BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare is a waste of Money

I originally chose to debate this topic, not because I am for the current government program called welfare but I am pro welfare. I think everyone can agree that giving money to people who actually need it is a good thing, and it’s important to realize that we shouldn’t bar all types of welfare just because the current government system is broken. Language and how we use it is deeply linked to our understanding of the world. It is important to call things by their proper names, which is why I use the terminology “government program called welfare” instead of just “welfare”. They really are two different things. “I am a true believe there will never be world peace.” The war issue is an important topic as well, I’m not going to cover it here but I do disagree with your notion that there can never be world peace. “My Closing thoughts on this is that welfare doesn't have to be disbanded, AS long as the government can change the ways the distribute the money. Divide the Partakers from the freeloaders.” I would also tend to agree with this statement, but I believe that welfare should be taken out of the government’s hands completely. Non-profits, charities, family, and friends will step in and help the ones who actually need it. The rest will just have to get jobs. Thank you for bringing up this topic, it’s an important issue that needs to be resolved.
Welfare is a waste of Money

Let me start off with round 4 by saying.. I appreciate your input and it is very good. I agree that this is not a argument and i'm sorry if I protruded that. " If money was going straight to people who were actually in need of it, would that be okay? " Yes by all means " We would treat our veterans better by never sending them to war in the first place " I'm just going to touch on this cause this could end up being another debate in the long run but if you don't have wars then you have tension. I am a true believe there will never be world peace. But the reason this country is so great and how we are free people is by the people that had to go to war. I don't like wars but I order to balance things out its gotta be done. My Closing thoughts on this is that welfare doesn't have to be disbanded, AS long as the government can change the ways the distribute the money. Divide the Partakers from the freeloaders. Thank you for debating with me
Welfare is a waste of Money

" Lets Be Clear on what you're actually against, are you against giving aid in the form of money or necessities to those in need, or are you against government porgram called welfare" Ok so i dont care what the program is called, any program that gives free money ( and thats what it is ) away to people that cheat the system is what i dont like... I am all for giving money to people that need it. We put all this money intowelfare but look how we treat our veterans. I find it wrong ait discusts me.You might have differnt thought on this topic but this is how it is... " If you paid diminsihed or no taxes as a result of the government abolishing their program called welfare, would you choose to use your excess income to give to charities and non profits that give aid to people who actually need it?" Well sir i hope you dont think that welfare is the only program out there that uses are tax money, Sir and i hope you dont think that welfare is the only program out there that gives free money to the people who again cheat the system. Let me give ya something to think about. Whenever there is something that is harmful, whether it be in politics or something else. If that thing is removed or deleted from the system there will always be a replacement to take its place. Now onto my last point about taxes being like rent... your thinking too much about it, ill give ya a comparison. if you skip rent then you are thrown out and if ya don't pay it ... you can possibly be prosecuted. If you skip out on taxes you WILL get prosecuted. See where im getting it. So I have one question out of this... 1. Whats your thoughts on how we distribute our money between welfare and veteran affairs?
Welfare is a waste of Money

Questions For PRO: 1. Are you pro Welfare or con? Sorry, if I wasn’t clear enough. I am against the government program called welfare, but I am all for giving aid in the form of money or necessities to those in need. 2. What's your opinion on the amount and the way the welfare is distributed? As I said before, I think that welfare would be better distributed through charities or not for profits. These sorts of organizations used to be prevalent before the government took it over. The government tends to be incompetent and inefficient at everything it does, welfare is no exception. Also I wanted to comment on your statement about taxes, “I live in this country and I will pay rent. “ You cannot equate taxes to rent. Paying rent is a voluntary situation where you choose to give up your money in exchange for a place to live. Taxes on the other hand are forced on people simply because they are born in a region. It would be more like being born in a house that your parents rented, and then being forced to also pay rent once you’re old enough to have a job. Also you’re not allowed to move without both renters agreeing on it, and even then you have to fill out mountains of paper work and get interviewed by the new renter, and a forced physical at a hospital that the new renter approves. Also you must obey all laws and regulations from that renter or else men with guns will show up at your house and lock you in a cage. As you can see, it really isn't the same at all.Now please allow me to ask you some questions.1. Let's be clear on what you're actually against, are you against giving aid in the form of money or necessities to those in need, or are you against government program called welfare?2. If you paid diminished or no taxes as a result of the government abolishing their program called welfare, would you choose to use your excess income to give to charities and non-profits that give aid to people who actually need it?
Welfare is a waste of Money

I thank you for Challenging this topic. "Wake Up people we are getting used... Indeed " With that statement are you telling me that you are pro welfare or Con welfare cause that stumps me a little... Id like to just say that I have no problem paying taxes.. I understand that taxes are used for things in this country ... I live in this country and I will pay rent. BUT like I said before... The government needs to come up with a better way to decipher the Free loaders and the partakers. So again, I like what you said about "abolish the entire welfare system" . But the government will let these people sit on there asses and be Partakers when they are really freeloaders. Questions For PRO: 1. Are you pro Welfare or con? 2. What's your opinion on the amount and the way the welfare is distributed?
Welfare is a waste of Money

First off, I will lay a framework, respond directly to your statements, and offer some solutions. In the past people were owned as slaves, but slaves were not very productive. For starters, they had to be constantly ordered around and told what to do. If you asked a slave to move a rock, they would only move it half way or move the wrong rock and they had to be corrected. Human beings do not like being slaves, and when forced to do something they will intentionally do it poorly or the wrong way. Eventually through the ages we advanced to serfdom. You were allowed to a plot of land and to work it, but you had no real freedom. You were bound to your lord, essentially owned like a slave. Today, in the modern age, we are allowed to choose our occupation, our home, our spouse, and we’re far freer than we have ever been, but we’re still not free. Think about your country as a farm, the borders of that country a fence, the government a farmer, and you an animal. A farmer may give his cows an entire field to graze, but only if they produce more meat. You have the illusion of freedom, but 50% of your productivity is taxed. I suppose that only makes you half a slave. The people who are on welfare are on the payroll of the farmer, and as such they will viciously attack anyone who opposes the farmer’s rule. This is why it’s not a waste, because these people become so reliant on the system that it’s in their best interest to keep it. In other words, the welfare system is doing its job not by helping people in need but by keeping them in poverty and reliant on the government. “Why should I have to pay for other people to sit on there asses and ask Uncle sam for a break. ”The same reason why you have to pay Uncle Sam at all, you are a cow on a farm. “I understand that some people don't take advantage of the welfare system like 75% of people do. ”If you give people an incentive to be lazy they will be lazy. “Then we need to have a better way to sort through the people. .. ”The best thing we could do is to abolish the entire welfare system and rely on charity for those who are truly in need. This would give people incentive to get jobs again, and people who really do require help will receive charity from people who actually know something about their situation rather than just blindly handing out money. “Cause watching a mother of 4 walk into a welfare building with all 4 kids ( including youngest looks to be around 8-10 years of age ) with a iphone. .. So you can afford for a cell phone but you still need money from the government. “This is a whole ‘nother can of worms. The media portrays men as dumb, irresponsible, lazy, and sex obsessed while simultaneously portraying single women as strong, hardworking, intelligent, and independent. This devaluing of men is creating a generation of children without fathers, with the state subsidizing it all. “Wake up people we are getting used. .. ”Indeed.
Welfare is a waste of Money

Welfare is a waste of Money.. Why should I have to pay for other people to sit on there asses and ask Uncle sam for a break. I understand that some people don't take advantage of the welfare system like 75% of people do. Then we need to have a better way to sort through the people... Cause watching a mother of 4 walk into a welfare building with all 4 kids ( including youngest looks to be around 8-10 years of age ) with a iphone... So you can afford for a cell phone but you still need money from the government. Wake up people we are getting used.... Feel Free to debate this...
Libertarianism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

I hope our differing opinions do not prevent us from debating in a civil manner. Now onto my argument. As my opponent has made clear, Socialism's principle value is the obliteration of the self in the name of the collective. Under socialism (and indeed under any collectivist ideology: communism, fascism, nazism, etc. ) the highest virtue attainable, is to be a sacrificial animal for "the good of society". Now, there is nothing wrong with having a concern for your fellow man, but the very essence of human nature implies that many will go against the grain, and thus force will have to be used against those acting against the will of the collective. The massive slaughter associated with collectivism throughout history is not merely a byproduct of the ideology, but an absolute requirement for the protection and stability of the ideal. For the collectivist, an individual is either a tool or an obstacle in its pursuit for utopia, and thus completely expendable if need be. Individual rights not only are incompatible with a collectivist society, but an active threat to it. Libertarianism , which is essentially the political incarnation of individualism, holds that the initiation of force against another individual for any reason other than defense of life, liberty, or property is profoundly immoral (this is knowns as "the Non-aggression principle"). Unlike under statism (socialism), the state is not given the authority to usurp the rights of individuals under any circumstances. Rights are seen as natural and absolute; something the state does not allow to us, but instead we are born with. The only legitimate function of the state is to ensure the protection of such rights, as nearly any other responsibility of the state would result in the infraction thereof. Unlike any form of collectivism (including social-democracy, and the more "moderate" forms of collectivism) every transaction is voluntary, and society is based upon mutual consent. In short, Western Liberal ideals of absolute individual rights cannot coexist with the implementation of a socialist system. A socialist system is inherently based upon force, or the threat thereof. It is not a coincidence that every large instance of mass slaughter in the 20th century was committed in the name of societal good.
Libertarianism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

Sorry kasmic; you snooze, you lose. Good topics aren't that common around here. I accept this debate. In the introduction I will not be presenting my case, rather I will establish a few personal interpretations which are, of course, open to debate. DefinitionsIt is necessary to define the terms "libertarianism" and "socialism", as the entire debate is directly focused on these two ideas. It is important to realize that there are multiple "flavors" of broad political stances like the ones being discussed and each player should have the right to choose to argue their favorite flavor. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is "a political philosophy that affirms the rights of individuals to liberty, to acquire, keep and hold their holdings, and considers the protection of individual rights the primary role of the state...". The ideals of small government and private property are considered key components of libertarianism. Socialism is the political philosophy that there is social ownership of many or all resources, along with a democratic control of the means of production. The ideals of large democratic government and social ownership are considered key components of libertarianism. Understood Rules1. There are to be no forfeits without a valid excuse. Should a forfeit be necessary, it is that debater's obligation to pick up where they left off. Voters should not be sympathetic to forfeitures. 2. The last speech for each debater should not include any new arguments or evidence that implies a new argument. This speech is for summation and concluding purposes and can only include additional evidence supporting an already presented claim which was relevant to the discussion. 3. The Burden of Proof is shared. The winner of the debate shall be the debater who most effectively argues for their "side". Neither Pro or Con should be assumed correct at any point in the debate. 4. Voters should vote solely based upon the content of the debate. Outside opinions or personal convictions should not be part of the voting process. FrameI will be arguing that socialism is preferable to libertarianism on the grounds that the needs of society outweigh the desires of the individual. I look forward to debating this issue.
I will not contradict myself

1. Yes I do, what's not to like? I don't hate them.2. Yes I do, what's not to like? I don't hate them.3. No, as a heterosexual male, I am not romantically/sexually attracted to the same sex.4. No, I already stated my sexual orientation, it is clear that I am not romantically/sexually attracted to both genders.5. No, I do not like sports that much.6. No, I do not play fantasy football.7. I would say no, because I do not know you.
I will not contradict myself

Another one of those spammy and infamous 'I will not contradict myself' debates, I wanted to try one, so here goes.NOTE: Every person has 1 hour to post in every round, I want to make this quick.Rules: 1. CON must post 7 questions in teh following rounds, directed at PRO, that can be answerble with yes/no or PRO automatically loses. This does not apply to the final round. 2. PRO must respond to all questions posed by CON in some manner or else PRO loses, I reserve the right not to answer them, when I exercise that right, CON is entitled to post an additional question next round. 4. PRO wins if he is found never to have contradicted himself. Likewise, CON wins if he can prove that PRO has contradicted himself. 5. Only statements made by PRO in rounds 2 and 3 of this debate are subject to be examined for contradiction. No outside sources (profiles, previous debates, etc.) are applicable. Statements made by PRO in this debate not in direct response to any question posed by CON are still applicable. 6. Round 4: no more questions can be asked, it is for final defense of PRO that in the previous rounds he has not contradicted himself and CON to make his/her finale case that PRO in fact did contradict himself.7. Fofeits are an automatic loss to the person who forfeited.
There is only one God.

Similarities within some gods, yes. However Pro dropped my argument about multiple gods in the Greek Mythos. Defense: "Your argument is rather shallow, as it refers to only Greek Mythology. " is his rebuttal. How is my argument weak? I have presented different gods, with little in common. Anyways, yes, I'll need another religion so shatter Pro's stance. How about Egyptian Mythos? There's a lot of gods there too. You can type it up if you want to see all of the gods. In order to fully defend myself, I'll have to negate the resolution via my rebuttal. Rebuttal: I see you're bringing up religions with only 1 god. I've brought up one religion with many gods and goddesses. In order to negate Pro's premise, we need to look at 3 gods, each from a different religion, and see their differences. Athena; Greek Mythos, Goddess of War and Wisdom, once had a sewing contest with Arachne, who was turned into a spider by Athena, Daughter of Zeus and Metis. [Arachne: . http://www.dltk-kids.com... \\ Athena: . http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com...] Catholic/Christian God; Catholic Mythos, only god in His religion, has no other family, except Jesus, rules the heavens, and everything, except Hell, where Satan resides. [see Pro's source] Anubis; Egyptian Mythos, Ruler of the Underworld, has the head of a jackal (like a black dog), has had multiple parents as Egyptian Mythos aged, attributed to the first tombs. [Anubis: . http://egyptian-gods.org...] I don't see how these 3 gods are similar. If Pro can point out how these gods are the same, do so.
There is only one God.

Your argument is rather shallow, as it refers to only Greek Mythology. But anyway, In Greek mythology Zeus was the ruler of all the gods. He is depicted as a just god, source of all prophetic power, designator of fate, protector of mortals, avenger of the wronged and the most high and powerful above all gods. http://www.theoi.com... Hinduism (most Hindus) refer to God or Brahman as the supreme being and creator of the of all creation that was, that is and that is yet to be. Brahman is the power that commands humanity, Brahman is Light and ruler, Brahman is indestructible, omnipresent and Brahman is indivisible. http://www.shaivam.org... Christianity also refers to God as the most powerful, supreme God. He is the God of creation, God of justice, the God of peace, He is a lover of all mankind, He is gracious and He controls all circumstances. He is God that is ever-infinite, present and rules into eternity. http://www.christinyou.net... Islam also refers to God as the one God who is most high, He is the mighty creator of the universe, ever forgiving and merciful. He is an eternal God. He is the master of all life and commands all concerning mankind. https://en.wikipedia.org... In the Bahai faith, God is the divine, all-knowing, incomparable creator of the Universe and ruler of life. http://www.bahai.org... I know I must've missed out some other religions. But despite all the different religions, their interpretation of God is apparently the same, with similar attributes. So then, there must be only one ultimate God. And by the way, yes, I am a newbie!
There is only one God.

Only one god? In Greek mythology, there is Zeus, the god of the Heavens, Lightning, and Olympus. There is Poseidon, the god of the Sea, and father of the Cyclops. Hades, god of the Underworld. Athena, goddess of Wisdom, and War. Aphrodite, goddess of Beauty. I could go on, but here's a list of Greek Gods and Goddesses: Gods; http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com... :: Goddesses; http://www.greek-gods-and-goddesses.com... I'll leave it at that for now. Pro's probably new, so I'm going easy. In Round 2, if Pro wants me to attempt to refute his argument, I'll try to take it easy on him.
Is God real and is the Bible accurate

You obvously think that you are right because you have no reasoning at all. I mean come on you have people mordern people fast for two months and Jesus did it for 40 days (little over 1 month) I have studied the Bible for years and it does not contridict itself. People for the past few thousand years have read it understod it and stood by it be cause of it reliibility and accuracy. It was not told verbily it was recored and in fact scribs that wrote it down had to look at a letter and write look at a letter and write whitch took a while but it keeped it accuarcte. I really don't care wheather you agree with me or not because you WHAT it YOUR way and you think your right so you stick to it. I had a freaind just like (caresless,ignorant,thought he could succeseed in life,) but he i a pitiful little man because he does listen to others (i mean accualy listen) because he thinks he knows it all and he doesn't he thinks hes a genius and hes not, he can not comprehend that God is an nessesity that he creatied man and NOT the other way around. There is a lot of evedence to show God is real but just like him you DO NOT WANT to look and listen.