BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
beggars should be in jail

Maybe he's a burglar, not a beggar. I mean, he could be carrying a weapon to attack you, and try to get more than $10 from you, by threatening you, after pretending to be a defenseless beggar.I do agree that being a beggar isn't a crime. I mean, there's more arguments out there saying that beggars have a reason for jail. But my approach will be the possibility of him being a thief. I wish the newcomer luck.
Doctors are mostly unnecessary.

Doctors are mostly unnecessary. Doctors are useless and out of date. They use 200 year old theories about how the human body works which are totally irrelevant to current findings. Good health costs nothing. Yet, doctors charge an arm and a leg for what? I say nothing. Its a scam. If anybody can prove that being a doctor is not a scam. Then, please step forward and get ready to be humiliated.
Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary.

Thats why there are states in this country. Because a person in New York can never represent me in South Florida. We can't look to a state to represent the entire country we will never find that. Instead we need to focus on the logistics of the campaign, what will give more options to the candidate which translates into more options for the people. An Iowa first approach means a face to face approach and when your campaign is chronically running on low you need to count on that.
Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary.

If we had a more controlled political campaign in our country, it would not take $100 million + to be a President. Iowa is not diverse, and also very "inwartd thinking" according to sqharawa below in the comments section. Thats not a represnetation of the majority of this country. 60+% of Iowa cacus-goers were white evangelivcals. 60%. Thats not represneting of our contry at whole. Huckabee has his party. We'll see how the upcoming states go for him.
Freedom before equality

Let"s take an unusual tact from the obvious. Take it in a direction that a libertarian may like more. Unprovoked shooting a gun at someone is an example of restriction of freedom. I have freedom to a gun, I have freedom to shoot it, but the good men and woman of our country have limited this freedom to do so when it violated the rights of others to remain safe. The equal nature of all citizens to be safe comes before your freedom to shoot people. Equality before freedom.
Freedom before equality

Freedom is an abstraction, a concept. Each may interpret what it means to be free, but few would argue that "freedom" in society does not includes equal access to opportunity. "All men are created equal" penned by Thomas Jefferson in the declaration of independence framed the entire concept of what we were declaring. Jefferson knew that equality must be insured for freedom to exist. Equality is a vital part of how we even measure our "freedom". People rising to whatever level they may obtain is only possible where no man is shackled by constraints that other men do not have. Without equality, there is no freedom.
U.S Citizens Over Use The Privilege Of Government Assistance And Welfare

I would like to start off by saying I have just conducted my own very distinctive and extensive research on your numbers and statistics. And I do not find them to be valid, hold any form of evidence and credentials. And my point still stands justified and has not been disproved. Your statements to me are simply excuses rather than answers of solution. You're responses are contradictory in saying Sure of course this government assistance is being over used, but they have a good enough reason. Every measure can count and make a change. So you don't hold the authority, knowledge or information to know exactly what form of program or measures can be taken to help the situation of poverty move in a more effective direction. Snap to health org reported that as of June 2014, 46.5 million persons were participating in SNAP. Barack Obama released a statement at a Washington D.C board conference in August 2014 stating that each month those numbers are drastically soaring and it's hard to keep up with the amount of people seeking eligibility for these programs. There's only 49% of Snap participants being children, and clearly reasoning being is because of anything from simply being born requiring WIC programs and etc, childcare, and more. Elderly individuals hold a higher percentage for various reasonings but Snap itself is one government assistance program in it's own. There's more programs than just this one. So you're not looking at the whole picture of the term "GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE". 109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded "means-tested programs" " also known as welfare " as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau. It is now early 2015 and this numbers have increased, so my question is if these programs have been supplied for all these years, why is poverty actually taking a turn for the worst? It seems to me this isn't helping turn the situation around at all. In fact, like I stated before people use these programs and become comfortable in poverty. Try a new measure, otherwise allow government funds to be abused and see no change. Soon, there will be no funds, then who will we blame? Snap and foodstamps is just one problem. Unemployment, Financial Aid assistance and much more is involved as well. Free money to the citizens which will soon become a bigger problem than ever. I rest my case.
U.S Citizens Over Use The Privilege Of Government Assistance And Welfare

Let's look at the actual numbers of so-called abuse of welfare recipients. The first thing to acknowledge is that most people who receive some forms of welfare benefits are the "working poor". These are people who actually have jobs, but don't make enough to support the basics. For example, those who receive food stamps or belong to the federal SNAP program, 41% of recipients had jobs. According to the latest report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, they noted that almost 50% of SNAP families with children are working families, and also continued: "Over the last two decades, large shares of SNAP households have become working households. In 1989, 42 percent of all SNAP households received cash welfare benefits and only 20 percent had earned income. By 2010, over three times as many SNAP households worked as relied solely on welfare benefits for their income. Despite the large jump in unemployment during the recession, the share of SNAP families with earnings has continued to increase in recent years. This suggests that for a growing share of the nation's workers, having a job has not been enough to keep them out of poverty." [CBPP, 7/9/12] But the most interesting fact is that most recipients of welfare benefits are children and senior citizens. Children can't work until they are of age, and senior citizens are unable to work because of their age. Children and senior citizens also qualify for free health care. Senior citizens who didn't make enough for retirement, or loss their jobs through outsourcing have no choice but to apply for government assistance. It is a myth, and a very hyped-up one during political campaigns and media, that the system is being abused by lazy single mothers with children. Working-age women make up 28%, and working-age men make up 17% for a total of 45%. The rest are children and the elderly. Job training and education may be good ideas, and sound good on the campaign trail. But if after job training and education and there are still no living wage jobs, then such endeavors are minimal at best. Lastly, according to the U.S. Department of Labor statistics website, based on the 2012 IPIA three-Year average data report, fraud in welfare benefits accounted for only 2.67% of all cases. So, although there is abuse in any system, the small numbers of abuse shouldn't be the catalyst to deprive millions of children and seniors from a situation they can't control, which is poverty.
U.S Citizens Over Use The Privilege Of Government Assistance And Welfare

Everything changes with time. World happenings, economical scaling, governmental policies, councils and presidents and so fourth. So any event, situation or happening from the past in my defense is completely irrelevant to today's world. I agree with you slightly with some of your claims and statements. This way of "Government Assistance" as of right now is just a temporary fix. What is it ultimately changing in the end? At this present moment all this is doing is allowing people to live comfortably in the situations that they are in. This funding and economy will not last forever the way this country is headed. So then what? When there are tax increases involved, benefits being pulled away and etc. than we will be a lot worse off then we started. It will be a lot more protests, crime, rally's and so fourth with angry citizens that will just blame the government for the problem. You can't overshadow a problem by stamping a temporary solution on it. How about get to the root of it, better the system programming and find a way to elevate it. Make government assistance a lot more strict in protocol. There are people who really are in desperate need of finances and benefits. Then there's the citizens who are abusing the government. Everyday there's a citizen who has no need for food stamps but apply anyway, working their way around the system. There are people who quit their jobs, and immediately resort to unemployment without keeping the search for employment intended. There are woman giving birth to new babies each and every day without being financially stable, which results to them subjecting themselves to government assistance. I believe us as citizens just have to do a lot better with our own well-being and together we can make a change in our u.s economy and finances as a country. I think it's ignorant and very far-fetched. The incompetency to sit and label past events on today's society in ridiculous. What ever happened to analyze, problem and solution. The problem first and foremost is we as a country are basically giving away millions if not billions of dollars that we technically speaking do not even have to begin with. There's way too many low income citizens and homeless people in the country to try and give each and every one funding. Try coming up with an intermediate long term solution to destroy poverty as a whole, but giving them a stipend or a check each month to remain in the same situation is outlandish. Build more job programs, build more educational programs, find the root of it all not throw sugar on bread and tell me it's butter. This claim is far from over-exaggerated. It's valid, proven and a standing fact. Making the automatic assumption that the people who are using government assistance are using it in a climate of economic expansion or in an area where ample jobs are available without knowing is ignorant. Assumptions are not good means to running a government. You don't run countries behind assumptions, you run them by effectively knowing and having productive stability behind the actions you make.
U.S Citizens Over Use The Privilege Of Government Assistance And Welfare

Our American history has already shown what could happen to a society when there is no safety net for the least of these. During the Great Depression, many families were dismantled because of economic instability. Fathers committed suicide in droves, and religious and charitable organizations were few and limited to the number of people they could serve. The increase in poverty caused many fathers to migrate and leave their wives and children behind to never see them again. The desperation caused by poverty led people into crime and other nefarious lifestyles to make a living. The New Deal was a response to this and other examples of social instability. Without the basics of food, clothing and shelter, many people will revert to "survival" mode which will normally lead to more robberies and theft. It was because of the government's inaction to address widespread poverty that the French Revolution, the Arab Spring, and the Cuban Revolution blossomed. Now, more than ever, government assistance will be needed as technology will reduce the human labor force, putting millions more out of work. And what should these people do? The claim that citizens over use government assistance and welfare is over-exaggerated when you look at the numbers, and it also assumes that the people who are using government assistance are using it in a climate of economic expansion or in an area where ample jobs are available.
U.S Citizens Over Use The Privilege Of Government Assistance And Welfare

In today's society there is a great percentage of Americans who are on government assistance and welfare. These assistance programs include but are not limited to, food stamps, sis, tca, unemployment, disability and many more. These governmental funded programs I believe are one of many of the reasons are economic growth has depleated. It is a statistical and proven study that the average U.S Citizen or uses these programs have no intention on getting off of them. In other words, these individuals get these government funds and have no intention on getting a job. My argument is two things. One being this is more so the governments fault. Instead of providing low class citizens with the tools to prosper out of these situations these programs simply allow citizens to feel comfortable in them. Allowing an individual to sit at home and collect finances with no productivity involved is outlandish. As a country we already spends millions if not billions on world warfare and these governemental funded programs. Having citizens add on to this by collecting finances without a prospering cause behind it is absurd. My second arguement is that these citizens should not use the government as a first and last resort. I support the fact some individuals may need these programs as a temporary means of benefits. Whether it may be employment layoff, a valid disability, educational purposes and even a few other discrete reasons. But I totally am against citizens using the government as means for their own well-being.
Pecan is pronounced Pecan not Pecon

Salve. Thank you for posting this topic. 1) Pecan has three pronunciations in every dictionary I have checked. This is from the site dictionary.reference.com: peï¿½can / Pronunciation Key -[pi-kahn, -kan, pee-kan] –noun 1. a tall hickory tree, Carya illinoinensis, of the southern U.S. and Mexico, cultivated for its oval, smooth-shelled, edible nuts: the state tree of Texas. 2. a nut of this tree. Here is the page: http://dictionary.reference.com... 2) You are also incorrect regarding the etymology of the word. It is of Algonquian origin, not Spanish, although the Spanish did introduce the nut to Europe. Britt
Unicorns are diffrent from pegisus' (Random Debate)

Ok, so to start of i will prove that the cons arguments are not valid. In some cases, the arguments can be true, this is not one of those cases. The resolution states "Unicorns are different from Pegasus'". What this is doing is not comparing them in a real world, but in a world that they do exist. In a world that Pegasus and unicorns exist, they are different because one has a horn and the other has wings. Where as the argument "unicorns are different from pegasus' because unicorns have horns, and pegisus have wings" is formed. Thank you, and Good luck.
Unicorns are diffrent from pegisus' (Random Debate)

I accept. The basis of my argument is that neither unicorns nor pegisus exist, therefore it is impossible to compare the two creatures in the first place. Besides that, those two imaginary creatures must be the same because they exist in only in the human mind, therefore anyone claim that they are the same and would (technically) be correct. My opponent must disprove those two arguments. Good luck
Unicorns are diffrent from pegisus' (Random Debate)

I have already provided my argument... The burden of proof lies on pro to show how unicorns are the same as pegisus. (Besides the two arguments I made in round 1) Assuming that we take the two creatures in a theoretical world that exists, Pro must show evidence and back up his/her claims. Pro has yet to do that and I wait for his/her response. Keep in mind that my first argument still stands because my opponent never clarified this is in a speculative universe. My second argument is still valid since unicorns and pegisus only exist in the human mind so anyone can claim they are real. I will expand my case to relate to this speculative universe if my opponent desires, but other that pro must bring up his/her case. Good luck
Jesus must be God.

My opponent has responded in a timely and articulate manner. I would first like to tell my opponent that I do not approach these debates with any emotion, and you would be hard pressed to find any in my comments, I was simply addressing one of your statements. The problem with debating this way is that it is impossible to read the feelings behind statements, so If I misunderstood your remark I sincerely apologize. While you may have been disappointed in this debate, I found it both thrilling and entertaining. You are a worthy adversery. My arguments have been clear, and my sources cited to show that Jesus is not God, and the Trinity is a pagan belief that infiltrated Christianity in the 4th century. My opponent has done the following to counter my arguments;1. Give his own understanding of the verses that I cited without offering one ounce of documentation to support his opinion.2. My opponent has totally ignored the historical data, not once addressing the multitude of examples that I gave addressing the origin of a triune god, or how it is not unique in history. My opponent says; "The evidence for the historical trinity is irrelevenat", but does not give a reason for it being so, nor any supporting material for this claim. He simply says it, and we are to simply believe it. 3. My opponent has not given one verse that shows where Jesus (pbuh) said; "I am God. " What he has done instead is to play a word game with the verses that I used as evidence to try an confuse the reader into thinking that the statements given have opposite meanings. Quranic verseI mistakenly thought that the last round was the final one, and so wanted to end the debate with a profound Quranic verse. Aside from the fact that the Glorious Quran informs my opinion on this issue, it has no other relevence in this debate, and I would gladly defend the Only True Religion from my opponents attacks. ConclusionJesus is not God. The Bible does not support it. History shows that it is a pagan belief that found its way into Christianity. Logic tells us that it makes no sense.
Jesus must be God.

I will start by mentioning that my opponents rebuttal was exactly as I expected. I thought about the options my opponent would have to consider when formulating his rebuttal, and I eventually came to the inevitable conclusion that my opponent would have no other choice then to attack my interpretation beings how the content of the verses I had provided were so powerful. Because of the soundness of the scriptural references I provided, my opponent would have no other choice then to attack my very own interpretation rather than my reference. I should mention that some of my commentaries were not of my own, as I stated in my source "E-Sword", they are of Biblical scholars: Matthew Henry and Scoffield primarily. Now I must bring for this contention:My opponent has failed to provide his evidence. My opponent agreed to provide a single verse showing us where Jesus said that He is not God. However, my opponent has not done so. He has only provided a single statement where Jesus asked a question. Ergo, Jesus never said one way or another. I also must assert that my opponent has only provided arguments to support his interpretation of verses that he believes to suggest that Jesus was not God. So as you can clearly see, my opponent has provided no solid evidence. Next I will show you how my opponent has not responded to any of my plural scriptural references he requested of me in the last round. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Therefore, I extend all arguments to the next round. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I also should mention that my opponent never refuted my arguments, he only restated them and asked the audience to think for themselves. It is the audience's responsibility to respond to our arguments, not to read the verse themselves; This being said, I extend all original arguments to the next round. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The only new argument my opponent has provided is the argument of temptation (James 1:13), which I have already addressed in my round one argument. Therefore, it is evident that my opponent has not been reading my arguments from beginning to end. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Because my opponent has not introduced any new evidence or provided a rebuttal to my own arguments, there is nothing more for me to say, so I will instead use this time to provide additional references for my opponent to use to further his knowledge: . http://www.answering-islam.org... . http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org... . http://carm.org...
Jesus must be God.

ResolutionI recently witnessed a debate on this topic between you and another user. I feel that I can do a much better job than your original opposition. Upon acceptance, I will be debating that Jesus must be God. Notice the wording of the title: Jesus must be God. It is impossible to prove something which cannot be seen no matter how obvious the truth. I will, however, say that the Bible very clearly presents Jesus as being God.I do firmly believe in the Trinity Doctrine, that is, a Triune God. And I will be arguing from this viewpoint as it is a fundamental to Christian faith.ConditionsThis debate will consist of five rounds with the first being acceptance. Each argument may contain a max of 8,000 characters. Round one is acceptance only, followed by round two opening arguments.The voting period for this debate will be a total of three days, and each vote must contain comments.Each participant will have seventy-two hours to respond to the others debate.I also accept the unwanted fact that the burden of proof will be on me.RequestsI request that this debate maintain a respectful atmosphere and that all arguments are addressed in a mature fashion.If outside sources are used, please cite them. Assumptions 1. Jesus did in fact exist. 2. Jesus did in fact perform miracles.3. Jesus was not a liar. 4. Any definitions or word interpretations must be based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts.These assumptions may seem unfair, but because of the results of your last debate on this topic, they seem to be necessary for clarity. Final DispositionsIf there are any conditions you would like to be incorporated into this debate, please include them in your acceptance or in the comments section of this debate and we can discuss the terms. I will be using Hebrew and Greek dictionaries for my word interpretation when needed. My dictionaries will be directly from the "E-Sword" computer program unless otherwise stated. If you find any of the first three assumptions to be unfair or unreasonable, feel free to challenge me to a debate on the topic and I will gladly extend why I feel this this way. I thank you for your time and do hope we can share the honor of conducting this debate.