BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

I will be presenting arguments i favor of the "welfare states" as defined by my opponent. My first and only argument in favor of the "welfare state" is that it increases societies standard of living and its economy. I will now present examples and evidence of the welfare states benefits for society. 1) Health care: The Veterans health associated (a totally government controlled health care system for veterans cost 40% less than non-government health systems and provides health outcomes that are 30% higher. http://thinkprogress.org... http://thinkprogress.org... 2) Energy standards: Government energy standards save consumers and the economy billions of dollar. http://www.washingtonpost.com... ^Light bulb energy standards will save 4 billion dollars each year, http://www.energy.ca.gov... http://edition.cnn.com... ^TV energy standards in California which will make TV's 49% more energy efficient set to save the state 1 billion dollars each year. http://eetdnews.lbl.gov... ^DOE energy standards which will make washers/dryers 35% more energy efficient will save 35 billion dollars over 20 years. 3) Environment. Governmental environmental regulations save lives, improve the health and the economy by reducing pollution. http://thinkprogress.org... ^New EPA standards that reduce Mercury emissions by 91% and SO2 emissions by 55% will save 17,000 lives a year prevent 12,000 heart attacks and 120,000 asthma attacks each year and will provide 140 billion in health benefits. These new regulations and the Clean Air transport rule will create 1.4 million jobs over the next 5 years http://www.apple-pie.org... --^EPA regulations limiting emissions from engines used for recreational non-road purposes saves a net of 3 billion dollars each year. Through lowered health care costs and higher mpg efficiency. http://articles.latimes.com... ^EPA regulations reducing mercury emissions from power plants will save 10 billion a year; due to lower health care costs.
The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

I argue that the Welfare State should be abolished.There are different definitions of the Welfare State. However, I am just going to be broad about it and define the welfare state as anything the state does beyond the Night Watchman State. The Night Watchman State is defined as:"A night watchman state, or a minimal state,[1] has been variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it is a form of government in political philosophy where the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[2][3][4] Advocacy of a night watchman state is known as minarchism." Now, just to be clear, I am not an explicit minarchist. I am a full out market anarchist. However, I did not start this debate to debate law, military, etc... I wanted to debate the welfare state. So, in this debate, I am just arguing about functions outside of the Night Watchman functions.A few other things:1.) Political feasibility is of course important, but not part of this debate... Political feasiblity is to be assumed and not debated2.) First Round is NOT for Acceptance Only, Con should go ahead and offer arguments for Welfare State in Round 13.) This is NOT a Semantics debate 4.) Feel free to ask any questions or suggest any changes
The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

First off this debate is about whether or not the government should involve itself in areas not related to defense, the courts, or police. My argument is that government should involve itself because government involvement can increase standards of living and the economy. In my first post I posted 7 government policies that involve the environment, health and energy that improves standards of living for everyone and helps the economy. My opponent dismissed those because they are "sources" I ask you not to dismiss them just because they are blue and direct you to another webpage. My opponent has made a bunch of claims which are all unsupported by evidence and which are all dis-proven by my previous post. I will go through each of his claims. 1) "Okay, the problem with the welfare state is that every element of it could be provided in a more efficient and better fashion" in a nonviolent way in a free market. Notice how my opponent provides no evidence to back his claim up. Also if you would please go back to my first post you will find 7 different pieces of evidence that show government involvement makes the economy more efficient. 2) " Please go back to my original post where you will find that I posted about government regulations that lower toxic emissions of Mercury and arsenic. Without those regulations tens of thousands of people just like yourself would die from those poisons every year, and thousands more would be stuck in hospital beds because of those poisons. Is that something you want? Do you want people to die and get sick? Also the economic costs of the hospitalizations and deaths are higher than the costs to update the power plants in order to stop this pollution. 3) Health care. My opponent has a source, however his source has no statistics about the VA it has no comparisons between the VA and private health care. All his source is, is a repeat of his own rhetoric. He basically thinks that someone else saying the exact same thing he does is evidence. I ask you to please go back to my original post and the sources I linked to. My sources have statistics on the VA and comparisons between it and private health care. The results are that the VA costs 40% less yet provides better quality health care. 4) My opponent is now lying. The studies I sourced added in the increased cost of producing more efficient appliances. Even with those extra costs they still concluded that overall consumers would save money by reducing their use of energy. 5) My opponent makes another false claim. free markets already move towards efficiency, as producers try to sell better things at lower costs to consumers. This is called competition. The fact that government mandated energy efficiency standards can save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars is proof that the market doesn't work fast enough. So I ask: Do you want to live in a world where you are poorer because you have to wait longer for "free-market" energy efficient appliances?
The Welfare State Should Be Abolished

First, let me point out, that this is NOTa sources debate. So, whoever has the most or best sources does not get 2 points automatically.Okay, so let me make my points.Argument Against Welfare StateFirst, I am going to make a quick case against the welfare state in general, before we get into specific programs. Okay, the problem with the welfare state is that every element of it could be provided in a more efficient and "better fashion" in a nonviolent way in a free market. I say nonviolent, because the welfare state is necessarily violent.Everything in a welfare state MUST be enforced by the point of gun, or it would not be a welfare state.More importantly, in a free market, anything society demands will be provided. If people want a welfare system, then they can, and have, existed without a state [1]. This is because individuals who wanted a welfare system simply contributed to a welfare system, on a non violent exchange.The same goes for environmental regulations, food regulations, etc. If people want to be "greener", they can choose to purchase greener items. I can already here my opponent talking about transparency. The beauty of the marketplace is that, in response to the demands for greener, businesses devoted to finding out how green company is willl pop up. Transparency is an inherent part of a free market. There are examples of exceptions, but the state is far worse about transparency.The key difference between the welfare state and the free market is that the welfare state exists because the people inside the state forced people, by gun, to pay for these programs. In a free market, things exist because people want them.Responding to my Opponent's arguments1.) Health CareHealth Care is best provided on a free market. The VA is not as great as my opponent thinks [2]. It is facing financial problems and decaying quality. Furthermore, the US system is hardly a free market, as severe government distortions have caused prices to skyrocket.Laser Eye surgery has been provided on a free market, one of the few areas that has, and prices have fallen while quality has risen [3].2.) Energy standards do not save consumers. They simply add to costs by creating more regulatory costs for energy companies. Energy Standards DO not make things more efficient than they would have been in a free market. Free markets already move towards efficiency, as producers try to sell better things at lower costs to consumers. This is called competition.3.) This is based on the idea that government helps the environment. In fact, private property is the best thing for the environment, as individuals keep their own property well.Environmental regulations hurt the economy by forcing companies overseas and increasing regulatory costs.[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://www.cato.org...[3] http://marginalrevolution.com...
All atheists are anti-Christ.

Atheists by definition are anti-Christ. Definition of Atheist "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. " [0] Definition of anti-Christ "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." [1] Impact, by definition all atheist are anti-Christ. Since an Atheist is a person that denies supreme beings, Jesus Christ, and and the definition of anti-Christ is someone who denies Jesus Christ as a supreme being. I'm interested to see if Con can poke any holes in this. Side note, I see no major differences between Atheism and satanic worship. Impact, none this is just an off topic observation. 0. http://www.dictionary.com... 1. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
That, on balance, social networking web sites have a positive impact on the United States.

Social Networking is defined as a web-based service that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. There are dozens of great things about social networking, but the main positives are the increase in social capital they provide, the political participation it increases, and the staggering learning potential it offers First, there is Social Capital. Social Capital is an economic idea which refers to connections between individuals and entities. Its economically valuable and it helps people link together and people who trust and assist one another are extremely powerful. the better a company understands their possible consumers, the more social capital. Multiple studies from such universities as Northwestern prove that the more usage a company puts into Social Networking sites, the more social capital they receive. not to mention that social networking is a $15 billion market, from advertising alone. Next, these sites such as Facebook and Myspace, and even debate.org, increase dramatically the statistic of political participation according to major academic studies. our new president, Barack Obama, used social networking tremendously during his campaign and he, obviously, won. his main site was Change.gov, but he also used other large sites as a crowd sourcing tool in order to attract even more of the young people vote. In continuation, social networking sites are not just for teenage socializing, it also contains enormous potential to be a learning cornerstone. in a study performed by the University of Minnesota, the social networking sites were helping students learn 21st century skills such as developing a positive attitude towards technology, editing and customizing content, learning online design, practicing safe and responsible use of info, and sharing creative original work. this show the Internet's overall enormous potential. Thank you, and please affirm this resolution.
You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first.

A friend, when they lend money, is, as a friend, necessarily a more flexible lender than a bank or than bills. If you have a $400 electricity or water bill, you have to pay it. If you owe a friend $400, than that friend can be expected to be flexible with payback (as long as they are not spending through the roof). If someone wants to buy a cellphone when they could pay a loan back with that money, it all depends on the nature of the friendship and the quality of the loan. It depends.
You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first.

Happy Holidays. I'm playing devil's advocate here (a bit). So: Most of the time your argument is true, however I can think of several extenuating circumstances that could override your argument: for example: Someone's bills are due, they owe you $500, they owe the bills $800, they have $900 in the bank account. If you are someone's friend, than you should yield to the bills that need to be payed. Vaguely incoherent, I realize, but hey...
You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first.

Let me explain the story My friend borrowed money from another friend and told him he PROBABLY wouldn't be able to pay him back before he borrowed it. My other friend agreed and gave him the money. The borrower kept on asking for money. The total eventually came to $150. The borrowing friend was given $100 by his dad to buy whatever he wanted. My lending friend said he'd take the $100 and call it even. The borrower refused to give him any money, called him a rich [explicitive] and went out and bought $100 combat boots with steel toes. The next week the borrower had a panic attack and left school for three months. Then he came back, and found out that the lender was now secretly living in another town, but had his mail fowarded from his old house, and was still going to our school. The borrower blackmailed the lender to stop bugging him about the having the chance to pay him back thing or else he'd tell the school about the lender living in another town. The lender agreed and the next week the borrower went to the principal and told him that the lender was living in a different town. The lender got to stay the rest of the year, but had to move after that. Even though the borrower said he wouldn't be paying him back, he had an obligation to pay him back when he had the chance.
You must pay someone money back if you have it even if you tell them you might not be able to first.

Well this kid in particular bought combat boots. He was 12 at the time, so we can be pretty sure he didn't need them for work. He didn't like the outdoors, so sratch that off. Maybe kicking kids in the nuts? Is that a good reason for him buying them? The only thing I ever saw him do with those was kick me in the shin.
Prove your existence!

Whatever words I may see on this screen, there is no proof that you are not simply a computer program, that types in automated responses, or that you, the iPad I am writing this on, or even my whole life is not just an dream or experience machine*. Descartes' quote "Cognito ergo sum", or "I think, therefore I am", applies to each individual person only. I cannot use it to prove the existence of anyone else to myself by changing it to "you think, therefore you are", because I cannot read anyone's thoughts, I have no proof that they even have thoughts aside from a feeling or an assumption that because I have thoughts and exist, everyone else who I see, hear, or otherwise sense must have thoughts too. It is illogical. Further increasing the odds that you do not exist is the coincidence that started this debate. Within five minutes of me posting the challenge, you accepted it, and you were one of only two sides in the debate that made me want to start this one, with you and LaughItUpLydia**. On a website with at least hundreds and probably thousands of people, it just happened to be you, and that quickly. That is the sort of coincidence that often happens in works of fiction, which my brain knows about, and is quite likely to pull into the dream if life is a dream. I realize that I did comment on that debate, and that you may have searched for a similar debate to the one you were in before (all if you really exist of course), but the odds against that are still truly tremendous. *http://www.uky.edu... **http://www.debate.org...
Hunting (for food, not sport) is Inhuman

I am looking for an opponent who can argue that hunting for food rather than buying it is inhuman and should be discouraged. **Please note that I said food, not sport. *Rules for Me Round One: Introduction and rules Round Two: Argument Round Three: Rebuttals *Rules for my Opponent Round One: Argument Round Two: Rebuttals Round Three: "no argument as agreed upon" Failure to follow rules will result in a 7 point deduction.
Hunting (for food, not sport) is Inhuman

The definition of inhuman is: lacking pity, kindness, or mercy. The hunting of animals in general is inhuman, whether it is for food or not. Hunters don't always kill their targets, sometimes it gets away, but injured. Fore Example a hunter may blow the jaw of a deer, but how is it supposed to eat when it gets away. It will starve to death. Also how about the young that depends on the animal that the hunter just shot? What is going to protect them, they haven't learned how to survive yet. Also hunting can destroy animal populations. Have you heard of the dodo? The bird was hunted to extinction, that is inhuman, hunting leads to drops in animal population. In fact 23% of animal extinction was directly caused by hunting. Also do you think its humane to shot a guy in the chest at a salad bar? That is what you are doing with the animals. Walking up to them when they are eating then emptying a magazine into the animal. Also many hunter use illegal forms of weaponry like machine guns, which cause a great disturbance to the animals, snare traps and pitfall traps which hurt the animal a great deal before they die, and sometimes the hunter doesn't comeback to check for days. Also hunters destroy bio diversity on the planet. At a time the Grey Wolves were the dominant predator across the continent. Then they were hunted to extinction by hunters. This caused a tremendous explosion in the elk population after that. A team of biologists noted that soils were eroding, unpalatable grasses were spreading, and high quality browse plants were vanishing under the onslaught. Soon the elk started starving. Why? There wasn't any food left. The died in a painful way, and a natural habitat was destroyed. Thanks for that hunters. Hunters who hunt for food will be more desperate that hunters who do it for sport. These hunters know that their family is depending on the food they bring in, so they are more likely to do the things above. They ignore the rules to make sure they have enough food. They know that snares and pitfall traps will increase the likely hood of a catch, and they will kill as many deer as they can on the basis that they are not going to starve during the winter. This is why we should discourage hunting animals for food. Sources: http://www.ehow.com... http://animalliberationfront.com... http://kerryg.hubpages.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Niall vs. Liam

Niall is hot and all but Instagram never lies Liam made puberty his *****. No reason to lie Liam Payne isSEXIER than Niall Horan. LONG LIVE LIAM PAYNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<3<3<3<3<3<3<3
Death Penalty should be abolished in the US

Con ff'ed and failed to address pretty much all of my points. I have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent, we have agreed that it often is given to innocent people (too often for it to be legal anyway) and we have agreed that it is more expensive than life sentencing. Is a penalty which does not deter crime worth the extra cost in the lives of innocent people and taxpayer money? I think not.
Death Penalty should be abolished in the US

My opponent is hardly making any arguments, and at this point he is restating facts.P1-DeterrenceMy opponent posted a graph. You may or may not have looked at the graph because he did not really talk about what it was or what it meant. So I guess I will explain.The graph showed that, around the same time that the number of homicides decreased, the number of executions started to increase. However, this implied causation where there is only correlation, and this doesn't do anything to dispute my evidence. My evidence showed that states with no death penalty have less homicide than states who do. The gap has grown for a while and it has been consistent. Yes, the entire country has seen a decrease in overall homicide. But states with no death penalty have had consistently less homicide overall, and they had a difference in the decrease and they had a faster decrease and have lower death homicide rates! My opponent has not disputed this. Why would states with no penalty have lower homicide rates across the board consistently for a long period of time of the death penalty was the deterrent that is keeping people from murder? That wouldn't happen if the penalty was a deterrent, it can be concluded that it isn't a deterrent. P2-MistakesMy opponent gives one of the sources I gave to prove there are mistakes. He admits there are mistakes. He doesn't even attempt to justify these mistakes and doesn't give any reason as to why there should be a system which sentences innocent people to death in the United States.P3-CostMy opponent is very correct, the death penalty costs lots and lots of money. Is the death penalty worth lots and lots of money? No, because it is a far from perfect system and it does not deter crime effectively effectively. My opponent even makes the point for me that life-imprisonment costs a fraction of what the death penalty does. I hardly know what we are debating, my opponent has conceded 2 of 3 points of my argument. His contention on P1 is explained by the overall drop in homicides in the US, and it his assertion is shown wrong when you look at individual state's homicide rates and compare death penalty states and non-penalty states, where non-penalty states outperform penalty states. I think that votes must go pro's way, con is hardly making a case at all.
Death Penalty should be abolished in the US

I don't think I have anything to say to that. My opponent presents a history of the death penalty. That is fantastic, but it is totally irrelevant. P1-Not an effective deterrentMy opponent offers 0 evidence to contradict anything claimed about the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. If the death penalty is not effective, it should not remain legal.P2-MistakesMy opponent has failed to address anything about the mistakes made in sentencing and conviction of death penalty cases, or the instances of mistakes in actual the actual executions. If the death penalty cannot be administered constitutionally, and the law cannot be applied fairly without error, the death penalty should not remain law.P3-CostMy opponent didn't respond to any of the multiple studies about the expensiveness of the death penalty, or the fact that other means are cheaper. If the death penalty is not deterring crime, and many mistakes are made, then there should be no money wastefully spent on the death penalty because other means are cheaper. Barring any response to these points, I think the votes will have to go my way. The death penalty is not effective, it is not applied correctly, and it is not cheap. For these reasons it should be repealed.