BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should return to the gold standard

There's something remarkable about your list about recessions. The USA went off the gold standard in 1933. (1) In the 82 years after that only one recession happened. In the 126 years before the gold standard 5 recessions happened. This brings me to my next argument: With the gold standard more recessions happen than without it. This is an expansion of my first argument: After that you claim the price of gold didn't change a lot around the 1700. Can you back that up with facts, because I'm not going to believe you that easily.Your third rebuttal is that the government can raise and lower taxes to regulate the economy. The government can only fix recessions if three thing happen: Congress and the president must agree to a plan that contains an appropriate remedy They must pass their plan in a timely manner The remedy must kick in fast Nailing all three things in practice is hard. To give an example, congress was still passing legislation in May 1977 to deal with the recession that ended in March 1975. (2) Plus, you didn't rebate my argument about the inflation. Could you please tell me whether you overlooked it or if you admit I made a valid point? Sources1) http://www.history.com...2) Bruce Bartlett, "What tax cuts can't do," New Your Times, December 20, 2000.
We should return to the gold standard

So your debate is really just your two statements, ok, I'm going to start with the federal reserve, the federal reserve like all central banks as I stated earlier, are prone to cause recessions, as a example, we had six (major) recessions in our history, 1807,1837, 1873, 1893, 1929, 2008, 4/6 of which were done under a central bank, as I stated earlier, this is all easy to verify, there were six recessions, and four of which happened under the supervision of a central bank, what more proof do you need? Next is fluctuating gold prices, this was due to many things which had nothing to do with the gold standard, for one the Fed err all reserve, if you get a chart from 1700s when there was no central bank in America, then that would be credible, next at that period we were going through many economic busts, for one the coinage act of 1965 and the economic recovery act of 1970, next we were going into a variety of wars, courtesy of Lyndon b Johnson and Richard Nixon Next, a gold standard does not need money managing, the treasury is more than able to keep large reserves of gold and silver to issue enable to stimulate the economy, if it's going too fast the government can raise taxes to slow it, the treasury can also raise or lower it's interest rates at any time, it was always this way, Your argument was very short so in turn my rebuttal will be also.
We should return to the gold standard

First is inflation, a gold standard would limit the amount of money issued by the treasury, and make an amount that would be issued by the treasury, preventing both inflation and deflation, the amount of money that would be issued would be decided by how much gold or silver is deposited into the treasury, this would be decided by how much gold is mined, an overvalued gold price would entice more mining, more gold would be mined which would lead to a balanced gold price, an undervalued gold price would lead to less mining, causing the gold price to rise, a gold standard would set a value on the dollar. Next is decentralization and politics, as I mentioned before, the federal reserve is prone to cause depressions, a gold standard would shift the power of the monetary system from the federal reserve to the invisible hand (The Wealth of Nations), the monetary system would manage itself. Third is history, the last nation to issue fiat was Rome, as anyone here knows, the Roman government collapsed, Roman currency was worthless, Rome fell to Anarchism, and barbarians ruled the land, it is inconceivable for our economy to go off fiat 500 years from now, Rome could hardly go off fiat for 200, and the only difference is that Rome issued fiat coin, whereas we issue fiat pieces of paper. "Insanity To try something over and over again and expect different results"- Einstein To suggest that we are somehow different and that history will not repeat itself, or that our results will be different this time is insanity, history has shown us this repetitively. I will now state the opposite side of this debates argument and show how it is wrong: 1.We could not mine enough gold. 2.Our GPA has increased since we killed the gold standard. My Rebuttals: 1.We have massive gold mines in California, and massive silver mines in Nevada, this is no excuse. 2.So what, China has a big GPA, we don"t consider them to be our role models.
Evidence of God

Adolf Hitler was not a good person. He did not ask for forgiveness for his sins. Had he done so, then he would have ascended to Heaven like all other good faithful Christians. My son, I am not ignorant by any means. It is the dark lord Satan who clouds your mind with falsehoods and fallacies. You need only believe! Believe in hope! Believe in love... believe in God! No matter what, I and the lord Jesus will always love you. I have provided evidence of God's existence, of souls' existence, and of the theism of the universe. You, my son, have yet to disprove what I told you about weight loss during death. What else could this be, but the soul escaping the body and heading off to the realm of the lord God? I know that in truth, you care deeply about your sins. You regret them greatly, but the dark forces of Satan stop you from knowing. I know the true you more than anyone, my son...
Evidence of God

Adolf Hitler. He was raised catholic, he even stated in his book that he believed in a god, does that make him a good person? He believes in a god? If we didn't have science, we wouldn't be able to; fly, use a computer, produce larger amounts of crops, or learn. Stop being so ignorant, I don't need faith. We can study the world around us, you get your evidence from an unreliable book. You asked me for evidence, which I provided, you provided nothing. Why would I care about sin? I don't believe in God, therefore, your threat of sin is meaningless. You really do not understand what the word "Atheist" means do you? There is no God or Satan, None.
Evidence of God

My son, I love you and pray for you every day of my life now. You are ingrained into my very soul, my heart beating for your safety. I hope that He, God, may find it in his heart to penetrate you with his light and redeem you. My forlorn son, I do not appreciate your insult to me. If I were stupid, then I would not know the light and truth of the Lord omnipotent God and His lovely universe. Of course souls exist. If I were to use your blasphemous "science", I could prove this. Did you know that upon death, all people lose weight? There is no explanation. This lost weight is the soul ascending to the gates of Heaven. To which Hitler do you refer? I'd assume you mean Klara Hitler, my personal favorite member of the Hitler family. I do not know much about her though... If one believes in, loves, and prays to God and His beautiful child Jesus Christ, then any sin may be forgiven. That is why it is not too late for you, my son. I love you with all of my heart and soul, child, and I wish you the best before God and Jesus. Satan! Do you hear me? Do not take this man's body for your own! I must help to save him! My son... my love...
Evidence of God

I don't even know how to respond to your high level of stupidity. You still provide no evidence of the bible being accurate. If god has a divine plan, why pray? He knows all, he sees all, so the only thing that a pray does is massage his ego. You over use "son" far too much for your own good. Souls do not exist, Your mind acts as a "soul" if you wish. Hitler was a catholic, does that make him a good person? The Vatican has been covering up the sexual abuse of children for years, but they believe in god, does that make them good people?
Evidence of God

My son, you have only hampered your own idea. By trying to prove that there is no proof, you have give me proof. The Bible is the final word of God, however it must be interpreted. Perhaps by "Earth is 6000", it refers to the time in which the planet was given its soul. The Bible is true due to the aforementioned influence of He Himself, the holy god God. Praying works very well. Why do you think that the influence of Satan has not left you? Because you have not prayed. Those who do not pray properly, or are not faithful Christians, will not have their prayers met. As simple as that. My lovely son, I implore you to cease your redundancy. You overuse the word "happen" far too much for your own good. It is healthy to bring renewal to the body, mind, and soul, and most of all, to let the Lord God into you. "A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell. " - CS Lewis
Evidence of God

We are related only in the way of our own species. -The only way you can say the bible is true is because the bible says its true. -The bible says that planet Earth is 6,000 years old, Science has already proven this wrong. Praying doesn't work. Stop falsely crediting a higher being, If you prayed for something for 15 years, and it finally happened, then you credit a god. However, it just happened to happen. Things happen. The percentage of chance is insanely great. I'm an atheist, that means no god, no satan. "No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi
Evidence of God

Yeah, even if God was real. I highly doubt no matter what Hitler did, would God of let that happen. If he let Hitler into heaven, then God is a bigger idiot than I thought. "Impossible to see, clouded the dark side is." - Master Yoda If you are sick of something such as a pancreatic cancer, you eat less. Therefore you cannot carry out your regular routines of dieting and exercise. That is why most near death lose a lot of weight. How dare you deny the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
No languague is better than another

There are many definitions of language: 1. a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words. c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect. 2. a. A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating: the language of algebra. b. Computer Science A system of symbols and rules used for communication with or between computers.3. Body language; kinesics.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I will try to prove there are languages that are superior to others,First, I would like to take the language of mathematics for an example.It has: A vocabulary of symbols or words A grammar consisting of rules of how these symbols may be used A community of people who use and understand these symbols A range of meanings that can be communicated with these symbols http://en.wikipedia.org... Mathematics is superior than everyother language because the principles of math are the same everywhere.For example: the concept of 2+2 being 4 does not change depending on where you are from.Math is also the most used language in the world; it is used in many fields of study including science.http://www.mathworksheetscenter.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.cut-the-knot.org...Also intertwined with math, is logic since it also doesn't alter depending on location and generally understood.Example: X is X.X is not, not X.X is either X or not X.If X then Y (X implies Y).http://www.youtube.com...; Another superior language would be body language, since their are universal aspects in humans for body language: Sadness Fear Boredom Anger Disgust Happiness Surprise http://www.bodylanguageexpert.co.uk...http://synergology.wordpress.com... These languages elevated, complete, and considerably less complex than many other languages used by humans. Also, another thing to consider are obsolete languages, these languages are... obsolete, and therefore any language that is used would of higher status to that language.
Religion needs to go away, it is outdated.

Rebuttals: Pro is yet to affirm his resolution and demonstrate exactly how religion is not "needed". Because no definitions were provided in round one, I'll state once again that all I have to do is show that religion is in fact needed by some people and can be a benefit to society; which I've clearly outlined and used evidence for. The financial benefits argument has been completely dropped by Pro, as has the argument of religious charity contribution. Both of these contentions prove that religion fulfills a purpose and that it's more than possible for it to be a positive thing. Pro again [as with round one] argues that the primary reason for religion was that it was used to explain the existence of mankind and the entire universe--however, this isn't exactly the case. That was merely one thing that religion has given answers for. The primary purpose of religion was [and is] in fact to give provide people with moral teaching and an understanding of God. This is particularly correct with the examples of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The are many purposes that religion can fill; once again, there is also community and maintaining personal identity, and the connection to culture has continuously remained a deep one--this is just another contention that Pro has dropped and failed to respond to. The fact that religion has significantly helped shape the laws of our society has also been entirely ignored by Pro. If religion was that useless, why does still continue to remain relevant through our laws today? This is simply another area where religion has in fact been used in a productive way. I'll reiterate that three of our most basic laws are explicitly based on the Mosaic commandments. These include: Thou Shalt not Kill, Thou Shalt not Steal, and Thou Shalt not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor--which can be taken in the context that people *can* be prosecuted or face legal action for such an offence depending on the circumstance[s]. So if religion was to "go way", something that Pro argues it should do, are laws that are inspired by religion to be eradicated to? This is exactly where the bias and lack of objectivity in Pros argument becomes even more apparent. Before moving to the next round, I'd also note that Pro has made a number of accusations without including any sources to verify them whatsoever. Pro cannot just simply ask me, as Con, to Google what they're referring to. Rather it's entirely on them to provide a direct source and support each assertion that they put forward. The less than one percent statistic of atheist inmates is, thus far, not to be taken a valid contention. As for religion in helping people, the simple answer is that if religious does help people [which is clearly the case, as it still exists] than Pro isn't in a position to state that they do not need it. Moreover, believing in a religion does in no way mean that people cannot "control their future". Once again, the only arguments here are personal opinions and unsupported claims.
Religion needs to go away, it is outdated.

Of course religion predates Science. And yes it tried to give answers on life but what research has been shown by religion for the answers that were come up with. And how does anyone know that the stories written and/or told by religion have credibility. The bible was written centuries before copyright laws and before "Guaranteed or your money back". There is a game called "telephone" , it's played as so: One person whispers a story to another, then that person does the same to yet another person, and this continues throughout a number of people. When the last person to here the story is told to reveal what was said it is never the same story. But because religion was the only explanation, for most of humanity, it is a "belief" passed generation to generation. People are born and immediately taught the "belief" I believed in Santa, until discovered the truth. Religion is not "needed" it's just been so widely influenced that it is. However more humans have died from the name of religion that any other cause, the holly wars, the crusades, which trials, 911, etc. To me that's a reason for death. And what laws besides don't kill and don't steal exist in the bible that we hold true today. If it really wanted to produce laws it should have been against slavery, torture, rape, child molesting children (Catholic priests), and I'm sure there are others I have not mentioned that religion forgot to say don't do. Yeah it a number one seller the bible but it's also the most stolen (Google most stolen if you don't believe). Wait was not that one of the only two laws it produced. And try Googling number of Atheists in the prison population. It's less than 1 percent. So how's is religion helping the prisons? By filling them up with believer of religion. Yes Countries do have tourist attractions most of which are historical. Meaning from the past. Therefore the attraction would remain without religion now. "Churches take in billions of dollars, and pay no taxes. And they always need more." To close my argument for round two I would like to agree my debate is opinionated, the facts that I have produced speak rather loudly to support my opinion. Science would call it factual evidence. Religion does not produce any for its argument. people can be what ever they choose. They don't need religion to help them. They control their future not religion.
Religion needs to go away, it is outdated.

Debate accepted. Firstly, as Pro is the instigator here I'd like to clarify that they have the BoP in fulfilling the resolution. Which is that "religion needs to go away" and is "no longer needed". For me to negate this resolution all I have to do is show that religion is in fact needed for some people and can be a net benefit for society. =Opening Argument= Pro's basis for religion no longer being "needed" is the fact that it pre-dates modern science and was a way to explain life and things relating to it, however, it should be noted that religion serves a much wider purpose than this; and that both religion and science can accommodate each other if approached correctly. Instead of just *explaining* life, for many people religion actually gives a reason for life and motivate them to do what are essentially "positive" things. An example would be the vast number of religion based charities that are made and the missionary work that exists as a result of them. Organizations like "ChristianAid" would be a clear example, as well as other Jewish and Islamic charities that exist. Research also suggests that religious people are general more likely to donate money [1.] http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... In addition, religion has helped shape society massively. Much of the "basic" laws that exist today were influenced by religion and religious belief; as are much of the personal moral that people have. In all societies [both Eastern and Western] religion and culture have also existed together and complimented each other. In fact, a number of cultures in the world would not exist as we know them were it not directly for religion. As well as bringing people together and contributing to a generally more diverse society, religion can also be a financial benefit. A number of countries have a tourist industry that is primarily based on religion--with one main example being Israel. This country is significant to Jews, Christians and Muslims and attracts huge amounts of visitors for its historical status as the "Holy Land", which thus generates a lot income. Naturally people visiting book hotels, rent cars, eat at restaurants/etc. and spend money going to religious places of interest. Such as the Western Wall and Har Habayit [Temple Mount], the sea of Galilee, the ancient city of Kfhar Nahum [Capernaum], Tabgha, and Nazareth--which are the main places for Christians, there is also he River Euphrates, and many other holy sites. [2.] http://www.israel21c.org... [3.] http://www.goisrael.com...So here we have religion being a positive thing, not only is it providing an industry but it's also making people become more culturally and historically enriched. To conclude round one I'd also note that as of yet Pro has based his argument exclusively on personal opinion. For example, just because religion "fails in every aspect" to give him "answers", it doesn't necessarily mean that's the case for other people. Religion can give answers spiritually and financially, as I've already shown.
The Right to Same Sex Marriage is Protected by the US Constitution

Maybe with the forfeiture of my opposition's last round, Royal Flush acknowledged the argument was in my favor with all the cited research material & explanation provided, that would refute Pro's argument. Without a critique from Pro, there is not much I am able to debate with per Pro's initial instructions for this debate. Royal Flush quoted the amendments, altho gave no support for their argument other than opinion. Opinions carry weight only if substantiated valid research is not available. I had provided that research, Pro had not.
The Right to Same Sex Marriage is Protected by the US Constitution

My argument is going to be based on the 9th amendment and the 14th amendment. First of all, the 9th amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". The reason the Founding Fathers included this amendment was because they were worried that in the future, rights would be taken away from people. (1) Since marriage is not mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution and it does not directly harm others, gay marriage is therefore protected by the Constitution. Despite this though, gay marriage is currently being enforced by the states. However, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This is very similar to the 9th amendment, except it prevents the states from banning things, such as gay marriage. The problem is several states are violating this right now. The 14th amendment also protects gay marriage with its equal protection clause. It states "no state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Opposite genders are allowed to marry in all states and receive any tax benefits, yet people of the same gender are not allowed to and are therefore not under equal protection from the law. 1-http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Communism Is A Good Idea

PRO makes 2 critically flawed assumptions in his case. First, "Communism; run well, is a much better system than Capitalism." He assumes communism can be run well. History has shown us otherwise with examples like Cuba and Russia. I don't think it's fair to allow PRO to make the assumption that we could have a 'well run' communist system without some fair amount of proof. Second, "It is a system that is based purely on equality." PRO assumes we should actually have equality among people without ever providing a good reason why it should be so. Given that some people are more skilled, more intelligent, or do more work than others, I see no reason we should all be provided with resources equally.