BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
U.S. Military Intervention

First, take a look at this http://www.globalresearch.ca...... The debt from the wars we have fought abroad cost 6 trillion. And note, this was written one year ago, so it's not even current. There is probably a higher number. Now take a look at this number. http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us...... At the end of FY 2015 the total government debt in the United States, including federal, state, and local, is expected to be $21.694 trillion. So now I ask you, in you're opinion, do you think we can continue to fight wars abroad and continue to deliver foreign aid, and somehow stay on to of this debt? Do you think we will be able to continue nation building with this type of debt. We're using money to blow up bridges in Afganistan and then rebuild them, when there are most pressing issues here in the United States, and other more important things we could use this money for. http://www.politifact.com......-/ This link also shows you that back during the Republican Primaries for the 2012 election, Ron Paul got the most donations from the military out of all of them. Note that Ron Paul was a candidate that WANTED to bring the troops home from overseas. I never objected to the U.S intervening in World War 2, because we were provoked into fighting the day the Japanese armed forces bombed Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which after we went to war with the Axis powers. The Vietnam War was a pointless waste of money, time, and lives. We also now know that the Golf of Tonkin incident was a false flag operation. Vietnam also wouldn't look too much different if we won. South Vietnam had many coups and military dictatorships. The main difference is that the rulers of the Vietnamese people wouldn't be communist. Vietnam still would have many innocent lives lost and the poverty that succedes the war. The Korean War was unconstitutional. Only congress has the power to declare war, not the president. Here is an excerpt from Archives.Gov "President Harry S. Truman quickly committed American forces to a combined United Nations military effort and named Gen. Douglas MacArthur Commander of the U.N. forces. Fifteen other nations also sent troops under the U.N. command. Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a "police action." America's involvement was not a "police action" It was a war that lasted 3 long years. While Grenada was a dictatorship, the attack was unprovoked as the government had done nothing to directly attack any Forces of the United States Military, and had not attacked the U.S. You also contradicted yourself by saying they would be better off without a dictatorship, when South Vietnam was one.
U.S. Military Intervention

I accept your challenge gladly, and I hope that you will go into it with an open mind. A few questions to just get you thinking before we begin the debate: Where would Europe and Asia be without US intervention in the First and Second World Wars? What would Korea look like if we had decided not to help them defend their country? How much different would Vietnam look if we followed through and actually won the war? Would Grenada have been better off if we just left them under their dictator? I am pretty sure you know the answer to these questions, and hope you will take them into account in the debate.
Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

Keynesian economics is the idea that printing money creates economic growth, they basically think they can print their way into prosperity. This is also why the minimum wage is crap, leading to a shrinking middle class: The Fe has inflated the dollar so now we get payed sh*t wages. Stock prices are overvaluedbecause of asset infltion, caused by the exessive avalibility of cheap credit. Keynesian economics believes in subsidizing the banks p.s., notthe middle class, the fed didn't send us free money in 2008 they sent it to the banks who created more money out of thin air through fractonal reserve lendin and lent it to the government.
Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

There seems to be some confusion here. Everything mentioned about the Fed's actions in 2008 is based on supply side economics- per the conservative Bush Administration. Raising interest rates and instituting Glass-Steagall regulations are all Keynesian moves. Keynesian Economics calls for government regulation of speculative Wall Street trading, stimulus spending to the middle class and cutting tax loop holes for the rich. These are all supposedly Democratic beliefs. Which is why wages stagnated under the Republicans Nixon, Ford and Reagan. Corporations are instituting stock buyback, which is un-American. But that's not the cause of a rising stock market, it's the result.
Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

We are employing Keynesian economics today, that is why the Federal Reserve chose to print our way out of 2008 rather than addressing the real issue- speculative and irresponsible banking practices. A real solution would be to enforce the regulations se up in the Glass Steagall Act, increase intrest rates and raise the Fractional Reserve ratios, Ben Bernakie could have done all of this, but he didn't. I also want t point out to my opponent that the Middle Class went into decline and wages stagflated after the Nixxon administration: http://www.epi.org...Stock prices are rising because corpporations are loaning made-up money from the banks to buy their own stock, thus inflating its price.
Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

First off, I can't agree more with your views of American corporations. They do hoard their wealth gleaned from tax cuts and lowering their employees salary. But that's the crux of Hayak's trickle down theory. Give the rich tax breaks and incentives and they will "trickle" it down to the rest of us. But as you noted, that's not happening. Which is why Trickle Down economics doesn't work. John Maynard Keynes submits that economic output is linked to demand- not supply. You mentioned the prosperity of the 60s. At that time, we employed Keynesian economics. The top tax rate for the rich was 91%. And the middle class exploded. Then Reagan came into office and slashed rates down to 30-40%. Thus began the shrinking of the middle class and the start of our ever increasing debt. If rich people aren't investing their money in the US economy, then how has our Stock Market reached unparalleled heights? No matter what their tax rate, the rich will always invest in the US because they will make money.
Trickle Down Economics Doesn't Work

The reason why trickle down economics hasn't worked "sinceit was enacted" 30 years ago is because we have had no trickledown economics. Rich people today don't invest their money, they hoard it in a bank someplace off in Bermuda so they don't pay taxes. Corporations also do't invest their money in things that would create jobs anymore, they put it into their own stocks to rank up the stock prices and rigg the stock market. This is because companies productivity is measured by how manyy digits they take out of the economy, not by the value of the goods and services they produce; most American Corporations are just money laundering schemes in effect because they earn money literaly by fiddling with digits. his is based aroun Keynesian economics which links prosperity to the ammount of currency in circulation, as opposed tto market economics which links prosperity to the productrion of real wealth. Thus companis can make more money just by fiddling with bank ledgures, rather than producing anything, in effect factories shut down because they just aren't as profitable, and people lose their jobs. During the 60's, however, rich people invested their money in factories and things that produced real wealth, creating jobs and wealth. Thus we had a strong middle class. As you can see it is Keynesian economics which lead to the downfall of the middle class not trickle down economics.
Abortion is Generally Immoral.

I won't present any argument for round 1 but I would like to make an observation. Pro is arguing that abortion is generally immoral, but notice that even if this was the case that this doesn't justify that abortion should be illegal. I bring this up cause in my experience the more zealous anti abortion advocates are not just seeking to have people believe that abortion is immoral, what they really want is abortion to be criminalized, that a woman should not have a right, an option, a CHOICE in regard to abortion (with maybe a few exceptions). With that said over to you Pro.
Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

The human species (which is the most intelligent species on the planet) is the only species on the planet that worships God.... Hogs, dogs, asses, atheists, pond scum, and piles of feces are all on a lower intellectual platform, and that is why none of them worship God, as mature human beings with fully human intelligence always do. Remaining just like a barking dog, the atheist will never take good instruction regarding God's factual appearance and activities. Here's a related short video:
Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

What evidence do you have for the claim that "without God, racism couldn't be objectively wrong"?Again you compare atheists to pond scum, dehumanizing them. What evidence do you have that makes this comparison valid?Lower animals have no intellectual capacity to believe or disbelieve. Their opinion on the matter is practically worthless since they have no real opinion. Theism is exclusive to humanity, but so is a belief in tooth fairies, leprechauns, demons, 9/11 denialism, Sandy Hook denialism, astrology, alchemy, faith healing, flat earth, etc. You too could say that feces and slime muck are afaireists, alepuranists, and nonastrologers, yet this wouldn't get you anywhere intellectually. Just because the intellectually inferior do not believe in a claim, does not mean you should. By the same logic, you could reach infinitely many self-contradictory claims.Intelligence does not necessarily correlate to a belief in theism. If that was true we would expect theistic beliefs to be more prevalent in the highly educated. Again we see some of the most influential people in our history being nonbelievers. The atheist Alan Turing cracked the Nazi's enigma codes during WWII by building a computer, helping prevent an Aryan rule. My opponent ignores my arguments from religious knowledge and scientific occupation. Therefore, they still stand. He has failed to provide neuroscientific evidence that nonbelievers are less intelligent/intellectually deficient, nor does he present evidence that this should make atheists at the level of donkeys.http://www.thedailybeast.com...
Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

Someone wrote: "...somewhat racist." Without God, racism could not be objectively wrong. "compares a member of this site to animals as well." I guess you're right about that: It was unfair of me to compare dumb animals to believers in atheist Dogma, and for that I would like to offer my sincere and heartfelt apology -- to the animals. "To add, how come 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 51 of AAAS members believe." Human beings are the smartest species on the planet, but 0% of the dumber species, such as hogs, dogs, camels, and asses, worship God (they are all atheistic). Therefore, Theism is an exclusive characteristic of the more intelligent. Feces, bacteria, and slime-mold also doesn't worship God because they are also less intelligent than human beings: Same goes for two-legged animals that claim to believe in the lies of atheist Dogma. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Believers in atheist Dogma Are Exactly as Dumb as Animals (Shanor Is an Example)

Okay, let's enjoy this absolutely marvelous debate on whether atheists are less than animals and piles of feces, a question that if applied to a race would make the questioner somewhat racist. Let's not ignore how the very resolution of this debate compares a member of this site to animals as well. But nevertheless, that is beyond the point.My opponent is missing the key to argument; evidence. What evidence does he have for his dehumanization of atheists? How come the fact that they don't believe make them intellectually inferior? And what neuroscience supports your posistion that atheists don't have fully human intelligence?If my opponent's claims are true about atheists lacking intelligence, how come on average atheists/agnostics know more about religion then anyone else does in the US? In a survey by Pew Research Center of 3,412, on average, atheists/agnostics scored the best on religious knowledge tests, with Jews and Mormons being close behind. And to add, a great deal of Jews are merely cultural Jews.To add, how come 95% of the American public believes in God/universal spirit while only 51 of AAAS members believe. Wouldn't you expect the same people who put men on moons and study the stars to be more religious than the public under my opponents worldview? Several of the most influential people in our history have been agnostics/atheists/freethinkers, such as Hawking, Turning, Edison, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson, Sagan, Sakharov and such. This is not to say religious people aren't intelligent, for you have Newton, Collins, Galileo, Kelvin, Bacon, Lemaitre, and Boyle.http://www.pewforum.org...http://www.pewforum.org...
Be it resolved that no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms

Can We Tolerate the 2nd Amendment as Written:If we honored the 2nd Amendment as written, people would be able to own nukes, weaponized anthrax, flamethrowers, mustard gas, etcera. Who could legally own weapons of mass destruction? Everybody, including the Ku Klux Klan, the Westborough Baptist Church, the Black Panthers, and the Crips and Bloods. This would cause intolerable death and chaos. Therefore, we cannot afford to honor the 2nd Amendment as written. We can't do it. How does Pro respond when the above is pointed out? He says, "I am not arguing that people should own nukes, missiles, and the like. " He's not arguing that they should own them? He is definitely arguing that they should be allowed to own them. But we can't, as I have pointed out, allow them to own them. It would be intolerable. The cost would be far too high. In other words, when it is pointed out that Pro's plan is fatally flawed, he says, in effect, "Let's talk about something else. " He cannot defend his plan, and he does not try to. He just changes the subject. Pro's Own Plan for Infringing the Right to Bear Arms: Pro undertook to prove this resolution: "no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms. " I pointed out that that's not a reasonable blanket policy: sometimes, in some circumstances, it may be reasonable and necessary to impose some restrictions. What is Pro's response? He says that we should keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In other words, he names a specific time, right now, when we should infringe on specific people's right to bear arms. He disagrees with his own resolution. He rejects and refutes it.
Be it resolved that no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms

I apologize for not posting my round on time and for asking for a post early in my opponents turn. I regret that it may cost me a point, but it is deserved. In regard to my opponent’s first contention, I am not arguing that people should own nukes, missiles, and the like. But I am arguing is that under the current law, the government MAY NOT take away those rights at all. However, in regards to his comment about the drug cartels, laws already exist banning those items, yet the cartels have those items. Did the law stop THEM? Now, on to his second contention; He says that the original justification for the second amendment is that “the country were invaded, all the men of fighting age would grab their muskets and come to the defense of their country. ” He is correct and, except for the part of the musket, that is STILL the justification for it. My opponent has defeated his own argument with his own argument. And on to his third contention; he references the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). He says that if the second amendment were in play then it would just be BAT. In this case, I agree with him. The problem is that the second amendment is not in play. The whole problem with the current situation is that we have too many bureaus, departments, and czars with power over our right to bear arms. To this fourth contention I say that if you look at the third contention and see that his argument about the right “not coming from the second amendment” is false. The fact is that the second amendment is not in play, but should be. And finally, to his fifth contention, he said that “Public slaughter of school children and theater goers seems to be getting morepopular in our culture. He hit the nail on the headwith that statement. He pointed out the way to fix the problem. The problem is not the guns; the problem is the people. You should focus on the mental health laws of the nation, not the gun laws. In conclusion, my opponent has pointed out that the second amendment is not being practiced today. He pointed out the exact problem with the current politics of this nation. Today’s debate is about whether or not The Constitution is the law of the land or not. However, it is quite clear that it is the law of the land.
Be it resolved that no gun laws should be passed restricting the right to bear arms

Forfeiting a round is worth a conduct point. Particularly so since he set up the debate with 72 hour turns, and then spammed me with a request that I post early in my turn, and then didn't post at all during his turn. Please extend all my arguments. As I said, there may be times when circumstances recommend additional restrictions on guns. Here is an additional example: Fully automatic guns are currently illegal, and for good reasons. Among other reasons, the police don't want to have to go up against them. But semi-automatic rifles with bump stocks behave just like full-auto guns. If there are good reasons for full-auto guns to require special licences, then there are good reasons for rifles with bump stocks to be similarly restricted. The new technology warrants a new restriction.
capitalism is the best economic system

You make it seem as if robots and artificial intelligence solve everything. They do not. First of all, the fact that RBE requires an advanced AI means it cannot possibly be implemented today. Ironically, the only way to achieve such a system would rely on capitalistic principles. Again, I ask: How can an RBE produce or innovate? Your artificial intelligence and autonomous systems would be impossible to create in an RBE. On top of this, you would rely on a computer program to provide for the needs of billions of people? How would this system determine who deserves what good, how much of it, and for how long? Invariably people would clash because they are no longer in control of their own lives. You keep looking at the outcome, yet you overlook the foundation. To achieve an RBE, people's possessions and wealth would have to be violently stripped from them, then redistributed on the basis of someone's definition of "fairness". No system is self sustaining, and thus requires human involvement. But what incentive do people have to maintain or improve the system in which they live when there is no value to their labor? Then there is the issue of energy. You claim that the only reason solar energy is not widely implemented is that fossil fuels are billion dollar industries. Why do you think that is? Fossil fuels are exponentially more efficient than any renewable resource, and solar power in its state today couldn't provide a fraction of what fossil fuels can. And since fossil fuels aren't unlimited, they will always have a value. Capitalism adapts to market conditions, whereas an RBE couldn't. What if there were a natural disaster in which a major portion of food supply were wiped out? Finally, the idea of being provided for at every step of life is not only impossible, its repulsive. Even if robots could sustain themselves and provide for our every whim, what would the point of living be? Humans are supposed to innovate, to excel, to discover, to explore, to create. The only innovation in an RBE would occur when this AI forced people to by withholding food or necessities. That is what an RBE will dissolve into: mass control over the lives of people. If a person in an RBE desires more, if he wants to excel, how can he do it? He cannot improve himself because every nuance of his life is beyond his control. Therein lies the beauty of capitalism, that the offspring of a poor immigrant can rise to become millionaires. Capitalism is not based on static "classes" as many people like to assume, but rather a fluid movement of people. I think it all boils down to the fact that, yes, an RBE may provide an equality of outcome. But it destroys any notion of opportunity, individualism, and responsibility. And an RBE will inevitably degrade into a violence, because people will want to control their own lives instead of being mandated to by whoever is in power. Thank you for an intelligent discussion.
capitalism is the best economic system

An interesting prospect, however, I believe it is too idealistic. For one, who would be in charge of meting out resources to the people? One person? A central authority? Whatever the case, this person or group would have enormous power over the people in need of resources. With the abolition of money or any form of capital, you would still have the idea of value. Even in communist societies, labor and goods hold a value. You claim that RBE is different from a communist system, yet to achieve such a goal, all private property would have to be violently abolished. Suppose in a resource based economy, two consumers want the same product. Who gets it? In a traditional market, there is a healthy competition between both the consumer and the producer, resulting in the best goods at the best prices being purchased. Yet in your RBE system, who decides which person deserves what? Further, some types of labor is worth more to a society than others, so why should they be treated the same? In the RBE a doctor and a janitor would receive the same benefits, since capital is essentially abolished. Goods are meted out based on need, not based on who can afford them. Thus what incentive do people have to become doctors? What incentive do people have to excel, to truly make a difference in society, when they reap no rewards from their hard work? In the words of Milton Friedman, "The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests". This is the essence of capitalism, which presents an equality of opportunity for all and provides the notion that one can better himself through a little hard work. I personally do not want someone telling me how I can live my life, what goods I can possess, and how much I can own, as would be the case in an RBE.