BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1: Even though we are talking about living in poverty in the United States, it cannot be ignored that poverty is a huge issue on a global scale as well. If poverty affects people in the United States, it should be mentioned, even if it is for a short note, that it affects others in the world as well. P2: You say living in poverty and leaning for help towards the financial assistance programs like SNAP and TANF would create social dependency, but in what way? I see these programs only getting better as years progress not just through housing assistance, but also providing for the children to get to school, through public transportation, and providing them with an equal educational opportunity. P3: It can be argued that the government has "blocked" all these social services, transportation needs, health care services, housing services, and educational services to those struggling in poverty. NYC taxis rarely go to poor neighborhoods and transportation services are vital for the poor, as many of them do not have a car. Parents living in poverty have turned to informal schooling for their children because private schools cannot be afforded and health care services have been limited due to many obligations and expenses it takes to become a doctor, which makes it difficult for those living in poor neighborhoods to get the services that are needed, (http://economicthinking.org...). Conclusion: By considering these premises, the United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1: The UNICEF article has no relevance to the topic because we are talking about poverty and not on a global scale. The study also showed there were other factors that causes the death of children. 4.5% is rather small percentage and not enough to put the burden on millions of Americans who find a way to succeed. P2: Programs like SNAP, TANF, CRS, and SCHIP do what they have to do to provide assistance and its up to the individual to go out and do more with their life. Like I said before. expanding with create social dependency. P3: We need to get away from social programs and start creating economic and education solutions. And creating more jobs and infrastructure. People working helps fuel the economy and not people sitting and just collecting a check. http://hamptonroads.com... P4: We just can not expand social programs without making sure Americans on these programs are doing more to help themselves. The economy cant handle inefficiency because we are In a deficit and have a 17trillion dollar debt. http://money.cnn.com... Conclusion: The United States federal government should not substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1: Not expanding social services to decline poverty would of course hurt many people, but it would hurt the children more than anything. According to UNICEF, "22,000 children die each day due to poverty, and preventable diseases such as diarrhea and pneumonia kill nearly 2 million children a year,"(https://www.dosomething.org...). A 2011 study showed that 4.5% of U.S deaths were attributed to poverty, (http://www.mailman.columbia.edu...). Poverty has become an increasing problem not just in the world, but now the country. P2: Increasing the minimum wage and income tax credit are not social programs, but they are ways that poverty can be alleviated for a short period of time. People on or near the poverty line struggle at minimum wage jobs and struggle in general to make ends meet. 80% of the world population has lived on $10 a day. Programs like SNAP, TANF, CRS, and SCHIP have done little, but they help provide for people who have transportation problems (i.e. not having a car), those who can't get a quality education, and those who have poor health care resources look to those forms of financial support to keep their daily lives stable. Conclusion: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1: The reason for people living near the poverty line in 2008 was because of the recession that occurred. That was 6 years ago and now we have recovered exponentially. With a unemployment rate that sank from its all time high in 2009 of 10% to 6.3%. The has been substantial growth in jobs as well. http://online.wsj.com... P2: You are correct that TANF, CRS, and SCHIP, etc are not providing enough assistance for families and individuals in need because social programs have little or no effect. Raising the minimum wage, expanding earned income tax credit, and child tax credit are not social programs. They are economic and tax policies. P3: Increasing social services can create dependency on the government and stop people from bettering themselves. http://www.cnn.com... C: The United States federal government should not increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Substantially increasing social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

P1: Since 2008, the number of people living in or near the poverty line has been staggering, which leaves millions of people vulnerable to many diseases. (www.nfhs.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2906) P2: The programs that are out now (TANF, CRS, SCHIP) have provided assistance for families and continue to do so, but it seems it has done little affect to provide assistance for families and other individuals in need. The programs have helped but raising minimum wage, expanding earned income tax credit and child tax credit would help significantly. Conclusion: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
The minimum mage should be abolished

I accept your challenge ResponsiblyIrresponsible. Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to defend my views and get involved in the community. Reasons why the Minimum Wage should be abolished:1. The amount an employee gets paid should essentially mainly be between an employer and an employee. If an individual does not wish to be paid a certain wage by an employer he or she can refuse to work for him or her. If an employer does not wish to pay a worker a certain wage, he or she does not have to hire him or her. If there is consent between the employer and the employee as to how much he or she wishes to get paid, the government should not have the right to intrude upon that decision. 2. Economic Theory states that businesses and jobs will move to where conditions are most favorable. (Assuming that no new tariffs or restrictions on foreign trade are added) The Minimum Wage could aid in shipping jobs overseas where these restrictions on wages are not placed and increasing domestic unemployment.3. There are better options and ways to ensure better pay other than government intervention. Collective Barganing is a much better option than a government enforced minimum wage. Countries such as Switzerland which have no minimum wage have unemployment rates well below those which do. Pay scales are determined by contracts or collective barganing. Wages are high and unemployment is low.
The minimum mage should be abolished

I am challenging ZexLiberty to this debate to defend a comment he made in the forums in a thread created by imabench, which can be found here: http://www.debate.org... He stated the following: "Eliminate laws regarding the minimum wage. There should be no legally enforced minimum wage. The government should not regulate how much an employer can pay a voluntary employee. Organized Labor and individuals can bargain for higher wages and better working conditions if they wish to do so."I'd like for him to defend this assertion in a formal debate, and genuinely hope that he will accept. It will certainly be a nice way to integrate himself into the community! Definition and ParticularsResolved: The minimum mage should be abolishedPRO will argue that the minimum wage should be abolished, whereas CON will argue that it should not be. The resolution is normative in nature, and thus the burden of proof will be evenly split. Minimum Wage: "an amount of money that is the least amount of money per hour that workers must be paid according to the law" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). The resolution does not specify who sets the minimum wage--be it a federal or state government--so this will simply apply to any minimum wage law, whereby CON defends their existence and PRO argues for their abolition. Abolish: "to officially end or stop (something, such as a law) : to completely do away with (something)" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). StructureRound 1: CON provides rules and structure. PRO provides affrmative case.Round 2: CON provides negative case. PRO rebuts CON's case. Round 3: CON rebuts PRO's case. PRO defends his case.Round 4: Con defends his case. PRO passes to even out the rounds. Rules1. Accepting this debate is consenting to the rules and guidelines laid out in this opening post. 2. Failure to adhere to any of these rules will result in forfeiting this debate.3. Forfeits are not allowed. 4. Any semantial games or resolution trolling is not allowed.5. Be respectful. No personal attacks or changing the goalposts. 6. The burden of proof is equally shared. Thank you to ZexLiberty in advance if he opts to accept, and I welcome him to the website. Hopefully this will be a great first debate for him. It's certainly a topic that I find quite interesting.
The Atlanta Falcons Won't Win A Playoff Game This Year

In response to Pro wondering if I follow football, no I don't. I took this debate simply for the fun of it.(1) Pro's first counter draws on the Falcon's loss to the Giants last year. This doesn't prove as much as Pro thinks though since there are various differing factors this year. I think this is also important to bring up considering that Pro draws more on the Falcon's record *in the past* as evidence of how they'll play this year. There have been plenty of come backs and shifts from year to year, something the NFL is actually pretty good at facilitating as it seems.(2) The opinions of critics qua opinions doesn't mean much. Critics are obviously not infallible and Pro's point here amount to little more than an argument from authority.(3) As far as peaking is concerned, Pro is mis-applying it to the resolution. The Falcons are in danger of peaking perhaps. However, the Con isn't arguing that the Falcons will be winning games three and four games into the playoffs. I only need to refute Pro's case that the Falcons *will* not win a single game. I don't need to prove that the Falcons will get to the Superbowl or the NFC championship.(4) Pro's analogy is also flawed ("It would be like saying I fought 8 scrubs in the UFC; therefore, I should fight Anderson Silva"). The possible teams that the Falcons will be going up against aren't the best teams in the league (they're certainly no Silva). My point was to show that the Falcons are a good team, regardless of the fact that they're record is inflated from the easy teams they played. Pro's big mistake in this debate is to assume that the Falcons can't be a good team *just* because they play against easy teams. Inflation of their record does not necessarily equate to their record being completely fabricated as Pro is repeatedly asserting.===Conclusion===Pro got way too off-topic as far as the resolution is concerned. The resolution was very specific. It had to do with whether or not the Falcons will win a single playoff game this season. Pro's arguments were too general for this though. From arguing that the Falcons' record is inflated to arguing that the Falcons won't make it "far" in the playoff (in regards to his peaking point), Pro focused more on showing that the Falcons weren't a "great" team as opposed to focusing on ho they stacked up compared to their possible opponents. On the on-topic points though Pro was also off. From extrapolating from incomplete historical analogies to over-estimating the opposition. Pro failed to show that the Falcons won't win a playoff game this post-season.
The Atlanta Falcons Won't Win A Playoff Game This Year

This debate is over whether or not the Atlanta Falcons will win at least one playoff game, not whether they're the best team in the league and not whether or not their schedule correctly reflects their skill as a team. Pro's arguments seem to deal mostly with these last two, only barely referring to the actual playoffs. In order to actually figure out if the Falcons will win a game or not, I think it would be best to actually compare the Falcons and the teams they're likely to go up against first.Now, as the highest seeded team in the NFC, the Falcons will be facing the lowest-winning Wild Card seed first[1]. That means the Falcons will play the Bears, Seahawks, Packers, or Giants. Let's see how the Falcons stack up with these teams.The Bears are 1-4 in their last five games and the Falcons have them beat in overall points, yards, and pass yards per game[2][3]. The same goes for the Seahawks[2][4] and the Packers[2][5]. The Falcons are just few spots lower than the Giants in overall points per game but against have them beat in overall yards and pass yards[2][6]. The Falcons have certainly benefited from a not-too-hard schedule. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Falcons are fourth in the league in pass yards and eighth in overall yards and points per game.There's also the fact that the Falcons have gone 4-1 in their last five games, giving them an air of confidence as they go into the playoffs. Meanwhile the Bears have gone 1-4 with the Giants 2-3. The Seahawks and Packers have also gone 4-1 each. However, given that the Falcons will face the *lowest*-ranked seed, it's safe to assume they'll go up against one of the lower two. The Falcons aren't just limping into the playoffs. They're coming off of an 11-2 regular season record.5 minutes to spare.===Sources===[1] http://www.fbschedules.com... [2] http://www.nfl.com...[3] http://www.nfl.com...[4] http://www.nfl.com...[5] http://www.nfl.com...[6] http://www.nfl.com...
The Atlanta Falcons Won't Win A Playoff Game This Year

The Falcons actually have had successful seasons during the Matt Ryan and Mike Smith era. However, their success comes to a stop once they get into the playoffs. In 2008, after going 11-5, they faced the Cardinals 30-24. The critics believed they could build off this loss to become better in 2009, but they ended up finishing the season 9-7 and missed the playoffs. The following year they got back on track by going 13-3 and was the number one seed in the NFC. What happened? They lost to the Green Bay "Road Warriors" Packers 48-21, the worst loss by a top seed ever. And then in 2011, they went 11-5, but their fate ended up in the same way. They didn't only lose; they just manhandled by the Giants 27-2. Even prior to the embarrassing loss versus Carolina Panthers, the Falcons felt like they were frauds. They are 11-2, but they haven't faced a great team yet except the Denver Broncos. And it's difficult saying they beat the Broncos that we are seeing now because they weren't fully gelled, as Peyton Manning and the Broncos were attempting to develop chemistry together. Moreover, Manning quickly threw three int's that game because it appeared he was trying to make throws that he could before his neck injury. Despite all that, the Broncos almost came back and won that game, falling short 27-21. Besides the Broncos, the only other over .500 team they have beaten this year was the Redskins. They won that game by seven points and it was a game that RGIII got injured early in the 3rd quarter. That has been a theme of the Falcons: fluky wins. They beat the Panthers in week 4 because the Cam Newton fumbled after he got the first down that would have iced the game and then the Panthers deep safety bit on play-action even though there was little time left and the Falcons needed to score from their one. They beat the depleted Cardinals by four points despite Cardinals Quarterback averaging 3.2 yards per play. And they only beat the Saints by 10 despite Drew Brees throwing 5 INT's. Here is the most compelling statistic about the Falcons: According to ESPN, their strength of schedule is .391 and their strength of victory is .399. It's the lowest strength of schedule in the NFL and it's the 10th lowest strength of victory. Besides the Broncos in week two, the best offensive team they face is the Cardinals, who are ranked 18th is giving up points, and a team who hasn't won a game since week four. The best offense/Quarterback they have faced was the Saints who aren't even above .500, have the second to last defense in the league, and yet the Saints still beat the Falcons. The Falcons are 11-2, but it is mostly because of their weak schedule. They have gotten lucky in a few of those games, but the luck going to quickly rub off down the stretch because they are going to face teams that average a lot better than a .391 winning percentage.
Everyone, stop doing drugs!

First, I did read carefully and I also quoted directly from your enlightening references. Second, the term "drug" does have multifarious implications, that is why I asked for simple clarification. Lastly, what you originally meant by "drug" is not as axiomatic as you might think.So, from your perspective, marijuana and cocaine can cause damage to your body. This is fine. All you highlight is there is potential for drugs to damage your body. However, walking can also damage your body - i.e. rolling an ankle, muscle cramps, or slipping on ice or gravel. In your line of logic, because something has potential to cause harm to our bodies, should we refrain from doing them? Surely if we lived by these standards of potential, we would all be stagnating in a padded room all of our lives. The relationship between drugs and harm is not as direct as you have posited - you are mixing up causality with correlation. Thanks for your time, Pro.
Everyone, stop doing drugs!

Pro has provided no argument but has just shared findings that he found on the internet.There is absolutely no presentation of his corroborations. It is imperative for anyone reading to fully realize that not everything you read on the internet is truth. Moreover, the meaning of "drug" has yet to been established by Pro.I will refute all three (3) of Pro's sources, either with a counter source that has concluded on an opposite findings or identity the normative terms used in the presentation of their doctored findings. http://kidshealth.org... This website is designed for kids, and composed in a manner so kids can understand it. Under the heading "Why Are Illegal Drugs Dangerous", the first sentence commits a baseless generalization about drugs. The website posts "illegal drugs aren't good for anyone ... ". If this were true, why under the previous heading - "Illegal Drugs" - would the authors of the website admit that marijuana is used for medicinal purposes? It must be good for some people if it is used as a remedy by the government. http://drugfacts4youngpeople.com... There is no references to their assertions the harms that are intrinsic to drug usage. Baseless assertions. I am disappointed as Pro has not been able to provide any sort of original argument.
Everyone, stop doing drugs!

Now, I have concern over what is exactly defined as a 'drug'. A drug can be colloquially referred to anything that is illicit within anyone's geo-political boundary - such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, et cetera. On the other hand, 'drugs' may be referred to as a something prescribed by a pharmaceutical agency as a recognized means to remedy an illness. I will assume Pro is referring to the former definition of 'drugs'. Experience is a invaluable asset in life. Experience gives you first-hand insight into what something is really like, and your particular findings may be contrary to you beliefs anterior to your experimental period. For example, one may be told that chattel are not people and that they are genetically constructed to be subservient and used at the will of their 'owners'. In order to dismiss this fallacious axiom, one must have first-hand experience in order to disprove what is to be 'common sense'. Using drugs can have positive benefits in one's life through the experience. One can try - and the imperative word here is try - drugs and greatly benefit from it. It can develop a perspective and a greater understanding of oneself. It is worthwhile to mention the obvious, that there is varying degrees of drugs and they all have varying degrees of effects, but some drugs are worthwhile to experience. For example, If this was not so, marijuana would not be employed as something medicinal because it's legal status renders it as illicit. However, there is ample evidence that marijuana aids cancer patients to stimulate hunger, patients suffering from arthritis and other chronic pain ailments, AIDS patients who also need assistance stimulating hunger, and alleviating depression and other adverse mental health disorders [1]. If people 'stop doing drugs', the world could be revert back into the time anterior to the Age of Enlightenment [2], in where nobody challenged what is 'common sense' and dogmatically lived the life of puppet, going through the motions and employing no cognition, just accepting what was 'to be' as 'reality'. So, in conclusion, do whatever you want. Do drugs, challenge common knowledge, employ active cognition, do not dogmatically go through your life, and most importantly, experience things for yourself! References: [1]: . http://naturalhealthcare.ca... [2]: . https://www.princeton.edu...
Serial Rapists and Murderers should be subjected to capital punishment.

Concerning your confusion about the last example I used and it's relevancy to the topic, I was trying to get you to see the positive results that therapy and rehab can have. Also I think that you have a little too much of a personal hate on this topic to be participating in this argument, but that's just my conclusion of your personality as I am an intern of a psychoanalyst. You said that you would rather be put to death than be put in jail, this is just your opinion and provides nothing to what we are discussing because criminals don't get to choose their punishment. I just want to end this quickly because I haven't enjoyed hearing your biased and opinion based input. It is a better solution to put serial rapists and murderers in therapy rather than putting them to death because of the reasons previously stated in rounds one and two. Also I don't really understand what you said in your last section so I can't really come back at it.
Serial Rapists and Murderers should be subjected to capital punishment.

Seriously? Serial rapist and murderers who are just ***holes without mental disorders should go to jail? Perhaps you forgot said serial offender has raped 3 people. People with a Lack of consideration for the law, and lack of consideration for past offences, should be either, killed, or put away for a VERY long time, the latter is already in place and eventually those people get out, unless they are serving multiple life sentences. Im going to be honest, long term prison sentences are completely unfair and unjust. I rather die then spend my life in a small cell, eating the same food, doing the same activities, and seeing the same people. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that caused Serial rapists and Murderers to go harm more people! And your example of this drunk driver guy. That is completely irrelevant, because you state him as a first time offenders, and a drunk driver. The severity of rape and murder is greater then drunk driving, But if said person had repeatedly drunk drived, and been sentenced for it, and fails to acknowledge the law, then should he be executed. Remember, Arguments are only valid in this debate depending on severity of crime, and number of times re-offended.