BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

This is an argumentative forecast of the state of politics in the United States and European Union. My forecast is that social programs, public goods, and redistributive justice in Western civilization lack sustainability. These are expenses which bear growing deficits and debts with no turn around in sight, so eventually, they will need to be downsized and cutback. In turn, liberals will have to make a choice: 1) Either drive their societies and economies into anarchism (which even liberals don't want to do because they have some consideration over the rule of law and preserving their own social status), or 2) Become libertarians and resurrect rugged individualism and personal responsibility in order to victimize the suffering and struggling populations who are abandoned by downsizing and cutting back. To be clear, this is not a personal judgment. It says nothing about the legitimacy of liberalism, socialism, or libertarianism. It also says nothing about the status of Western civilization. It is merely a forecast that today's political liberals will become libertarians after unsustainability rears its ugly head.
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

At best, my opponent has proven that Keynesians will become Libertarians. Keynesians usually are liberal, but not all liberals are Keynesians. A liberal is simply somebody who believes in liberty and equality above all. I showed this in R1.In R2 pro claims debt exists, so therefore obviously the liberals must be to blame. I called him out on this obvious non-sequiter. Now he claims "Keynesian" policies like education spending are to blame. First, policies like this predate Keynesianism. And second, Keynesian economics has nothing to do with maximising spending - indeed in New Zealand we had a Keynesian government before the financial crisis and they were saving like crazy to counter inflation, something Keynes predicted (and which served us very well), rather than spending just because they had the money like the rest of the world did (which Keynes never advocated). And third, free labor and free trade were originally liberal policies, liberating the merchant class from the oppressive taxes of kings. Oh- and the fact that conservatives spend money on education too, you know?I provided four examples of liberal policies with an economic impact. The first two my opponent dismisses as not Keynesian. In that case the resolution should be Keynesians will become Libertarians, not liberals. The other two he claims are not long-term (why?) and not sourced. My opponent is yet to source his claim that liberal policies have actually led to any economic problems at all, so I don't feel the need to source mine. All he has sourced is that a debt crisis exists, that the US govt. spends money on loads of things (not strictly connected to liberalism) and a blog by somebody who has clearly never picked up a dictionary and looked up "liberal" or "conservative".Being a liberal doesn't mean you have to support every other liberal, nor a particular economic policy. Pro does not show why Keynes is wrong or created the financial crisis, or why libertarianism is better.Thank you.
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

Con's participation is well appreciated. However, his obsession with conservatism is still baffling. Yes, libertarians and conservatives share concerns over austerity, but liberals want to retain their identity. This debate is over fiscal policy, but in other debates over social policy, libertarians and liberals would be in agreement. As only one facet of politics, it's unclear why liberals would sway in other areas just because of problems here. His examples of sustainable liberal fiscal policy are also baffling. Conventionally, liberalism is associated with Keynesian economics. The reference to slavery and imperial liberation don't have to do with that at all. In fact, Keynesian thought coincides with import substitution industrialization which runs counter to the ideals of free labor and free trade. On the other hand, the arguments made about successful unemployment benefits and progressive taxation go unsourced, nor do they emphasize long term fiscal sustainability. I suspect they might be sourced in the final round, but that would be bad form due to the lack of opportunity for rebuttal. Lastly, the point made about liberal fiscal policies actually being conservative faults doesn't make sense. Programs such as education, health care, public pensions, public works, and welfare are explicitly liberal. The only dimension of fiscal policy which is remotely conservative is defense spending [1], but that's neoconservative, not traditionally conservative. Furthermore, defense only contains a quarter of America's federal budget, and was/is hardly a concern of European governments either throughout or since the Cold War. This neoconservative distinction is especially important since neocons are actually liberals in disguise. [2] Beyond this conservatives advocate austerity which is the opposite of debt and deficits. [1] http://www.usfederalbudget.us... [2] http://www.amconmag.com...
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

Basically he's saying that because liberals spend money they'll become libertarians. He has not shown why libertarianism and not, say, conservatism, which is equally far removed, nor has he shown why liberals will necessarily give up even if they're obviously wrong (the ongoing existance of libertarian fiscal policy proves this point), nor has he shown why not simply another form of liberalism. Primarily pro wants to onus push the BOP on me because "cutbacks and downsizing are negative conditions". That assumes that cutbacks are necessary in liberal fiscal policy, a point he has not shown. However, I am happy to demonstrate numerous examples of liberal policies being fiscally sustainable. People said that the liberals' abolition of the slave trade would ruin the US southern states. They were wrong. They said the liberal push to liberate India from Britain would ruin India's export capabilities. They were wrong. They said unemployment benefits would create mass unemployment. Even conservative economists think unemployment only went up by about 2%, liberal economists contest it's 0%. Meanwhile, wealth disparity has clearly reduced. In short, they were wrong. They said progressive taxation would ruin economies. Quite the opposite - more progressive tax has led to more equality without compromising economic development. Again, they were wrong. And so on. Pro's sources show that government debts exist. They do not link that to liberal policy, nor do they show that all liberals would support such policy. In fact, the debt crisis is largely the result of bad fiscal policy not by liberals but conservatives. There's no such thing as "the liberal fiscal policy" - there are an infinite number of combinations of government taxing and spending that serve liberal ends. Even some of the above "liberal policies" would be contested by some liberals. The resolution is negated.
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

To be clear, it's a bit insulting that Con suggested a nonsequitur synthesis between conservative and liberal social policy. The proposition is not a synthesis between conservatism and liberalism, nor does it focus on social policy. It analyzes liberal fiscal policy. Con may explain how social policy makes fiscal policy sustainable, but the focus here is on fiscal policy itself. The point about burden of proof is a bit insulting as well. The proposition here is from negative assumptions, an affirmative conclusion follows. Those negative assumptions are UNsustainability, debt, and deficits which are the ABSENCE of sustenance and matching revenues to expenses. This is not merely a matter of spending money. All governments do that, but liberalism has not proven itself to be sustainable. In turn, we should recall that burden of proof is on the affirmative. After all, something isn't recognizably true until it's proven, and it's nobody's right to enslave another's imagination to justify somebody's argument. If liberalism is sustainable, then BoP is on Con. If Con doesn't wish to argue this, Con has to argue the policy transition from liberalism to libertarianism due to the necessity of cutbacks and downsizing for sustainability (and even socialists would agree about the "crisis of capitalism" being mitigated by public goods). Again, let us remember that BoP is on the affirmative, yet cutbacks and downsizing are negative conditions, so they're safe assumptions. To finish, I will go above and beyond for the sake of the audience to clarify the assumption in the OP over debt and deficit, something which I believed was common sense in international political economy current events. However, this should be recognized as a bonus rather than a default expectation. Following are sources that demonstrate the current sovereign debt crisis: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... http://www.ecb.europa.eu... (p.15-17)
Liberals Will Become Libertarians

I'm here as a debt-opposing liberal, and a strong believer that not only is liberalism completely sustainable, but also that libertarianism is unsustainable. "Liberalism" is a term that gets tossed around a lot nowadays. In general it has two principles - liberty and equality. It can be contrasted with "Conservatism" which basically believes existing social institutions ought to be maintained, no matter how bad those institutions might be. Liberalism is a social, not an economic, policy, but it does have economic impacts. See Wikipedia for a more complete discussion of the terms if you're not sure: . http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Both of these worldviews can be interpreted in a number of ways. For example, in my country the Green and Labour parties both have broadly liberal aims but disagree on as much policy with each other as they do with the conservative parties. Similarly, our Conservative, National and Act parties are all completely different manifestations of conservatism. "Libertarianism" is broadly socially liberal but economically conservative, somehow believing that people with vastly different sums of money in their pockets can be social equals, just by letting said society be. It's unsustainable because the moment the rich figure out they can exploit the poor, they usually do, thus the social position of the poor is undermined and the society turns out classist. Such classes are inherently fragile and collapse because nobody likes them. Liberalism has nothing to do with getting into debt. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, I can't wait for him to justify what he thinks makes a liberal society necessarily collapse. "Spending money" is inadequite - spending money on WHAT, and WHY that debt cannot be recovered is what my opponent needs to show to win this debate. I wish him very good luck.
God does not exist.

Hello Ryan, I didn't expect you to be arguing Pro for the existence of God! This shall indeed be a highly interesting debate! I agree to your terms, and make a further specification, that documented citation for evidence should be allowed. Now, my first point is that, while no scientific evidence can directly disprove the existence of God anymore than it can of unicorns, in lack of supporting evidence for the existence of God, and the overwhelming volume of evidence supporting such scientific principles as M-Theory, everything for which religion tries to source 'God' may exist completely independent of the supernatural.
Foreign Powers Should Not Intervene in Syria's Civil War

Welcome to this debate between the esteemed YYW and myself, ConservativePolitico.First round is for acceptance only. Four rounds.1 week to vote.8k character limit. Foreign powers will include any sovereign group or nation outside of Syria's border.Intervene will mean any action that will influence the course of the conflict going on in Syria. Syria's Civil War refers to the ongoing conflict between rebel groups and the Assad government in the borders of Syria.If YYW accepts this debate he agrees to these definitions and terms.Good luck!
THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION

"THE SLAM BANK FORM OF CRICKET WITH ITS INDISCRIMINATE COMMERCIALIZATION IS RUINING THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE GAME" Ahhh cricket. The sport whose foundation lays within the gentlemanly pursuit of a lazy Saturday afternoon with the purpose of a rollicking good time, as the ladies looked onwards and conversed amongst themselves, applauding where necessary, and serving tea and scones as required. I assume my opponent is referring to the Indian Premier League (IPL) of the shortened version of the already shorter version of test cricket. 1.The introduction of female teams prior to the IPL (by a fair few years now) removed the pure gentlemanly arena...IPL not the cause there. 2.International teams and inherent competition fairly ruined the lazy recreational pursuit thing...IPL not the cause there. 3.Wonderful things like television and airplanes means the wives can still enjoy a good game, team change rooms, may or may not intrude on scone and tea, but that is the team rules...not IPL. There you have it; the tradition of cricket was long gone before IPL.
Drug legalization

Because it is an injustice for non violent offenders who have not hurt anybody to be fined or sent to prison. You could make the same argument about alcohol. Some people are irresponsible so we should make it illegal for everyone and send people who are not hurting anybody to prison. Things like these will happen whether drugs are legal or illegal. Bud is actually pretty easy to come by. Police should spend their time fighting to stop people who actually hurt others with their actions. Not fighting to send some guy who smokes pot every once in a while to prison. Except alcohol is illegal unless you are 21 or older. You still no where in this debate told me the legal age that you were going to make "bud" accessible. So leave it to the police to judge which drug dealers are harming others - that is ultimately what your saying. They probably sent that guy to prison because he did something reckless while he was high; people who smoke think its okay to get behind a steering wheel because some don't know their limits. My response was you made a comment about people who are violent it's different factors, I wanted to know what factors you were talking about. Also you mentioned something about Holland decriminalized marijuana but you showed me no proof of people being less violent with that statement; which was my point of writing that. One would have to consume 1/3 of one's body weight in bud in fifteen minutes for the dosage to be lethal. http://www.sirened.com... - I looked at that website and to be honest I do not believe that is a scholarly site for two reasons, one when I tried finding that information it was no where to be found on that site, and secondly no scholarly article states the drug as "bud" they right out the full word - marijuana. You have not shown any proof that government regulation will not lessen rates. And who is going to buy bud from someone off the street when they can buy it in a drugstore and know what goes into their bud ad not just take some strangers word for it? There is not a black market for alcohol or cigarettes. Why? Because people can buy them legally and without the risk and because when people buy alcohol or cigarettes from a legal place of business they have a sense of security that what they are buying is more safe than if they had bought it from some guy off the street. - You have not shown me anything in which they law they would like to be put in place. In that you would need to verify age and a couple of other factors especially for the people that would like to go into these pharmacies and just "buy bud" as you put it. Except people still buy alcohol and cigarette's of the street if they are not of age - so once again legalizing drugs teens and young adults are still going to have to go to these random guys on the street to get "their fix' Thanks for the debate!!
Drug legalization

"If this is going to happen regardless or not what is the point of making it legal? So it can be made more accessible for people, or as you put it making sure the customers aren't getting the pot that is laced? Either way like you said things like this would happen if drugs are legal or not - why go through all the trouble of fighting to make it legal then? " Because it is an injustice for nonviolent offenders who have not hurt anybody to be fined or sent to prison. You could make the same argument about alcohol. Some people are irresponsible so we should make it illegal for everyone and send people who are not hurting anybody to prison. Things like thise will happen whether drugs are legal or illegal. Bud is actually pretty easy to come by. Police should spend their time fighting to stop people who actualy hurt others with their actions. Not fighting to send some guy who smokes pot every once in a while to prison. ============================================================================ "You said it yourself its not legal its "decriminalized" and also like you stated "several other factors" There are many other factors at play besides making drugs legal. It's not drugs that need to be legal it has something to do with the people as well. " I'm not sure exactly what your argument is supposed to be here. I can't understand what it is you are trying to say so unfortunately I cannot respond. ============================================================================ "Can you show me proof please that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana? Was this actually stated somewhere because at the bottom your discussing marijuana related deaths; were those deaths due to overdose, can you provide me with the study or the full article you found this is. " One would have to consume 1/3 of one's body weight in bud in fifteen minutes for the dosage to be lethal. . http://www.sirened.com... ============================================================================ "My argument is once again people are not responsible, but as you stated things like this are going to happen regardless. Government regulation though doesn't lessen the rates; the customers can still buy it and lace it themselves and possibly even sell it for profit - what is stopping them from selling their product after they buy it. " You have not shown any proof that government regulation will not lessen rates. And who is going to buy bud from someone off the street when they can buy it in a drugstore and know what goes into their bud ad not just take some strangers word for it? There is not a black market for alcohol or cigarretes. Why? Because people can buy them legally and without the risk and because when people buy alcohol or ciarretes from a legal place of business they have a sense of security that what they are buying is more safe than if they had bought it from some guy off the street.
Drug legalization

I am talking about a case in which an addict feeds his addition because he knows he can't get help because he may be arrested. I am saying that legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem. - So you are saying "legalizing drugs will take away this specific problem" do you have any proof? Or are you making an assumption based on what you think may happen? To me that doesn't sound like it's going to solve the problem it sounds to me your supposing this would work. How do you know no one can be responsible? And I am not advocating legalizing drugs for children. This would have happened regardless if drugs were legal or not. - If this is going to happen regardless or not what is the point of making it legal? So it can be made more accessible for people, or as you put it making sure the customers aren't getting the pot that is laced? Either way like you said things like this would happen if drugs are legal or not - why go through all the trouble of fighting to make it legal then? I cannot adequately show that because drugs are still illegal in the United States. I could show violent crime rates in countries like Holland which have at least decriminalized marijuana but there are several other factors at work and many differences between Holland and the U.S. - You said it yourself its not legal its "decriminalized" and also like you stated "several other factors" There are many other factors at play besides making drugs legal. It's not drugs that need to be legal it has something to do with the people as well. There were over 37,000 alcohol related deaths just last year in the U.S.[1] It is impossible to overdose on marijuana. True one can be harmed by smoking it(same as cigarettes) or have accidents related to intoxicating effects(same as alcohol) but marijuana related deaths every year in the U.S. are much lower than alcohol or cigarette related deaths. -Can you show me proof please that it is impossible to overdose on marijuana? Was this actually stated somewhere because at the bottom your discussing marijuana related deaths; were those deaths due to overdose, can you provide me with the study or the full article you found this is. I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be here. If the student knew the bud was laced then that is there right to ingest it just as it is one's right to ingest large amounts of alcohol or smoke three packs a day. If they did not know then that just reinforces my point that government regulation of drugs will cause less rates of lacing and that the govt. can regulate what is grown or sold. - My argument is once again people are not responsible, but as you stated things like this are going to happen regardless. Government regulation though doesn't lessen the rates; the customers can still buy it and lace it themselves and possibly even sell it for profit - what is stopping them from selling their product after they buy it.