BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

1)A) It was the Republican Party that crafted false fears of a mushrooming debt. All they had to do was maintain the status quo and increase the debt ceiling like has been done without event for decades. But they spent months saying that they wouldn't increase the debt ceiling causing everyone to panic. You can't logically give republicans credit for fixing a problem by not doing what they said they would do. I it would be like crediting Obama for saving the world because he didn't nuke Russia if he said he would. B) I repeat again the budget control act of 2011 cuts all spending regardless. This will result in spending being cut that saves the government and the overall economy money. A bill that causes money to essentially be wasted isn't a good thing. These cuts will result in cuts to preventative health care and health care for children resulting in people dying. Not to mention the only analysis of the effects of the spending cuts shows it will result in significant job losses, which isn't a good thing either. Another bad effect of the budget act is that it will hinder banking regulations aimed at preventing another crisis and Great recession, how you can think that is a good thing is beyond me. 2)A) The bill prevents the government form spending in recessions which would result in more massive job losses and suffering due to unemployment. C) If you want an example of governments who have been restricted on how much they can spend you can see it in Greece, Italy, and Spain. D) The result of the bill means that basic function of government would have to be completely eliminated because SS, Medicare and all the things exempted would surpass the GDP limit. This means say good by to roads, border security, student loans, environmental protections, food safety laws, banking regulations, energy efficiency projects, nutrition for kids, preventative health care, the FBI, the CIA, airport security and pretty much anything you can think of. http://www.cbo.gov... http://www.cbo.gov... E) My opponent was incorrect in saying that Socials security wouldn't be cut; the law makes it so you can ever raise taxes meaning the only way to make SS solvent is to slash its benefits. F) Also the amount of cuts in this bill would of resulted in 700,000 less jobs for 2012 alone. http://www.cbpp.org... 3)You already named them both, both the PACCA and the Hyde Amendments already assured that federal dollars didn't go to abortions. And even if federal dollars could go to abortions making it so they couldn't wouldn't provide any benefit to America. 4)Again you can't say, "republicans will passes this law in the future" and then have the law be an example; this debate isn't about what congress will do in the future its about what congress has already done.
The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

1) The US government has always come close to defaulting on its debt, that is why for years the government has simply raised the debt ceiling to avoid any default on its loans. http://en.wikipedia.org... The recently formed Tea Party movement brought increased attention to the rapidly mushrooming US debt and that is what triggered public awareness that the national debt was approaching dire levels. It was the Republican party that acted on these fears and they were the ones who wanted to propose that if the debt ceiling were to be raised yet again then some cuts to spending should be made in accordance. They were not refusing to increase the ceiling limit without a reason they did it because they were acting on public wishes to curb spending. 2) Budget cuts cannot be directly linked to a possible fall in GDP growth like you claim. Budget cuts to areas like Defense would not necessarily have a drastic affect on GDP since billions could be saved but the only people suffering are the weapons contractors developing the weapons themselves. Cuts in foreign aid would also not have a large negative impact on the GDP, these cuts and some others would have no impact on the GDP but would reduce spending greatly. Certain programs would be prevented from being cut while other programs that do not provide such direct benefit would be cut and that money could be used elsewhere. Such cuts to programs could trigger reforms to be made to them so that they can be more effective in providing more relief with less funding theoretically. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act specifically outlines cuts that would be made in programs NOT related to Veterans, Medicare, or Social Security contrary to your claim. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.govtrack.us... http://rsc.jordan.house.gov... This bill is designed to try to fight the growing US debt, this site may enlighten you on just how much we owe. http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us... 3) Which two? I couldnt find any prior laws since this act is a response to language in the Hyde Amendment extended into law by Obama in March of 2010. Unless you can produce these alleged already existing laws then my argument stands 4) The Bill has not been voted on yet but the Republicans have shown they would vote for it, also the Republican party cant force the government to enforce DOMA, and in fact the government has said it would not defend DOMA in court if it were challenged. http://en.wikipedia.org... The 1st law mentioned brought an end to the heated debate over spending in Congress, the 2nd law mentioned tries to limit rampant government spending in the future the 3rd law mentioned prevents tax dollars from funding abortions the 4th law mentioned would give benefits to military veterans regardless of sexual orientation
The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

I was only referring to the current republican house. I thought that the word "will" was enough to suggest that it was the current one, clearly I was wrong in that respect. I will only be debating for the republican house starting this decade. 1)The only reason there was fear that the US government would default was because many republicans came out and said they would refuse to increase the debt limit despite it being raised numerous times over decades and decades. The Budget Control act of 2011 calls for across the board cuts meaning budget cuts for programs that save the government money, save the economy money, and vital social services. This means that some of the budget cuts in this bill will result in lower GDP growth, and other ill effects. Some programs that save the government/economy money that would be cut include Head start, energy efficiency programs, agriculture/energy/science research, transportation aimed at reducing congestion, AmeriCorps, IRS funding to crack down on tax cheats, and workers safety. This bill would also reduce regulators budget especially banking regulators who've now been tasked to ensure that another crisis doesn't occur by re-regulating the banks. Making it harder to prevent another Great recession 2 isn't a good thing. This bill would also cut vital services that many people depend on in order to survive, such as food stamps, Medicare, and Medicaid. Some economist estimate that the Budget control act along with a failure to extend certain tax cuts would result in 1.8million less jobs in 2012. http://www.epi.org... 2)The Cut cap and balance act would eventually result in massive reductions in Medicare and SS funding resulting in seniors unable to retire with health care and unable to retire with enough benefits to stay out of poverty. This bill makes it almost impossible for the government to adjust to government shocks, it also restricts the governments ability to change spending levels to better reflect current trends. This bill would also make combating recession harder forcing the government to reduce spending during a recession resulting in even more job losses and lower growth. How that is a good thing is beyond me. If you want to see and example of countries who've made it impossible/hard for their governments to change spending just look at Spain and Italy. 3)Considering the fact that there were already two laws that made it so government money couldn't go to abortions the Abortion bill doesn't count because it maintains the status quo. 4)First off a bill that hasn't been voted on cannot be considered a bill that has passed. Second given that the GOP leadership wants to force the government to defend DOMA in court even though it will cost the government millions of dollars is a hint that this will not be passed by the GOP house.
The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that have been benifiical to the united states of America. It will be up to my opponent to list and show bills that they've voted for that will improve america. There will be a few rules 1) My opponent cannot list new bills that they didst list before in the last round. 2) Bills that maintain the status quo do not count.
The republican house has not voted in favor of more than 2 bills that are benifiical to the USA

.. . . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... Thanks for reading :D
Paris Accord is bad for developing nations.

First Contention: The Agreement is NondbindingThe agreement reached in Paris is not legally binding, and participation is voluntary. There will be no punishments for nations who do not fulfil their duties. Therefore it will have no impact and if a nation percieves the agreement as "hurtful" it will simply not implement it.http://thinkprogress.org...http://time.com...Second Contention: Fossil Fuels are not necessary for developmentCoal, Oil and Natuaral Gas are not necessary for economic development. While historically economic growth has dependended upon fossil fuels, there is no evidence to believe that development in the 21st century requires fossil fuels. Green Growth is on the rise globally and the OECD states that Green Growth is allowing for more sustainable and equitable growth in nations including Cameroon, Nambia and Uruguay. In all these nations Green Growth has increased GDP and GDP per capita, and reduced poverty.http://www.theguardian.com...http://www.oecd.org...Lastly, it would appear that the Pro has simply made a contention, without elaboration, and has shown no interest explaining his contentions or meeting the burden of proof. Any unsupported arguments are not argumetns and shoulld be disregarded.
That the drinking age should be eliminated

I'm not saying that if a person is going to go across seas to fight for our country, they shouldn't be able to drink, Jacob. I'm saying that people don't need just alcohol as a celebration method. Adults know when is a time for celebration or to congratulate someone, or something, but MOST kids would misuse it because if the age is lowered then i believe that more kids would go out and buy much more then they needed just because they can now. I'm not putting kids/teens down in this debate. I'm just simply showing my opinion, because I know that if the ability to get your drivers license was lowered, more kids would go out and get them. even if they weren't ready to be behind the wheel of a car where everyday that they drive they are risking not only their own lives, but also everyone else on the roads. Same thing would apply for drinking.
That the drinking age should be eliminated

I don't think that 18 year old men/women that are going into the armed forces, really need to celebrate with "a beer" they should celebrate with there families. Alcohol isn't a drink that people should use just to party with, yes there comes a time and place for this but kids don't need to be able to have these kinds of substances. Drinking comes with responsibility, and most kids in our country lack that. They would be coming to school drunk, or sports events drunk because they can access alcohol. Again, responsibility comes with drinking, and kids would not know when and where the time is right to crack open a beer.
That the drinking age should be eliminated

The drinking age should be eliminated because alcohol is indeed dangerous and can cause accidents but it would not just be the youth of our nation being involved in the accidents. An 18-year-old can join the military to fight and possibly die for his country, but he can"t drink a beer to celebrate his send-off. One can get drug prescriptions " even an abortion " before the 21st birthday. Just because a select few wouldn't be able to act mature about drinking alcohol but I strongly believe that the vast majority would not abuse the consumption of alcohol.
That the drinking age should be eliminated

If the standard age to buy/drink alcohol was lowered, or taken away I know that it would not be a positive outcome. Kids that are under the age of 21 still have a lot to mature and learn to become a responsible adult. IF kids younger then 21 could get their hands on alcohol I believe that it would result in more drinking and driving accidents, which already occur everyday, when the age of 21 is legal to buy alcohol, and drink it. Kids would be immature with the access to this substance that will completely alter the mind. If we do change the drinking age then more innocent people will loose their lives in not just driving, but also obtaining to much alcohol and thinking they are fine to do things that need to be done, sober.
That the drinking age should be eliminated

I am for the abolishment of the drinking age because it would cause a decrease the amount of crime. I recently embarked on a trip to Italy and encountered a much lower and less strict drinking age. The kids at some of the restaurants were drinking glasses of wine and they were under the drinking age of 16. With no law the teens and others didn't feel the need to rebel and just drank occasionally just for the fun. Countries like these had much less trouble with underage drinking due to the abolishment of the drinking law. From an argument by John A. Captillan, he says that people in countries have 24% less crimes involving the consumption of alcohol due to the less drinking age.
Black Lives Matter is Bad for Society

Title is pretty self explanatory. Just going to define a few things Black Lives Matter:Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an international activist movement, originating in the African-American community, that campaigns against violence toward black people. BLM regularly organizes protests around the deaths of black people in killings by law enforcement officers, and broader issues of racial profiling, police brutality, and racial inequality in the United States criminal justice system.
Socialism is the most logical and rational form of economics.

==Democracy== Pro argues that since we have democracy in politics, we should have it in economics as well. This argument begs the question. You must first establish why a large group of people should have the right to dominate and rule a smaller group of people, just because of the relative sizes of the groups. Second, even if democracy is a good political structure, that doesn’t mean it should be extended to any other area. I’m sure no advocates of political democracy would advocate democracy in, say, sex, where people could vote themselves other people’s bodies. ==Financial Regulation== There is no evidence that financial regulation, or lack thereof, had anything to do with the current recession. It’s often blamed for the recession, but none of the people currently blaming “deregulation” for the recession managed to figure out the connection during the 10 years between the deregulation and the actual crash. Surely, if there was an actual connection between deregulation and the recession, some of the many, many people would have seen it before the crash. But they didn’t. In contrast, many of those who blame the government (specifically, the Federal Reserve) for the current recession did predict the housing crash. [1] [1] http://www.lewrockwell.com... ==Healthcare== Pro mistakenly assumes that the current US healthcare system is, in any reasonable sense, private. About half of all healthcare spending in the US is done by the government. [2] The parts that are “private” are heavily regulated, with government approval required for health insurance contracts, drugs, medical procedures, and to become a licensed doctor. If the American health care system is broken, it can hardly be blamed on the non-existent free market—especially since the supposedly evil profits make up only 0.36% of total healthcare costs. [3] Pro claims that universal coverage would be good, but does not explain why. In Massachusetts, for example, health insurance coverage increased, but actual health care outcomes didn’t. [4] Obviously, the point of a health care system should be to make people healthy—if it can’t do that, then a reform can’t possibly be considered beneficial. [2] http://content.healthaffairs.org... [3] http://factspluslogic.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...
Socialism is the most logical and rational form of economics.

As to market socialism, it is simply the most rational option. Cooperation and democracy are the defaults in politics but when it comes to economics which affects a person just as much as politics we must all be controlled by a select few? Now the welfare state is now rarely debated against. It is only the extent of which it applies that is disputed. The socialist sees the welfare state as the means to equality of opportunity. Unemployment benefits and universal health care are only two implementations of the welfare state. Those who deny the need for the welfare state say that those who were not born into money are not deserving of the basic necessities of life(medical treatment). Another tenet of socialism is some mode of financial regulation. This is also widely accepted in the US. However, even with the level of regulation that we have in the US, we still managed to miss some stuff and here we are in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Next is nationalization of major industries(energy, healthcare, education). Nationalization is the only way that citizens may exert democratic control over the services that they enjoy. Let's take healthcare for example. Millions of Americans cannot afford medical coverage. This is because medical care is privatized and for profit. This means that a person can be denied the basic necessities of life because they do not have enough money. It's sad that that is the way things are in the US. If the government were to assume control over the healthcare industry, every citizen would be entitled to true liberty.
Meat and Dairy animal production and consumption is necessary.

I said your resoures such as www.selfempowermentacademy.com, and www.meatstinks.com are obviously backed by an agenda, and not factual evidence based on research, statisics, etc. I really did not even NEED to go on www.meatstinks.com to come to the suspiscion that the sites creator(s) and/or contributors believed meat stunk. The equivilent of myself going saying vegetables are gross because the people at Ireallyhatevegetables.com said that it is gross. However, they could not provide substantial evidence to why, how, or even the flavor of the vegetable, perhaps because they had not tasted them for themselves, or perhaps, concluded they were gross, only after preparing them incorrectly, and blaming the vegetable on the unwelcoming taste. Perhaps someone farted on vegetable when they were not looking. I would like to explain my belief on why domesticated animals would destroy the world if we did not manage them, or consume them. Say the avergage life span of a cow is 10 years. a cow will calve once every 365 days. so if one cow produces 10 calves in a decade (not including twins) and we turn lose or "free" and no longer control the 1.2 billion hd of cows currently on earth. That would roughly be 24 billion head of cattle by 2018. it takes 2.5 acres of grass to sustain a cow unit(cow/calf/bull) 24 bill X 2.5 acres=60 bill. acres to sustain JUST CATTLE in 10 yrs if we didnt kill. ruining the eco-system, making it necessary.
Meat and Dairy animal production and consumption is necessary.

Would you like to elaborate on credibility? The first sentance in my selfempowerment website comes from the book Natures first law- The raw food diet. Now I can agree with the fact some sources may be outdated and I take responsibility for that. I was not aware I was auctully to be debating someone who really debates. I am not going to be able to continue debate on this for personal reasons so I give the debate to you.
Meat and Dairy animal production and consumption is necessary.

Your rescources quoted are backed by agenda and not facts. Cattle and calves on feed for slaughter market in the United States for feedlots with capacity of 1,000 or more head totaled 11.1 million head on May 1, 2008. The inventory was 1 percent below May 1, 2007 and 4 percent below May 1, 2006. >>>>www.agweb.com This an exact correlation with increase price for corn. Up from $1.25 per bushel in 2006 to $6.02 a bushel today. The reason for the decrease in cattle on feed, and I only included the statistics of the larger feeders, is simple business 101,.. Cut your bottom line if its taking money out the top. Producers are feeding less or no cattle or not even producing cattle, simply because they can not afford the high feed cost. Econimics shows decreases so why would they, if they were,be clearing MORE land for "pasture." Humans are not competing against food animals for grains, if anything they are competing against the Ethanol boom, already taking nearly 20% of the corn grown, AND with current govt. mandates requiring a ten year goal of 15% bio fuel consumption rate, which converts to 40% of the WORLDS corn grown and 100% of the United States corn grown. >>>www1.umn.edu Most cattle on feed right now, such as my own, are bieng fed distillers grain, a by-product of ethanol, and ground fodder, the dried leaf and stalks left from the plant that produced the ears of corn. Russel Simmons is probably not the most credible person to quote from if you want to know about production agriculture, for instance the rule of thumb in cattle feeding is approx. 5-7 lbs of feed stuffs, mollases, roled grains, grasses, supplements, etc, for one pound of added gain, a gain that would be satisfied whether man provided the feed or the animal foraged itself. >>>www.plantmanagementnetwork.org As for the deforestation of land for livestock farming, again just not correct. The overwhelming demand for soybeans has caused the massive deforestation of Brazilian rainforest,(60 million acres since 1978,) in order to clear more land for crops, not animals. Therefore vegetarianism and fuel demand is more to blame. >>>www.npr.org Gross overpopulation would exist if the food animals were to just be "free." Our earth could not sustain the amount of life and produce the amount of food or land needed, humans would suddenly be COMPETING for food rather than producing it. What societies can not afford meat or dairy? Give me society or country that doesn't domesticate food animals. You did not supply any specific place. Not all meat or dairy is purchased, several nomadic groups of people in Africa, for instance follow large herds of Waygu cross cattle, which provides them all there food, fiber, and even hides dried and stretched for shelter. I will save the rest of the FACTS for later, give you time to maybe reseach some "credible" sources.