BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An atheist can also be an agnostic

Well...I'm not really sure if that was a statement of acceptance or an actual argument. I'll just respond to it briefly before outlining my main argument. Definitions for this debate were outlined in Round 1 and come from the Oxford English Dictionary, with one minor exception. OED did not have a definition for "theist," but had the following definition for "theism": Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. Therefore, a theist is one who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe. The prefix a- means not or without. So, since theism is the belief in god(s), a-theism means NOT having a belief in god(s), OR without belief in god(s). If a person does not believe a specific claim, it does not necessarily follow that the person believes the opposite. It doesn't even necessarily mean that they believe that the claim is wrong, they just aren't convinced of its correctness. OK, on to my argument. The reason that one can be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist, for that matter) is because theism/atheism and gnostic/agnostic are statements on two very different positions. One of belief, and one of knowledge. Essentially, they answer different questions. Whether one is an atheist or theist depends on their answer to the question: "Do you BELIEVE that one or more gods exist?" If the answer is yes, they are a theist; if the answer is anything but yes, they are an atheist. And once again, not having belief in the existence of gods is not the same thing as holding the belief that gods do not exist. Whether one is gnostic or agnostic depends on their answer to the question: "Do you know, or claim to know that one or more gods exist?" "Gnostic" means "relating to knowledge," so if one claims knowledge one way or another, they are a gnostic atheist or gnostic theist. If they don't claim knowledge, or even doubt whether such knowledge is possible, they are agnostic atheists or agnostic theists. An agnostic is not someone who believes that the likelihood of gods existing is 50/50, agnosticism doesn't deal with belief at all.
An atheist can also be an agnostic

I am Pro, you are Con. BoP is shared. Pro will attempt to show that an atheist can also be an agnostic, Con will attempt to show that an atheist cannot also be an agnostic. Rnd 1- acceptance Rnd 2- opening arguments from both sides, no rebuttals Rnd 3- rebuttals to opening arguments, new arguments may be brought up Rnd 4- rebuttals to any previous arguments, new arguments may be brought up Rnd 5- final rebuttals, recap of each side's arguments, no new arguments The following definitions will be used: Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God Theist: A person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe Disbelief: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real Belief: An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof Gnostic: Relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge
Andrew Luck should win the Offensive Rookie of the Year for the 2012 season

As Ore_Ele knows, my argument is mostly based on a few basic facts: 1) Luck was leaned on a WHOLE lot more than the other two competing rookies (Wilson and RG3). This is because of the amazing running games of the Seahawks and Redskins. The level of responsibility in the offense of the other two was way below what was put on Luck's shoulders, and the regular-season statistics reflect that - Luck had 627 attempts for 4,374 yards. Compare that to RG3 (393 attempts for 3,200 yards) and Wilson (393 attempts for 3,113 yards). 2) Luck's team was the worst in the league last year, yet he had them in playoff contention for the entire season (Wilson and RG3 had to fight back at the end for the wild card). This is unbelievable, for a rookie to mean this much to a team that a change of that magnitude is possible. Wilson's and RG3's successes have more to do with circumstance than incredible QB play, as the Seahawks have a monstrous defense (particularly the secondary) and the Redskins barely needed to crack .500 to get to the playoffs in a very weak division. Luck's main flaw was interceptions, but with the incredible amount of time he was on the field throwing the ball, that's understandable. Luck has no weapons, no running game, no defense, and no shoulder to lean on but his own. It's fair to assume that if we shuffled these players around as to what teams drafted them, Luck's position would only be strengthened and there's now WAY a Wilson or RG3 would be getting Indy into the playoffs this season. http://espn.go.com... This is a statistical resource for NFL QBs. Some statistics of interest: Passing attempt leaders: 5. Andrew Luck 25. RG3 26. Russell Wilson Yards: 7. Andrew Luck 22. RG3 23. Russell Wilson Rushing yards leaders: 2. Marshawn Lynch (Seattle) 3. Alfred Morris (Washington) 21. Vick Ballard (Indy) When RG3 got hurt, Kirk Cousins was able to win without him because he's just not that important. Similarly, Beast Mode and one of the best defenses around would probably be fine in Seattle without Wilson. But in Indy, it's not even worth showing up if Luck isn't going to be carrying the team on his shoulders, which he's poised to do for the next decade. And that's another important consideration; health. We saw what happens to duel-threat QBs with Michael Vick and RG3's health issues; Wilson will likely suffer the same fate very soon. Luck is a franchise QB for the next 10-15 years, while RG3 and Russell Wilson are probably this year's Tarvaris Jackson, Daunte Culpepper, Vince Young-type of player who shows up young, healthy, and explosive and then is worn-down quickly after taking vicious hits from linebackers game after game. Vince Young made the Madden cover a few years ago, now he can't even hold a BACK-UP QB position without losing it. Duel-threat QBs simply aren't worth isht except for quick bursts when they are very young.
Andrew Luck should win the Offensive Rookie of the Year for the 2012 season

I am challenging Rob to this debate because we need more sports debates and this is a position that he's held for a while I will be arguing that Luck should not win the award. To keep comparisons easy, I will only be comparing to other QBs, namely RG3 and Russell Wilson. Please note that we will be arguing on who "should" not necessarily who "will." This should be a semantic free debate as it should be clear what the intent and heart of the debate is. Rob may go first if he wishes. Thank you.
Keynsian Economics

1. The Marshall Plan was used to provide World War II damaged countries monetary funding so they could rebuild economically. The key basis of Keynesian economics is that the central government provides money in times of recession to stimulate economic activity. In the case of the Marshall Plan, that funding did not come directly from the central governments of the many countries damaged by World War II, but rather from the United States. 2. The sources in the article my opponent cited concerning the Reagan Tax Cuts were either unable to be found, vaguely cited, or self reported, self reporting being particularly important to note since it leaves any study subject to confirmation bias. Also, during one of his rebuttals, my opponent claimed that "The fact that the debt increased is irrelevant as we were fighting a cold but potentially hot war." yet in his opening argument, my opponent cited what is called the Ricardo Effect, which states that consumer confidence decreases during times of deficit spending due to concerns of a large national debt, which, according to him, prevent economic growth and development during times of recession. 3. My opponent has once again failed to cite a source for his claim of Chairman Paul Volcker dramatically raising interest rates to fight inflation. 4. My opponent makes another claim regarding the Smoot-Hawley Tarrif, saying that it's repeal provide significant relief. Again, no source is cited. 5. In his claims concerning Bill Clinton's economic policy, my opponent has tried to use Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not a valid source since its content can easily be altered by anyone with an account. Based on the evidence, it is clear that Keynesian Economics is an effective economic policy. Historical evidence shows that Keynesian economic policies produce the most growth, as was shown during the Great Depression, World War II, and afterwards until the Stagflation Crisis happened. Since that point in time, the United States government has largely used Supply-Side economics as their economic policy, which has not produced the kind of economic growth seen under Keynesian Economic policy, and shows little evidence of improving the current state of the United States economy. With that in mind, when all else is said and done, it is clear that Keynesian Economics is a good economic policy, and one that the United States government should continue to use as a guide for its own economic policy.
Keynsian Economics

1. My opponent asks that I answer the question of what the economic state of the USA would be had WWII never happened. I do not answer "what ifs" regarding history because the fact is, they happened the way they did, and there is no way to change the past. 2. The Marshall Plan was to aid other countries impacted by WWII. I do not see how that is relevant to the Keynesian debate. 3. Evidence for the Reagan Tax Cuts: . http://www.heritage.org... -Tax revenues increased. -GDP surged -The fact that the debt increased is irrelevant as we were fighting a cold but potentially hot war. 4. My opponent addresses that during the first two years of Reagan's presidency, unemployment was high. This is because Volcker utilized monetary policy to dramatically increase interest rates to fight inflation. "The Price of Liberty" 5. My opponent addressed that "The unemployment rate did fall by 1984, it was due to the fact that Reagan increased spending by forty percent during his first term. " However, much of this spending was military spending and it is impossible to prove causality in this case. 6. If Keynes had his way, he would not have allowed free trade. This is directly against what modern economics says, and it is largely believed that the repealing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff helped provide significant relief. . http://www.thenation.com... 7. Bill Clinton was the most fiscally conservative president we have ever had. He instituted heavily contractionary policy and made America more business friendly. This is not Keynesian policy. . http://en.wikipedia.org... In conclusion, Keynesian Economics does not work, at least not as well as does Austrian and Monetary economics does. It has harsh side effects, provides few long term positive effects, and is not economically feasible for the long term. Furthermore, the points where a good economy correlated with Keynesian Policy are just that, correlation. I have not seen any evidence that supports causality. Furthermore, it is possible that the expansionary spending policies of Keynes were only possible BECAUSE of the good economies. In other words, the policies may not have actually caused the good economic times.
Keynsian Economics

Firstly, my opponent stated that at the end of World War II, the reason for the economic boom was due to the fact that the United States was the only country not damaged by the effects of World War II. I ask that my opponent address the question of whether or not that statement would have held true had World War II never happened to begin with, as well as provide evidence to support his claim. Also, my opponent stated that Germany had managed to rebuild it's economy over the course of a decade post World War II using principles of free-market economics; the source my opponent cited, however, did not provide any links to back up the author's claims. Furthermore, My opponent fails to mention the long term economic impact of the Marshall Plan, an economic act by the United States government to provide economic aid to European countries damaged by World War II. Source: http://eh.net... Secondly, my opponent stated that during Ronald Reagan's administration, there was a Laffer Effect due to Regan lowering the top tax rates, thus increasing revenue. Such a statement requires evidence, of which my opponent has not provided. Furthermore, my opponent has still disregarded the fact that during Regan's and H.W. Bush's administrations, the unemployment rate was still higher on average than it was during Bill Clinton's administration, during which time, Keynesian Economics was practiced. Source:http://data.bls.gov... Finally, there are some issues that need to be addressed. During the first half of Reagan's first two years in office, the unemployment rate rose to a high of 10.8 percent; source cited above. While the unemployment rate did fall by 1984, it was due to the fact that Ronald Regan increased spending by forty percent during his first term, and borrowed more money than previous presidents, increasing public debt at the time by 91 percent. Also, that time period was marked by a dramatic decrease in federal interest rates as a result of the stagflation crisis largely ending due to a number of factors. Sources: Spending Under Regan:http://www.factcheck.org... Federal Interest Rates:http://www.tradingeconomics.com... Stagflation:http://useconomy.about.com...
Keynsian Economics

Firstly, post WWII, the United States experienced an unprecedented boom that was in large part because we were the only country left undamaged by the war. I doubt any economic policy could have changed that, and you can definitely not prove that it was because of Keynesian policies. Secondly, in Germany post WWII, after the nation was destroyed, it underwent an economic "miracle". Did they use Keynesian Economics, no. In fact, they took away price controls, lowered taxes, and removed government interference in the economy. This put their economy back on the map in ten years. http://www.econlib.org... Next, you stated that supply side economics taught that the supply of money increased, the economy would grow. However, this is just flat wrong. It teaches that boosting aggregate supply would grow the economy because it would increase production in the long term (Say's Law). Plus, Reagan's time period saw a Laffer Effect because they lowered taxes and it increased revenue from the top income class. Another advantage of supply side economics. Furthermore, during the Reagan administration, the supply of money actually shrank because chairman Volcker dramatically increased the inflation left over from the Carter administration (which, by the way, was run on a Keynesian system as well). Source: The Price of Liberty Furthermore, during administrations run by supply side policies, the unemployment rate steadily declined. It only went up during H.W. Bush's term because of a recession and federal reserve actions of Alan Greenspan. It went back down when Bernanke took over the Fed. http://data.bls.gov...
Keynsian Economics

Keynesian Economics is the economic theory proposed by John Maynard Keynes, which in its most basic interpretation, suggests that during times of economic decline, the central government should spend tax revenue to fund projects that would stimulate the overall economy. The idea first came to prominence during the Great Depression when then president Franklin D. Roosevelt, used it as the primary basis of his New Deal proposal, which funded several large scale projects designed to provide large numbers of people with work, thus providing them with money they would then spend, thus putting money back into the national economy, thus stimulating economic growth. My opponent has pointed out that in 1937, amidst concerns that government spending and debt levels were getting out of hand, congress tried to have government spending reduced which ended up resulting in a recession that was stopped the next year after many of those government programs were reinstated. What my opponent fails to mention is the overall state of the economy after World War II, which experienced strong growth from 1945 through 1971, during which time, the government largely used Keynesian Economics as a model for their fiscal and monetary policy. After Ronald Regan was elected president, the United States government began using supply side economics, a theory that suggests that when the supply of money is increased, particularly for those of higher incomes, then more money would be spent, thus stimulating the economy. In practice, this has been shown to be ineffective, as unemployment during times when supply side economics has been practiced has on average, been higher than during times when Keynesian Economics was practiced. Source:http://data.bls.gov... It is based on those factors that, I argue, Keynesian Economics is the superior economic model, and thus the one that should be used to determine a government's fiscal and monetary policy.
Keynsian Economics

Alright, I will begin. 1. The Great Depression: It is not uncommon that I hear that the Great Depression/New Deal was a success story for Keynesians. However, if you look at the data, something strange pops out. In 1938, the republicans got irritated with the large national debt (30%+ of the nation's GDP, higher than it had ever been in times of peace), and they put pressure on FDR to cut back his programs to save the nation's financial state. What do you think happened? Well, the economy went backwards proportionally to the amount cut. Yes, some could say that this shows that the fiscal stimulus was working. However, it shows me that the massive fiscal stimulus had no positive long term effects. They did not create any increase in AD (Aggregate Demand) past what was being put into the economy. 2. The Ricardo Effect The Ricardo Effect shows that deficit spending reduces consumer confidence in times of prosperity. This is because people become frightened when they see a large national debt looming overhead. Thus, they are less likely to engage in risky financial activity that could potentially lead to dramatic increases in technology. Increase in technology is one of the best features of times of prosperity, and the short term solutions that Keynesian governments engage in during recession prevents this. Furthermore, even more than the abstract lack of consumer confidence during prosperity, the government is likely to raise taxes to pay off the debt, or more accurately the interest, accumulated as a result of the fiscal stimulus. Taxes lead to deadweight loss in the economy, and they are a tangible way to see how deficit spending during times of recession can lead to dampened prosperity. 3. AD(Aggregate Demand) and AS(Aggregate Supply) Keynes placed a huge importance on AD. This is important; I am not even going to bother trying to argue against it. However, he placed little importance on AS. Both are important in an economy because, as Say's law states, "Aggregate Supply creates its own Aggregate Demand." By engaging in policies that will increase the Aggregate Supply of goods in the country, more people will be hired to produce the supply of goods. Therefore, these people will have additional income thus increasing the AD. I will rest for now. Sorry for misspelling Keynesian(I dropped the e and did not realize it.)
The history of the world is just made of biographies of great men.

I just realized tha part of the resolution has yet to be defined. As so I will do it now. Man: (A)a member of the species Homo sapiens or all the members of this species collectively, without regard to sex(B)the human individual as representing the species, without reference to sex(C)a human being; person[1] //"there are a lot of other factors that have contributed to the history of the world. Some of those factors are natural disaster, such as hurricanes, tsunami's like right now in Japan, earthquakes, ice ages and even a whole society, not only great men."// My opponent has accepted my definitions but then cited examples of history in which natural disasters are the main factors. Of course in my and my opponent's definition of biography, a biography cannot be about natural disasters as a biography is an account of a 'person's' life. An account of a tsunami would not be a biography. //"In here I can rove that this states are not ONLY great men, but instead a whole society made by "great" and average people; yes led by a great men, but by reading the biography of this man you cannot read about how other people live, or how people thought, etc; instead you read about what that "great" man thought and did and just that."// As 'greatness' is subjective as I pointed out in the first round, I can simply state that every single person is 'great', albeit in totally different senses. A carpenter, in my opinion, is 'great' at handling wood. A theif is 'great' at stealing. A garbage man is 'great' at picking up trash. This is of course simply in my own opinion, but as 'greatness' is subjective, my opinion is as good as anyone's. //"When you said that in the biographies of Ulysess S. Grant and Abraham Lincoln the Civil war would e included, well obviously yes, but your missing that you wouldn't read about the complete Civil War, but instead only what they saw or thought"// An account of the whole Civil War would not be a biography. As my opponent accepted my definitions, a biograhy is: Biography: a written account of another person's life //"No I want to write another short example to prove that History in not JUST made of the biographies of great men. My example is the Ice Age. I would like my opponent to mention the name of one great man that was part of the Ice Age, that by reading their biography you can read about what happened and why during the ice age. I don't recall there being such."// This example does not agree with my and my opponent's agreed upon definition of 'biography'. Therefore of course it would not be about great men. My opponent's objective for negating the resolution is incredibly simple. All my opponent must do is show a 'biography, as agrees with our definition, that is not about 'great' 'men' or a 'great' 'man'. If my opponent is unable to produce this evidence, the resolution holds and I win this debate. I now pass on the debate back to my opponent. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...