BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should the government end welfare in the US.

I would like to introduce you to the history of government welfare. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1998 (14:3) Welfare BRIA 14:3 Home | How Welfare Began in the United States | Welfare to Work: The States Take Charge | "The Swedish Model": Welfare for Everyone How Welfare Began in the United States During the Great Depression of the 1930s, local and state governments as well as private charities were overwhelmed by needy families seeking food, clothing, and shelter. In 1935, welfare for poor children and other dependent persons became a federal government responsibility, which it remained for 60 years. MINNEAPOLIS"Several hundred men and women in an unemployed demonstration today stormed a grocery store and meat market in the Gateway district, smashed plate glass windows and helped themselves to bacon and ham, fruit and canned goods. "from the New York Times, February 26, 1931 Is our need not as great as it was in the 1930's? Didn't we go through a period of economic collapse for many American families? Those people who lost their jobs in the economic downturn most likely had been putting into the welfare system. The goal of the welfare system was to tax everyone as everyone had the same chance of needing welfare at one time or another in their life. So if your Grandfather, Grandmother, Parents always paid into the system and never took out the benefits, would it not be ok for the people who had fallen on hard times to withdraw from the system when they needed to? It is not an entitlement to withdraw money that you have put into through taxes. It is sensible. If you put money in the bank would you leave it there if you needed it? The Welfare money is there for you, me and any other American that needs it. It is a government bank account to help those in need. No matter what anyone else says the the contrary, that money has been put into the system in case we need it. To dismantle Welfare is to take away what may be the last option if you or your family falls into need for whatever reason that might be.
Should the government end welfare in the US.

I am not looking at the world through a skewed view. It seems that, with your personal experience, you may be looking at the world through a skewed view. It is sad that you started out homeless at age 18. It is even more sad that no one helped you. I do not think that an 18 year old would be a hindrance in asking for help. Think of how much easier your life would have been. First: My grandparents have worked and put into the "welfare" system (it came out of their checks as well as yours, my parents put into the "welfare" system, I put into the welfare system through my checks. I do not begrudge anyone that needs help that they get help. There are many people in this world that are not healthy (mentally or physically it does not matter), there are many people who have put into the system and have lost their jobs (is it not right that they are able to take the money out that they put in?), and there are many people who do not look like they are sick, but they are. I do not feel it is my right to judge whether a person is able bodied, lazy etc. You say that they are able bodied, lazy and can't think for themselves. That is simply not true. In order to pass the rigorous tests to get on welfare, you cannot be able bodied or lazy. I would invite you to try to get on welfare as an able bodied person, You would not be accepted. With many people with your opinion, the cuts in welfare have been deep and only the most needy can get on welfare. I do not think that you have really looked into the welfare system. I don't believe you know the rules regarding being accepted. If you had you would not have the opinion that you have. It sounds as if you are repeating the old cliches concerning welfare. Cliches that have been passed around since welfare began. Welfare is not a dirty word. It means looking out for the well being of those who cannot look out for their own well being. There should be some safety net in a country as rich as the United States. We should be thoughtful of people, who for one reason or another, cannot take care of themselves or their children. If we do not we will have people begging on the streets, being sick on the streets and dying on the streets. For where else would they go it they have no money, no home or no food or medical care. We are a humane country. We have Christian values. Jesus said take care of the poor. No God would want a child to die because they are hungry when someone could feed them. It would only take a little of your taxes, my taxes and the rest of the country's taxes to take care of these people. I see no reason, in this wonderful country, to let someone go hungry, sleep in the streets or not have medical help. I would rather pay out taxes to take care of these people than step over them in the streets when they have no where else to go. It is hard to be proud when you are hungry. It is hard to work when you are hungry. Most of all I do not think others should suffer in their lives because you chose to suffer in yours. That just sounds like you are trying to make someone else pay for your bad fortune.
Should the government end welfare in the US.

You are looking through life with a skewed world view (have you ever been out of the US?) and a chip on your shoulder. I started out homeless at 18 and yes there was welfare but no one told me! I did what I had to (not prostitution, I have dignity) and decided not to be a hindrance (asking ANY one for a hand out, I never have asked for a dime and I am in my 60's). We are not ruthless asking able bodied citizens to help themselves and in the process help our entire society. What is shameful is those who expect something (everything) for nothing. And oh, I put myself through college while working several jobs and never took a loan. I have been successful and have paid MY SHARE of taxes for those who either don't know how to work, are too lazy, can't think for themselves etc. Please adjust your negative attitude and the world will open up to you. I know it's hard to believe but it's true, surround yourself with hard working people, learn how to be a help and not extra baggage. You will be proud.
Jesus Christ is not a fraud

I knew the bible was going to be a large part of the argument. I was looking more for the Ancient findings evidences.... But have a good one. If you wish to have debate that uses Empirical evidence and sources such as the debate between creationism and Evolution, then I will gladly accept. I haven't researched the big bang, so in any debates you and I have let's leave it out of the idea until I have read my books on the subject, which I have yet to do. Until next time, good sir. May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you, His noodely appendage touch you, and his great meatballs of wisdom guide you.
Jesus Christ is not a fraud

Pro, your argument sounds more like an attempt to witness to me (a former christian, by the way) rather than an argument. Also, if I believe that Jesus Christ existed as a human here on earth, just as I believe Mohammad existed and was here on earth or that Buddha was a human that existed here on earth, it does not follow that I believe in the bible, the Koran, or the teachings of Buddha. What I do not believe is the supernatural stories of his death and Resurrection among many other miraculous claims in the bible. There is no proof to back them up. I am sorry, but I do not accept the subject change. I do not know enough about the Big Bang to debate it on this site that requires so much evidence to provide a legitimate argument. You claim twice that you have ancient findings, logic, and biblical facts for Jesus is the son of god. And you very well can continue this debate in this matter because if you can prove that Jesus is the son of god, then you have not only proven god and Jesus, you have proven Christianity. This is a great opportunity for you, Pro. Why not provide the evidence?
Jesus Christ is not a fraud

Jesus Christ is real. He is also the son of God, that suffered for everyone's sins. Accept Jesus Christ, have faith in God through Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Jesus Christ is real and I will provide evidences and proofs of Jesus Christ's existence based on ancient findings, logic, and Biblical facts. Con, in your Bio, you claimed that "You don't believe in God" Ok. so you do believe in Jesus Christ? If you believe in Jesus Christ, you should also believe in the Bible. If you believe in Jesus Christ and not believe in God, then you're fooling yourself for believing in Jesus. I can not argue about Jesus Christ being the son-of God if you don't believe in Father God that is in the 3rd Level of Heaven. So are you saying that the universe created itself? and not by God- who created every thing? Let's change the topic to "God created the universe" Now, you will have to state your arguments and theories to provide evidences, opinions, and logic that God didn't create the universe.
Jesus Christ is not a fraud

Pro, I do accept your challenge and eagerly await your opening arguments. I ask, however, that we do drop the word "fraud". I do not believe Jesus did not exist, I simply do not believe that he was the son of god. I will be arguing that Jesus was not the Son of God, but since I have no evidence to use to support that idea, all I can do is hope that Pro accepts his burden of proof and provides evidence for my scrutiny. The reason i cannot provide evidence that Jesus was not God is because there is no evidence of his supernatural claims. I will be very interested in the ensuing debate. I will make it noted that in a discussion about world hunger in the opinion questions, Pro said that "Oh that makes sense! You're an atheist! I bet you think Jesus Christ was a fraud too!" Anyways, let us begin.
Traffic light cameras

Sounds like a plan to me, Rich. I definitley think that there needs to be some sort of study done to determine whether the traffic cameras are actually effective or are they just a scare tactic and hazard to others. The fact that the cameras will hopefully be looked into further by the government sounds like it would work better that way to see if they are helping. I think we have come to a conclusion, making this the best, most cordial debate ever in the history of debates. Booyah.
Traffic light cameras

Thanks, Rich! Yes, I think we should agree to disagree on that part, but I see what you're saying in many respects. I agree with the fact that the smarter driveres will become more safe and the knuckleheads will just become more knuckle-headier. In many respects, I can see what you're saying with having the police patrol other areas and take care of situations that would take precedence over traffic lights. I just feel that the majority of accidents that happen are not due to people blowing red lights, but on the other hand; people doing that won't make others safe. And you're right... if traffic cameras help the way people drive, in any way, I can see that as a definite positive. In some ways, maybe I feel like my privacy is being taken away in the slightest bit because of these lights, but like you have said... if it makes it safer, why not. I do, though, feel uncomfortable with the traffic lights because I feel as though that it was not even that big of an issue for them to place cameras, but apparently it is getting some work done considering most people probably think twice before "flooring it" through the yellow light.
Traffic light cameras

Hey! So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the safety value these lights. It makes some people safer, better drivers. And it makes others more of knuckleheads than they already were. The part where I disagree is the use of our police officers and adding other employees to monitor the cameras. For one, I think it is better to have real cops out taking care of other things, rather than having them sit near stop lights. Let them do other law enforcement duties that are more important than traffic duty. Suffolk cops make huge salaries and I would rather they were out to better use. And if a few more jobs are created by the camera venture, then I am cool with that. We need jobs! And the government needs money, so let them raise some funds by snagging a few redlight runners! PS - I hope the fire dept. or police test went well, I forgot which it was. But I hope it went well!
Traffic light cameras

Sorry for taking so long! Been crazy busy! I do agree with it helping save lives, Rich. But I still see the cameras as more of a hazard to us then helping us. I think it definitley makes people act more moronic because of the cameras. I do see what you're saying about people knowing where the cameras are, but call me old fashioned- I would still rather have an actual human tell me that I am doing something wrong versus a camera snapping a picture! To me, I think we would be better off as a community if the streets were patrolled more. Maybe- instead of making jobs for people to sit behind desks and monitor the cameras, we can have police officers more frequently patrolling the area. I do, though, see the positives to having the cameras in place. I just think that it becomes mroe hazardous to us because now- everytime someone goes under a yellow light, they are cringing because they don't know if they are being put on candid camera! It becomes a sticky situation with me now because I can see both sides of the argument, however, I still see it as a money making scheme for the government's benefit and a hazard to us. Take it away, Rich.
Traffic light cameras

Fair points about the money. There is a good chance that the cost of doing and maintaining this is a waste of time. But I have to disagree about it being better to have cops patroling the intersection. I think people get more moronic when they catch sight of a cop. Alot more slamming on brakes and whatnot. And while you may get the occassional person who reacts poorly to the cameras, I think alot of people get used to the intersections that have the cameras. They know that when coming to Sunrise amd Waverly there is a camera, so they are prepared to drive slower and safer. And having the populace driving slower and safer is always a good thing... if it saves lives I am all for it!
Traffic light cameras

I see what you are saying as far as the safety goes, but I still see it as a way for the government to make money. I feel that instead of having a camera watch us, we should have traffic police or Suffolk police watching the intersections just the way they used to. I find it to be annoying to have to now think about whether a camera is going to snap a picture at you, obeying the law, but being under a yellow light through an intersection. While it might make some people more cautious, safer drivers, I think that too many people are retarding traffic because they are fearful of getting a ticket. I feel that the money that they are spending to put all of the traffic lights in is almost a waste of time. By the time the government hires people to put them in, pays for the camera and the electric to run the thousands of cameras, hires people to monitor and scan through all of the pictures, and sends out tickets, it is barely worth it to even have. I think that the cameras have become a hazard to the everyday drivers and the government is taking advantage of our privacy, in a way. What next? We have cameras at every corner now, who's to say they won't start bugging our hotel rooms like NK!!
Traffic light cameras

Yes, it IS on like Donkey Kong!!! I think the cameras are a good thing. You bring up good points about just another way for the government to get money from us. But first, they are getting money from people breaking the law, so I'm cool with that. Next, I would think it is cheaper for them to use the cameras than to beef up police patrols for red lights, so in the end it is more cost effective for tax-payers. And lastly, every level of government is in a financial mess. So if they have to make a little cash off people running red lights, rather than raise taxes or cut important programs, then I say go for it! And I find the cameras make things safer. I do think that some dopey people slow down too much, but overall I think it makes most people better drivers near the lights. I know that I now have a tendency to be a better, safer driver because the camera is there. I don't hit the gas to make the light, but I drive more responsibly because I don't want to get a ticket.
Traffic light cameras

Its on like Donkey Kong!!!:) I do not think that the traffic light cameras are helpful for our driving. In many ways, I see it as a way for the state government to take our money. I, actually, believe that it can sometimes harm our societies in many ways because then people make more rash decisions based on their trying to avoid a ticket. I think that there is no reason for the traffic light cameras to be in place. If you think about it, actually, it becomes just a way to scare people to stop them from going under the yellow light and can cause a collision.
Mitt Romney is "out of touch" with the American public

"While yes he merely was fallowing the rules set in place" [sic]A man following the tax rules is hardly something that makes him out of touch with the American people. You admit yourself he was just paying the taxes he owed. There is nothign wrong with that.Independent voters will look at him and say he made WHAT? And paid...? Oh the amount he owed, good for him. Your Sites Not only do your sites provided show clear and present bias "romneyflipflops" but merely shows unsourced quotes by Romney which could or could not be present or out of context.Businessman You completely dropped this argument.So far I have seen no convincing arguments showing how Romney is out of touch with the American people. You had the Burden of Proof and didnot fulfil this.Thank you.
Mitt Romney is "out of touch" with the American public

Quick rebuttal Maybe you chose to not really read my opening statement of the debate, but it was my contention that Mitt Romney is and will be a "John Kerry candidate". In relation to his vast amounts of wealth, terrible sound bites gone wrong, and lack of political conviction. Like you've said, something's are indeed considered to be common knowledge and for Mitt Romney its that he's a tremendous flip flopper and has more money to shake a stick at. As for the point I made about his taxes.. While yes he merely was fallowing the rules set in place, I'm telling you I doesn't vote well for his political image one bit. Independent voters who look at that will say he made how much and paid WHAT? Again, feeding the idea that Mitt Romney is out of touch. Clearly a website titled "mittromneyflipflops.com" wasn't exactly appealing for you to look at being that he's the very guy your currently defending. Had you actually looked at BOTH of those sites you would've discovered neither of them feature 3rd party commentary or analysis. So your valiant effort to shut down biasness might just be a tad misguiding considering they after all just romneys past statements..
Mitt Romney is "out of touch" with the American public

Will do. I have three reasons as to why I am convinced that Mitt Romney is an "out of touch" candidate. 1.His wealth While politicians are indeed wealthy, most do not have their personal net worth attached to their identity. With a net worth of roughly $200 Million dollars, boasting a nice Swiss bank account, Romney whether he likes it or not has been given "the rich guy image". His acquisition of this wealth was done so primarily with his work in a private equity firm (A sector in this country that doesn't have the greatest image currently). Having the identity of a obscenely wealthy person paying only 15% of their income in taxes doesn't exactly vote well for your chances of being deemed a "man of the people". Moreover it doesn't exactly help his cause to reach out to voters in order to validate his legitimacy with comments like the "$10,000 bet" blunder to Rick Perry. No matter how trivial Romney's comments on the campaign trail may be, if it feeds into his already "out of touch" narrative, journalists will have a field day over it. Which should tell you something about Romney's image. 2.Lack of political conviction People love a die hard candidate, one they truly can relate to. (Just take a look a Ron Paul supporters..) Let's face it, consistency isn't really a word you would use to describe the former governor's. He even has a website dedicated to his contradictory statements of the past. (http://www.mittromneyflipflops.com...) I'm sorry make that two websites.. (http://mittromneysflipflops.com...) Romney has been on opposite sides of not just one or two issues but a boatload of them. Including topics such as the Auto Bailout, Abortion, Guns, Stem Cell Research, Minimum Wage, Social Security to Climate Change Legislation.. You get the point. 3.The very way he runs his campaign If you've been fallowing the republican primaries you probably have been growing tired of hearing Gingrich and Santorum list their grievances with the Romney campaign. That of course would be that they were outspent and drowned out by a flood of 100% negative ads. Do you know why the Romney campaign went completely negative? It's because for months republican voters have been in search for the "anti-romney" candidate, somebody who not only could beat Obama, but lead the nation as a true conservative. So by spending millions in negative advertising, the Romney campaign successfully changed the dialogue from "Why are we settling with this guy" to "Ehh, we need to beat Obama." If all of his political success rides on the public angst for his opponent it says something about his own ability to win a tough election. The democrats thought that wasn't a big concern in 2004 when they were coasting off of the public's disapproval of Bush. The republicans may just be in for a surprise come November.. Sources: http://www.boston.com... http://www.lasvegassun.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Mitt Romney is "out of touch" with the American public

It is my contention that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is out of touch with the American public and as a result will become a "John Kerry candidate" in the 2012 general election. By referencing John Kerry I'm referring to the presidential campaign back in 04' where he essentially could not make the case to voters he was a legitimate candidate who cared for their interests. (That includes the flip flopping he and Mitt both share) That being said, I would like someone to perhaps prove me wrong.
Essay Writing Contest

Hey!,I love writing, and improving my writing so hopefully somone will provide a worthy challenge and critisism. Simple rules... We take turns proposing a topic. In the form of a quesition. Con your first :)If you noticed I put this debate under philosophy...I'd rather the Essay topic be somthing asbtract/concept.Voters please ignore trivial grammatical mistakes for the both of us.Vote rather on substance.Let's have some fun :DThanks.