of capturing a colony of live specimens, which I would then breed in captivity - my intention being to sell them either as pets or as work-hobbits. I believe that this would be legally sound as only Homo sapiens are considered to be human - all other creatures are animals – and humans are legally entitled to breed animals for profit.
Self-Driving Cars

Good luck to you as well. Alright, so I don't believe self-driving cars are that big of an issue. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Super AI" because all AI's are just an autonomous program. Pretty much any car made after 2006 can be controlled remotely if you know how. AI hasn't done anything to make that harder or easier. The simple fact is, an AI requires an internet connection to constantly update, download bug fixes, and upload user and world data. They do this in cars by implementing either a satellite or LTE band that enables the car to be constantly connected at all times without consuming too much power. At the same time, if you can physically apply a piece of hardware or program to the car that can give you the remote control, you could (theoretically) control that car from anywhere. This has nothing to do with the AI, only to do with the fact the car will not lose connection with you as you are controlling it. Also (theoretically) if this is that much of a rampant problem, they can really just update the AI to stop the car if it doesn't detect a driver or if hands are not on the wheel, it COULD be that simple. In conclusion, you can hack a car quite easily if it has a direct connection to the internet at all times, but not the AI. Hacking the AI would be pointless and frankly would be much more work. Sources: None
Self-Driving Cars

I believe we should not have auto-driving cars controlled by AI. They can easily be hacked by hackers, and could stop working at any time. I feel like it could cause more accidents than people driving cars themselves. We already some deaths from autonomous cars, and this cultivate been prevented if we had an actual person drive it. Once we hit super artificial intelligence, then autonomous cars might be much more safer then. But again, what if the AI gets hacked. The AI needs to be perfect. Elon Musk himself said, "AUTOPILOT IS GETTING BETTER ALL THE TIME, BUT IT IS NOT PERFECT AND STILL REQUIRES THE DRIVER TO REMAIN ALERT." Sorry for the caps, I copied and pasted this. If the AI is not perfect, it'll just cause more casualties. What about people who drink before getting into their car? Well there could be ways to prevent a situation like that from happening. People hosting parties can reduce the amount of alcohol they allow for a single person to have. They can also just serve soft beverages instead, as well as not giving alcohol to minors. There is other ways to prevent drunk driving from happening as well on my 3rd source. We can prevent text driving by telling cell phone companies to install and app that mutes notifications when driving, and replies to that texter explaining that the person that they are reaching to are driving at the moment. My 4th source shows free apps that can be used by cell phone companies to prevent a situation like this. Self-Driving cars can wait until we are able to reach super intelligent ai. Until then, I believe we should not have self-driving cars. It is a great idea, but we don't have the perfect technology for it. Good luck to the person accepting this debate! :D Source(s): (1) https://www.nytimes.com... (2) https://www.theverge.com... (3) https://www.statefarm.com... (4) https://www.honkforhelp.com...
Self-Driving Cars

Hacking the AI would be pointless because the AI isn't the car. The AI is simply holding the wheel and controlling it. The AI has been tuned to be able to drive the car. When you are playing a video game would you hold the controller yourself? Or hold somebody else's forearms and try to guide them to the right controls? Remote hacks can never be executed without a physical touch. Some form of the hack must be executed physically due to firewalls, the only was to get past these firewalls is to physically walk past them. There may be a place to plug in on the car to upload a controller program, they may have to upload it to the servers directly, but they cant execute a remote hack without first plugging in, which brings me back to my original argument: cars have been in danger of hacking for years, AI's are not doing anything to help or stop hacking into cars and controlling them, they were already just as vulnerable to hacking before and after AI was implemented. AI is only giving the hack vulnerable car a computer operated controller to make your day easier. One more time to reiterate: Hacking the AI would be pointless because it would only allow you to modify the program which if you don't know the coding will most likely just make it stop working correctly, but people hack into and control cars all of the time regardless of AI.
Self-Driving Cars

What I mean by 'super AI' is where AI would have intelligence that would surpass human intelligence. And if a self-driving car would have an AI like this, it would be better since they would be making smarter moves while driving than humans. Today, we don't have the technology for that at the moment. But when we do, they would be useful for self-driving cars. Hacking the AI wouldn't be pointless. If someone for example wanted to assassinate a person that is in an autonomous car driving by itself, then he or she can just hack the AI, control what it does, then kill the person. They would need a really well made security to make sure a hacker can't hack the AI. Hackers can do anything really, and if they can hack the car easily, then they would most likely be able to hack the AI. There was this hacking group called "Lizard Squad," and what they did was hack into PSN which made people who played on the PS4 not being able to play online for quite a while. But not only have they hacked PSN, they hacked the North Korean WiFi, celebrity accounts and etc. The point I'm trying to make is that these AI's can get DDOS through internet connection in the car. There are ways to prevent this, but all the ideas can still give hackers a way to hack into them since they can find the vulnerabilities. You may say why would a hacker try to waste a good amount of time trying to hack a car, but a group of them could possibily just hack a dozen of cars if they find ways to do so. Sources: (1) https://www.technologyreview.com... (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
anger can be a good moral motivation

So do you think that suppression can work? IT IS NOT NECESSARY THE CASE THAT a man have to use suppression to control his state of mind. Aristotle mentioned that some emotions if well used serve as an arms. Probably he used it as example in self-defend in a moment of he needs to be defend. Having the feeling that something have to be done is an excuse to use any arm to make this done.IT IS IRRELEVANT to the case or it is? Aristotle's says that there are something suffered so to speak not something done by the mind. Emotions is not a matter, however even though can change the state of mind, it don't decide over us, in our actions, and attitudes. We have the power to decide and keep in control. I support this supporting Aristotle opinion when he said that anger is more than a set of motions, since is an act of impulse, and that impulse never occur without the minds accepts. so in other world our feelings cannot be controlled, but our actions, in how to react does, if so why getting out of our control to do something that can be prejudicial.
anger can be a good moral motivation

Well stated. I do agree with Aristotle in regards to the fact that emotions in general, including anger can alter a mans state of judgement. It is true as well that often times people are angry because of insolence's they may be facing such as being mocked, laughed at or even being put down or feeling inferior to others in which they may consider that should be the opposite. However, as Seneca states anger has such a strong hold on us emotionally that it can practically blind us if we do not from the very first sign of irritation break it off. IT IS POSSIBLE that if we fail to break those initial ties that we may be heading down wards. We will be as he states, "like men out of military dress in war." To posses the virtues of moral and intellectual one, they need no vice to assist it. They can be obtained through other methods such as the suppression of desire, the acceptance of the worst and not fearing anything or at least to the minimum as Epictetus would also agree and state.
anger can be a good moral motivation

according to ARISTOTLE feelings are a big fact to change man as to effect their judgments, a man can also expect to be specially respected by his inferior in birth, in capacity, in goodness, and generally in anything in which he is much their superior as where money concern a wealthy man looks for respect from one who cannot speak, so in fact Aristotle states a way of great resentment being due to their great superiority. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT a man can be developed as a person and meets all this standards to in order to feel realized as man in a society or as moral motivation. According to Aristotle the person with whom we get angry re those who laugh, mock, or jeer at us for such conduct insolent, are those real feeling for a man to feel realized and anything can destroyed his self-stem. As a way to increase his frames, I believe it is POSSIBLE that a men meets all this standards to make his goals come truth. In fact this injuries must be such as are neither retaliatory according to Aristotle
anger can be a good moral motivation

IT IS POSSIBLE as you"ve mentioned before that if the emotions are well used they can serve as arms, as Aristotle states. However it goes further as to state that it can only be true if like real war weapons one can pick up and set it down when one chooses to do so. But when we allow our emotions to run us downward blindly we are like men filled with rage running into battle unsuited and without the proper armor. Seneca states that, "reason by itself is enough not merely for foresight but for action." As mentioned before, If we allow ourselves the time to think and reason, if we cut off the first sign of irritation, if we control that which is in our control, accept and expected the worst, then can we control our anger and not allow the emotional hurt to affect anything in a negative way. We can than stand strong ad firm, balanced, tempered. Reasoning to seek protection or punishment in a negative temper will only produce and bring about negative results and continue the cycle. Reasoning helps us to pass fair judgement and make better decisions outside of anger.