BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government exists to help the poor.

At the request of my opponent, I will clarify this debate. This is a debate about all government. I opened with the preamble to the United States constitution because the preamble says everything that our current government was created for. Obviously, government was created by the people to improve the people, or there would be no government. The topic concerns the less affluent. Government was not created to help the poor. The United States government as an example was not created to help the poor. It was decided by the Supreme Court about a hundred years later that the government could even create programs that idd that. For future reference, my internet connection sometimes has issues. That explains anytime that I might not respond in time. Government was created for defense. The Roman Empire grew because of it's ability to conquer people without organised government. The Roman Government was military-based, and it lacked any sort of programs to help the poor, as did most early governments. It became futile to not have a country with government. The idea that the government had a duty to take from the rich and give to the poor was worded by a few people recently, such as Marx, Lenin, Roosevelt, and Castro. This was a new idea, and the governments that used it had already been created. Therefore, government was not created to help the less-affluent. I will allow you to redo your argument as requested because my parameters were hardly defined.
Government exists to help the poor.

First to give this debate the proper character it needs, I would like to ask my opponent some specifics about the debate topic. 1. Could you please define "poor" so we have a proper parameter to argue. 2. Could you also let me know whether you mean the concept of government in general, or the United States government. The reason I asked is because you brought up both the US government and the old Roman government. 3. Also do you mean that government solely exists to help the poor, or do you mean that governments existence in no way to help the poor? I apologize if the following does not suit the parameter of the debate and will make the necessary changes to my argument upon my opponents clarification of the three above points. Poor is a very relative term, Poor can mean having a lower income than average poor can mean having a lower intelligence than average poor can mean having a lower amount of protection than average. .. etc. Government (at least in the United States) has a number of jobs 1. Defense of the country 2. Welfare programs and programs for those who cant afford health care 3. Enforcing minimum wage 4. Homeless shelters 5. School Systems 6. Other Public services 7. Carrying out justice. So really when you do consider it, government (at least the US government) exists to help the poor, whether it be those who are poor in money, poor in education, poor in defense, poor in health, poor in justice. I'm sorry if was not the correct debate you wanted, if you could clarify exactly what you meant, I will argue from there. Really, in the United States, people pay taxes. The government then uses that tax money to fund programs that help the poor. Therefore the United States government exists to help the poor.
Government exists to help the poor.

Let's start by reading the purpose of our own government according to our constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." By establishing the constitution, the founders established our government. The only reason named that could possibly suggest that our government exists only to help the poor is "promote the general Welfare", which meant (when our government was established) to promote the common good, not to help the poor, thich is a more modern definition. In other situations, the government was never created to help the poor. Instead, the government exists to protect the people. That was the purpose of the Roman Empire, which never existed to help the poor. They never even did much of anything to help the poor. So, to assume that government exists to help the poor is a rash and radical assumption, that has historic examples that continue to disprove it. Instead, it is the church's job to help the poor. The church has always existed to help the poor and unify humble people to help others and worship in the way they please. I enjoy the prospect of this debate. Let's keep it clean. In order for you to win this debate, you must prove that "Government exists to help the poor."
Natural Selection method cannot build a design of moderate sophistication

thank you for accepting the challenge. However, you have not shown me an example of designing something of moderate complexity using the design method of small incremental changes which is what this debate is about. This debate is NOT about whether the human body could be designed in a better way. It is solely about the power of the designing something from scratch using this method. Please pick a mechanical design of moderate sophistication such as a watch or motor, etc with any range of bolts, nuts, screw, metal plates, springs, etc. and show me how to build your contraption in tiny incremental steps such that it adds advantageous usefullness at each step or two
Natural Selection method cannot build a design of moderate sophistication

This is not a debate about evolution but rather about the design method of small incremental changes which are then selected due to being advantageous. As an engineer, I would like to assert that this kind of method of design cannot produce any kind of mechanical design of moderate sophistication FROM SCRATCH. By moderate sophistication, I mean something like a motor, which has many interdependent parts. Another example would be a mechanical watch which also has many moving parts. I would like to see something of similar sophistication being designed in TINY incremental steps such that each step adds useful functionality.
Natural Selection method cannot build a design of moderate sophistication

sigh* I have never met someone who cannot understand the point I am making. you cannot compare two things, i.e. living things and nonliving things, without seeing fundamentally different properties making it very time wasting to compare the two. with life, they seek out energy to grow and reproduce, they have cells, and respond to stimuli. with non life, they cannot move on their own, they cannot grow and reproduce, they don't have cells, and they cannot respond to stimuli. your reasoning is a waste. next time, ask for evidence of it not being done by a creator or a conscious force.
Natural Selection method cannot build a design of moderate sophistication

I explained: "you are comparing machines, non-living things that have to be moved by forces or living things, to living things, things that can move on there own accord, and can reproduce. when you find a car, or a watch, or a building that can reproduce and move on its own accord, we can compare the two in this instance. but none have been found." as I said, you simply cannot compare machines to living things, as they are fundamentally different. also, your position as an engineer should not give you authority over what biologists study, just because you can make a false comparison. the reasoning behind it is fine, but false in context.
The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections

As you stated, this is an issue of voter turnout. If there was one amazing candidate, an Abraham Lincoln, for example, the voter turnout would have been much greater. Many voters thought of this election as being the lesser of two evils, and they didn't really have a good option. That is the reason for the low turnout. To alleviate this, both sides need better candidates. I guess this would provoke the question of the definition of "better" in regards to a candidate. For simplicity's sake, I will say that a better candidate is one that appeals to the views of a large majority of voters. American voters are tired of hearing about God, don't want politicians regulating their bodies, and don't want to prevent gay couples from being married. This is why Republicans and Independents, especially the younger ones, are not coming out to vote. The Democrats' economic policies are devastating, and the Republicans' social views are against what they believe in. So the question is: Would the Republicans lose more votes than they'd gain by abandoning their views on abortion, traditional marriage, and strong religious ties? Mitt Romney was right in the middle of abandoning the social views and being very strict towards them. This was the worst spot to be in, because he lost both the evangelicals and the independents. Either way, the Republicans need to pick and stick to a side. Because of the views of younger voters, going further to the right on social issues will lose more new voters as they come to voting age. I believe you are arguing that since the election was pretty close, the Republican party doesn't need to change, but just need a more likable candidate. I'm sure that has something to do with it, but looking at the long term, Republicans will be less and less likable as they will continue to be painted as the party that doesn't care about women, gays, the poor, etc.
The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections

I will not refute your arguments in this round. Rather, I will present my own arguments. First, a look at the numbers. I will focus on the Presidential election. All information from http://en.wikipedia.org... The voter turnout was 57.5%-60% of eligible voters. The total number of votes was 123090566. If we look at the total number of votes possible, 205150943 (if we consider the voter turnout to be 60%), it is clear that that amount of voters could have voted for Romney. The difference in total votes is 3815404. This is only a difference of >4 million. However, more than 200 million voters did not vote. What does this tell us? Simply that people are not voting. Why? We don"t know for sure, but a laziness to vote is a plausible factor. In percentages, Obama won by 50.7% of votes cast, but only 30.9% of total possible votes! Now let"s go into the states. Obama won by two states and DC. That is a mere 50.9% of the states. Now we will get into electoral votes. Obama won 332 electoral of 538 total. This translated to percentages is 61.7%. Isn"t this inane? A person wins only slightly above half the votes cast, and one third of total votes possible, but has ten points more electoral votes than votes cast! These numbers show clearly that the U.S. electoral system is broke. Not the Republican Party. Moving on to the Republican party itself. Why did it lose? Well, I doubt it was because of the policies proposed. After all, these same policies are what gave the Republicans a majority in the house. I would propose that it is due to the personality of the candidate himself that is the problem. Obama has public oratory skills which Romney does not have. That is all I have to say for now. So in conclusion, I would like to say that the U.S. electoral system allows for Obama to win by a very small popular votes margin but by a large electoral votes margin. This is no indicator of the failure of the republican social policies, but it is a sure indicator of the failure of the ability of the candidate to connect with the current generation. With that, I turn it over to you to refute my ideas before I refute yours.
The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections

Now that the US elections have passed, many Republicans are torn by which direction to take the party, if any at all. Some are saying that the reason that Mitt Romney lost was that he went too far towards the middle. Glenn Beck, for one, refuses to admit "defeat" on social conservatism and implies that if Romney would have stuck with strict social conservative values, especially traditional marriage and abortion, then more evangelicals would have come out to vote. While this may be true, a few more evangelical voters would not have made much of a difference. The fact of the matter is that the Republicans are losing more and more young, minority, and women voters. This is a problem that Republicans must face. By becoming even more extreme on Christian values, even more voters will be isolated until only old, white men would consider themselves Republicans. 62% of Independents and 70% of American between 18 and 44 believe that gay couples should be either allowed to marry or form a civil union[1]. That is a statistic that cannot be ignored. I doesn't even need to be a change of beliefs. The GOP has always been the party for smaller government and less regulation. Why, then, do they feel the need to impose regulations on gay marriage and abortion? They need to effectively ignore the issues when presented the question and show that their personal beliefs do not automatically mean that they are for imposing laws for or against such acts. The government should not have a say in such issues. This is also true with religion. The number of Americans affiliating themselves with no religion is on the rise, while those affiliating themselves with Protestant beliefs are on the decline[2]. From my own views from peers on Facebook and comments on blogs, videos, etc, even just hearing "God" in a political speech makes them cringe. I would consider myself a Christian, but even for me, it's getting tiresome hearing Christianity referenced so much in politics. If the Republicans change their tone, stop talking about God, abortion, and gay marriage, they will isolate much fewer voters and will be able to pick up more Independents and young voters. [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... [2] http://www.usatoday.com...
The Republicans must move away from their social values to win elections

I realize I need not refute your arguments in the opening round because anything of worth has been repeated. So. Onto the arguments. You assert emphatically that "...American voters are tired of hearing about God, don't want politicians regulating their bodies, and don't want to prevent gay couples from being married..." Can you give unbiased references to this. The opinions of a few people notwithstanding, this has never been corroborated and is actually opposed to the actual statistics. For example, [1] 46% of Americans believe in creationism. This is an increase of 2% over thirty years. Hardly getting tired of hearing about God. The others are logical extrapolation of the data, since that is what creationists believe. It is thus evident that the assertion regarding tiredness of rhetoric is absolutely false. I agree with you that better candidates are needed. However, I find the possibility of new good candidates are very few and far between considering the statistics. The statistics shows that Americans generally have an IQ below the normal average [2]. The possibility of getting a higher IQ person is not as high as in other countries. I view better candidates as those having a higher IQ. It is thus not as likely to get a better candidate. Furthermore, if the Republican Party shifts their social ideology to fit the liberal ideology, almost 46% of americans would stop voting for them and either cease voting or vote for the libertarians (Which is about the best they can get). If the Republican pick the liberal side, they would be right in the heart of the Democratic Party"s bastion. This would be destructive to the very core of the Republicans. Should Republicans abandon their social values because of some strong criticism from their opponents? I think not. Here"s why. Abandoning their values with such criticism only goes to show that Republicans have no backbone. Who is going to vote for a spineless party? At the very end, I will address the issue of Abraham Lincoln. Despite his hero status in the present, Lincoln did not win the election by an outright majority. [3] Of course, since this was an election with four running, one have to admit the possibility of having a lower majority win. So, from [3], we can clearly see that Lincoln only won by about 40% of all votes cast. His closest rival won by ~30%. It is not worth looking at the election for his second term [4]. From all these information, it is clear that my first arguments stand. This is because if the republicans abandoned their current ideology, they would lose a vast percentage of their current votes, which they would have to try to regain by entering into solidly held democratic ground. Now back to you. For now. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. http://www.abytheliberal.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obama should be in the BBC's TV Debates, alongside Cameron, Miliband, Clegg & Farage

The BBC debates' purpose is for undecided Britons to listen to each political parties' view. Thus, they can decide to vote. Having Obama included in the debates would achieve nothing, no one can vote for him. And, he does not and should not have a say in how Briton is run for he is the president of a different country. Also, for him to appear on British television unopposed by a US party would be propaganda. Impractical, controversial and will probably prove unsuccessful if put in practise.
Obama should be in the BBC's TV Debates, alongside Cameron, Miliband, Clegg & Farage

http://www.bbc.co.uk...David Cameron said he would not be a part of the TV debates unless the Greens were invited, because of course it would be completely unfair if we didn't also have parties who haven't achieved anything in the debates.Then the Greens were invited (well, just one to be precise). & now Mr Cameron says that Northern Ireland parties should be represented in the debates, but I say by extension we should also have Barack Obama represented at the debates. For one, nobody from his party is represented in the debates (even if not everyone in Britain can vote for him), and for 23456 etc, we don't have any black leaders in the debates yet, because as quotas have taught us, we need to care about what skin colour our representatives have, because otherwise that'd be racist. Not to mention that Obama has more power than all the leaders currently in the debates COMBINED! Talk about the BiasBC! Thank you.
logic is cause and effect

by the apple in my hand, i can tell if its good to eat, logic=matter=true i like that you guys think you are somehow right about anything you say, while not even science has a foot in this gigantic spaceship from way beyond a cause is a cause, define a cause and you have defined them all for the definition to fit a cause mental emotions are 50/50, while there is only 1 true positive emotion, its joy.. joy us pure only statements can be true or false? is an apple a statement? sound is not a statment you simply... can not have an uncaused condition.. demonstrate an uncaused condition of any kind does exist the house and tsunami is an example of a mystery, logic is true franks action is the cause that the coin landed tails by his actions.. very simple really male=boy(clearly not causation unless you want to argue that being male causes you to be a boy) no concession.. logic is absolute, logic is true, there is no true without cause and effect logic=log i see logic is true, reason is fantasy i have utterly refuted anything you have said.. awaiting my unchallenged profs to be refuted in any way you are con... you show why i am wrong, i have no burden if you have no counter to present
logic is cause and effect

fantasy=reason, not logic ok so, is it moral for a mother to feed her child a poisonous non existent mushroom? my point is simply without the mushroom you cant determine that, the mushroom or health of apple determine wheather or not they are good to eat it isnt necessary to define more then 1 cause to define a cause there is logic of the mind, like love has to end with pain reason=logic experience of it logic=cause effect "my opponent contradicts the resolution: 'The cause you are at the library might not be logic at all'. He concedes that a cause may not be logic." intent is mental cause, mental is not true, logic is true... you have a point, but to argue that reason is logic is the same as arguing white is black.. because white can not exist without black, so on that level it is true that reason is logic, but its also true that truth is lies, because i cant tell a lie without truth.. to me this all adds up to a not so usefull equation or way to look at it but it is necessary to know.. see it? its a level of, is is not, there is no is without the perception of not, but on this level anything you say is true.. rabbits cant exist without white, stones are rabbits because of the necessety of the existence of matter for them to exist at all, but no one argues that stones are rabbits.. i have no idea if you can understand what im saying here there is no condition without a cause, i dont understand how you think there is a difference.. i dont see an argument in your example 2 both the tsunami and tornado are necessary conditions to consider for the house to keep standing franks action was necessary for the coin to land tails, and if frank never flipped the coin, it would have never been tails by his actions you cant have an action without a cause or a reaction without an effect "Finally, my opponent responds to my last argument by saying 'which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic'. This is another concession. He has admitted that there are examples of cause and effect that are not logic." you didnt talk about causation are you only certain of your physical experience? no life and death is certain how is it logical that unicorns are fluffy? have you seen a unicorn i have refuted everything you have said so far.. only 1 example of a cause is sufficient to define all causes
logic is cause and effect

logic is true, predictions are unknown there is no necessety of motion in fantasy, no logic, reason is the opposite of logic.. i want to show an example to clarify my position because i agree you can not study how to reason correctly without logic, so: poison=unhealthy logical=dont eat poisonous things to stay healthy illogical=eat poisonous things to stay healthy(wrong) (effects) we can not change logic, you can change how you percieve logic, only by reasoning wrong, logic has no flaws you already have a true example of a cause and effect relation with the rain causing a state to be weathered, you dont need any further, because they will all fit the same defintion. 1 defines them all, as any cause is a cause a cause is natural, mechanical, or supernatural btw.. specified by intent or random by chaos specified cause(intent, choice)+effect=order so the cause you are at the library might not be logic at all, but simply reasoning... order+chaos=the sum of all logic Example 2: i wouldnt argue that you can work if you dont exist, had not been born, because it would be illogical, which goes against cause and effect Example 3: they are both necessary conditions because the house cant take a hit like that, and the house isnt there after it, if the wave and tsunami didnt hit, the house could be there and would be there or atleast be able to be there john is the cause of what? what made the moving ball move, unspecified nature is causation, cause and effect has no beginning and end for it to exist cause and effect is necessety of motion, because there are no causeless effects, there is no punch from a non existent puncher.. cause+cause=motion random cause+effect=chaos(any non intended cause) chaos+order=the sum of all logic seams to me you agree, you are just specifing causes and effect to demonstrate logic to me, in the scenario with the coin and marble action=cause reaction=effect intuition is reasoning boy=male you are saying, being a boy dosnt cause that one is a male, which is to say its not about cause and effect.. but it might still be logic logic=(is)log i see=sense=IS=true=absolute=know=certain know=hysical experience