BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Balanced Budget Amendment

But I would like to address your point when you say that with a balanced budget amendment Congress would not be able to respond "quickly enough". This is a contradiction for you already said and made a point of Congress being slow so how can a balanced budget amendment (BBA) cause Congress to react slowly when you already stated youself that Congress reacts slowly? Also before we begin I would like to elucidate what I mean by a Balanced Budget Amendment. A BBA would call for a yearly budget that either breaks even or operates under a surplus. Such an amendment would make deficite spending unconstitutional. PointsLiving Within Your MeansIn the real world families, companies and buisnesses all must live reasonably if they wish to survive. If a family spends itself into debt they are likely to lose their home. If a buisness or bank overspends too quickly it is liable to go out of buisness. My question is why is our government above this? The answer is that it shouldn't be. Obama (and it's not just Obama but every President since Woodrow Wilson) alone has added 3.3 trillion dollars of deficite spending to our budgets as of March, 2011. [1] This breaks a previously held record for an entire presidency. Where does all of that deficite go? It gets added onto our debt which is now over 15.2 trillion dollars! [2] And is 130,000 dollars per tax payer. [2] These numbers are ridiculous and irresponsible. If you want to talk about a financial crisis, that is a financial crisis. If a company was 15 trillion dollars in debt or even 15 billion dollars in debt it would be in serious trouble. Solving the Debt ProblemA BBA would solve the debt problem by making obtaining debt illegal. There won't be any or very much debt if deficite spending is illegal. Whatever money the government is able to take in is the money it is allowed to spend. No more no less. Without the ability to incur debt we unsurprisingly take on no debt. This would require a serious cutting of government down to sizes that are actually managable. There would have to be a reordering of priorites and the destruction of several social programs in order to achieve this. Just as debt is toxic to a family or company debt is also toxic to the United States and the combination of debt and deficite spending is what has caused the financial crisis you described. But a BBA would solve this. Growing Debt The debt has been rising by an average of 1 trillion dollars a year for the past ten years. If this trend continues we will have aquired 25 trillon dollars of debt by 2025 which will be 66% of all total global debt. [3] Why should the government live outside of the laws of economics the rest of us have to abide by? Why should we incur debt that will harm our contry for years to come? They shouldn't. We shouldn't. A Balanced Budget Amendment is just common sense. Present a budget with black ink not red and stop the deficits, stop the debt. Thank you. [1] . http://www.weeklystandard.com...[2] . http://www.usdebtclock.org...[3] . http://www.economist.com...
National Security[pro] vs Digital Privacy[con]

Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens. [The resolution was too long to actually fit in the title, so I had to shorten it. We will be debating the resolution I have stated here.] This is the topic for LD debate Nationals, and i thought it would be fun to debate. I'm kind of a new debater, so please excuse any mistakes I make. This debate is going to be styled very much like an actual LD debate. Since it is an LD topic, i'll structure the rounds as similar to an LD debate as a I can. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2 Aff: Affirmative Case Round 2 Neg: Presents Negative Case, and then rebut's to Affirmative's Case Round 3 Aff : Affirmative Rebuttal to Negative's case Round 3 Neg: Rebut's once again to Affirmative Case Round 4 Aff: Rebuts once again to Neg's Case Round 4 Neg: Forfeit's round (This is only so that everthing works out evenly. The fact that Neg forfeits should not be taken into consideration when voting!) Good Luck!
Our biggest problem is not having the means of effectively dealing with problems

Say I want to solve a conflict between two countries, say I as an individual want to make peace between the united states and well sadly...many countries. What tools do I have at my disposal to make this happen? As an individual, how much impact can I really have on the world by dedicating my entire life to one specific or many problem? My main concern initially would obviously have to be something like trying to convince other people to join me, whether it be politicians or my neighbor Joe....but....most people are already against war and poverty etc... but they don't want to spend half their lives or even 1% of their lives on this issue because of the same reason no one else is doing it! There is little hope for an individual to change the world.... So what if instead of letting few people dedicate their entire lives on global and local issues, how could we engage the majority to contribute say....an average of 5 minutes per day on issues. Would you contribute if you knew everyone was doing it and it only took 5 minutes instead of 100 years? And was more successful in 5 minutes with everyone doing it than you could ever be in your entire life? My position here is what the title says, and I can't help but consider solutions....so in the next round I will propose something and people can vote on whether it's feasible and a good idea.
Our biggest problem is not having the means of effectively dealing with problems

'it's not doing a very good job solving our problems is it now? Seeing as half the people live on less than $2.50 a day' That statistic is for the entire world. The entire world is not a republican democracy. 'every life supporting system on earth is in a state of decline that includes our "economy"' Not quite sure why 'economy' is in quotes, but I'll run with it. The United States economy is, yes, trashed, but the problem isn't the system. The problem is that we've had an utterly imbecilic budget for the past seventy years (more or less). 'the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources' Like what? We haven't yet run out of any resources. 'the destruction of ecosystems' If you're referring to forests getting cut down and stuff, that, again is not the fault of the system. That is just companies doing what they're legally allowed to do, and for your information, trees do this strange thing now called growing, so when you cut them down, more trees grow back. 'the extinction of wildlife' Well, there are somewhere near 10,000 species of animals being killed off every year, but those are the ones that are virtually indistinguishable from hundreds of other species, and probably have been endangered for the past 10,000 years, and lived on a little island in the Pacific with a name nobody can pronounce unless he/she knows some half-dead dialect of a nearly-dead Samoan language. It's called natural selection, and, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a republican democracy. And I'm evidently missing the point of this debate but it was somewhat hard to understand exactly what you were looking for in a debate.
Our biggest problem is not having the means of effectively dealing with problems

As a matter of fact I am well aware of what a representative democracy is and frankly, it's not doing a very good job solving our problems is it now? Seeing as half the people live on less than $2.50 a day and every life supporting system on earth is in a state of decline that includes our "economy" the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources, the destruction of ecosystems, the extinction of wildlife and the list goes on... What I'd propose is something along the lines of a direct democracy but this debate is about whether our means of dealing with problems are EFFECTIVE, now obviously that adjective is relative so we will leave it up to the voters to decide. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Our biggest problem is not having the means of effectively dealing with problems

So you really just needed a fake contender? You said that you would just be posting some ideas and having people vote... ...Or do you actually want somebody to argue with you and explain to you exactly how a representative democracy works? .. I'll assume the latter. There is a means to solve problems, and that is voting in elections. This is the way a representative democracy works. Frankly, it isn't the job of the citizenry to 'contribute say....an average of 5 minutes per day on issues', and they really have no way to do it. You need to explain what this contribution would entail. Lobbying congress? Petitions? Bombing governmental buildings until the government bends to your will?
Masterful aka What50 needs to take a diversity course!!

Ok so Masterful and or What50 don't need to take a diversity course, but it would certainly help them on this site, in debates and in real life. I suggest they take a diversity course for their benefit. Also Masterful and What50 are breaking the Terms of Use of this site, specifically "No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs" All of their posts and debates break this term and therefore are liable for expulsion from this site. It is these reasons why I suggest Masterful and or What50 take a diversity course to educate themselves on the different and diverse people in our population and become more aware and sensitive before posting their hurtful and demeaning debates on this site.
Masterful aka What50 needs to take a diversity course!!

The definition of need is, "Require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable." [1] Why would Masterful or What50 need to take a diversity course? Just because they have no sympathy or respect does not mean they need to take a diversity course. It is not exactly essential for their survival to take this course, nor is it something required by law. They are on a website that allows them to freely express their opinions. So they do not actually need to take a diversity course. As for whether Masterful and What50 are the same person, my opponent states that because What50 agrees with Masterful, they must be the same person. If that were true, Taylor Swifts multitude of Instagram followers by that logic should all be one person. Is it really that astonishing that people have the same views on something? [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Masterful aka What50 needs to take a diversity course!!

Masterful needs to take a course in diversity training because he has no sympathy or respect for other cultures such as Jewish, any non white nation, especially people of the black race. His comments are belligerent and insensitive to the rest of the DDO community. His attempt at humor is condescending and embarrassing for this site. I am not going to reference any of his vile post here as they can be found in the debates. Also using of the What50 alias as a secondary person that agrees with him is a form of showing that he is not the only one that thinks this way, or more seriously a mental disorder of multiple personality disorder. Either way this person has serious psychological issues and should probably see a psychiatrist soon as these deranged fantasies could ultimately lead to serious real life repercussions. I suggested a diversity course to broaden his thought process and open up his way of thinking, but we might be beyond that stage of therapy. **Masterful might be in need of some serious psychological help, from the trauma he has suffered throughout his childhood. The physical and emotional abuse have really taken their toll on his psyche and we should not encourage his vile behavior on this site as it encourages all the 13-15 year old impressionable minds to agree and follow him in his blind quest to an Aryan skin head nation ideology** Excerpt from Masterful's previous doctors psych case 1042856
Teens or Tweens Should Not Have Smart Phones

When you talk about how "Eco-Friendly phones" are coming out and how the "new technology of 'Smart Ink'" can decrease the strain on the eyes and how the phone companies are making phones healthier, I've never heard of it, and I don't know if others have heard of it, but you might need to get some real data and have a credo ready. Also, these will be coming out. They're not out yet. You also talked about the fitness apps and how they're extremely popular. This is what I'm talking about. Teens and tweens will rely on their phones for everything. You can easily go running outside or do yoga on the TV. The earlier in their life that kids get smart phones, the more spoiled they may get. Yes, this could teach them about responsibility, but they could also keep asking for more and more and bragging about it to others. They may not even realize that they're bragging about it. If I remember correctly, you also said the game "Ingress" makes you physically go out and play, but is what you're saying that you're going to move around to play a game on a screen because that's basically playing a game while sitting down. Just so I get this out of the way, having smart phones aren't only about how obsessed teens and tweens are with them but how bad they can be with them. They have access to all kinds of bad things like porn. They can cheat on tests by taking a quick picture with the phone when the teacher is turned away and sending it to their friends after class. They may have knowledge right in their back pocket, but they also have bad, bad things there, too. Plus, this all before high school. If they ever need to do research at school, the schools should have computer labs, a library, and maybe even a few computers in each classroom. You could also work together with someone at school on a computer or phone for a group project or an assignment you both have. If you're at home you could use your computer or a parent's or sibling's phone/computer. If you don't have access to these things, go to a friend's house after school or the public library or tell the teacher your situation and work out a solution. Smart phones aren't used for everything, and they don't have to be either. Remember, I'm saying teens and tweens shouldn't have SMART phones until high school.
Teens or Tweens Should Not Have Smart Phones

My opponent, you said that many teens and tweens learn a lot from social sites. That may be true, but they could always get that access on a computer or ask someone if they could see it. They don't necessarily need to have the device in the hand to be able to know and learn about it. If I'm not mistaken, you also said that education is not entirely taught in school. Yes, I know that, but the base of all their knowledge is taught there. You need to know how to add to do Geometry. Teens and tweens may not even get the basics because they're almost always on their phone. Plus, they can get off their phone and go outside. They can learn outside by doing experiments that gets their brains working or just looking at random stuff for no certain reason and learning about it. If I remember correctly, you said that smart phones allow teens to share their ideas, pursue what they love and learn about it. They can do that by book or on a computer or just be being away of their surroundings and looking around. I also never said directly to the health issue that it could effect everyone. I was saying how, in general, my entire debate reasons could effect us all later. Plus, the health issue is to warn teens and tweens on what could happen and what they should watch out for.
Teens or Tweens Should Not Have Smart Phones

Hello , my first debate . Ok , let's get a crack on.."Smartphones Distract teens and tweens". You argue that teens and tweens "waste" time on social websites and games. On the contrary, most tweens or teens learn a lot from such sites , consciously or unconsciously. Tumblr, Twitter and many such sites are the reason why children today are more liberal , open to new ideas and see the fallacies in old ideas."They should be focusing on their studies". However, my esteemed opponent forgets the simple fact that education is not entirely what we are taught in school. We are taught to be literate , and that too in only a few languages. Studying , is the knowledge of the world. Teenagers today are more "educated" than teens of the yesteryears.This is a direct effect of Teens having Smartphones. Having a smartphone is empowering in today's age. It allows teens , rather everyone , to pursue what they love, learn about it , and share their ideas. Why would you curb this freedom?"Smartphones are Also a health issue." I am very sorry , but that does not make sense. Why should only "Teens or Tweens not have Smart Phones" because of Issues that make affect EVERYONE?
Teens or Tweens Should Not Have Smart Phones

I think no tween or teen should have a smart phone- at least not until high school. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have a cell phone. Cell phones that can only text or call are okay, but smart phones distract teens and tweens. They should be focusing on their studies and social life that's not in an electronic device. According to the statistics on http://readwrite.com..., 37% of teens in the U.S. have a smart phone. 25% of 12-17 year old access the Internet through their smart phones. They're mostly on social sites or games. People will say that teens will need the smart phones for emergencies or things like that, but all they really need to have is a cell phone that calls or texts. Don't waste money on a fancy thing that can do the same essential stuff on a regular cell phone. Smart phones are also a health issue. Staring or looking at flat screen daily for a long period of time can thin your arteries in your eyes which can cause a lot of problems once you get older. I shouldn't need to go on to prove this point. These are all valid reasons. Think hard and long about this because this may effect today's generation for the rest of our lives.
UNT should be prohibited

However, before the post-Soviet time the amount of pupils who could afford university education was much less than nowadays. Accordingly, the situation has required, as I previously mentioned, the systematic approach in order to take an exam from the huge amount of pupils. Moreover, similar exams like the UNT are conducting also in foreign countries. For instance, not considering Russia as our authorities try to copy almost each action in state and governments policies from the "big brother" country's authorities, the IELTs or TOEFL tests have same features as the UNT since they all are aimed at a big audience because it would be impossible to conduct an exam for pupils who are gathered from the whole world in huge amount, in particular from all regions of Kazakhstan
UNT should be prohibited

In your counter-argument you have mentioned that before the 1990s the knowledge of pupils was better than of modern youngsters have. So, it is completely true because at that period a graduate had to pass not only the writing exam, but also there was a requirement of passing the oral test respectively. I find that the oral test had played an enormous role in checking student knowledge since during this test examiner was able to check his/her critical thinking, while in the UNT, the vast majority of pupils just learn by heart already answered exam questions.﻿
UNT should be prohibited

Nevertheless, the UNT, to some extent, contribute a graduae to learn something at least from preparing to the exam. Nowadays, there can be observed that in our country the level of knowledge is low in comparison with the past time. This had happened due to the striking changes at the last decade of the 20th century, subsequently these changes have resulted in a new approach in education direction, namely there was need in systematic approach. For that reason, personally, I hold opinion that the UNT definitely provides the systematic approach of checking knowledge of a pupil.
UNT should be prohibited

UNT is the united national test. There are 125 questions in 5 different subjects( 4 is requirement and one subject pupil can choose). All the pupils, who are graduating from schools must pass this test. If you do not pass it, you are not allowed to enter the university. The entrance grade is increasing from year to year. For example, this year the entrance score was 60 from 125. I'm totally against the UNT and I can give you a lot of evidences. It is my view that tests can not show how deeply we know the information. This summer I have already passed the UNT and I have been preparing for the test during 9 months. My preparation was in just learning the answers for the questions by heart. There was no critical thinking or analysis. It seems to me that there was no any intellectual working process. What I think that this technique must be prohibited in Kazakhstan educational system. Our knowledge will not increase dramatically, while we are using this method. Moreover the UNT came to force about ten years ago, however there are many mistakes in tests, especially in Math and Physics.
Abortion

"Two separate bodies because they have unique DNA." When you need to remain attached to another body in order to grow so you can live, I don't consider that to be separate at all, even if they have unique DNA. "If the child will cause her trauma, your argument can be used as an excuse to kill the child at one day old. You need to be more specific with that in regards to abortion itself." My entire site has made it very clear in regards to abortion that the woman should be allowed to choose whether or not they should have an abortion WITHIN THE ALLOWED AMOUNT OF WEEKS. In many areas, legally that's twenty-four weeks but as I stated before most people get abortions within the first thirteen weeks. So no, my argument can't be used to defend killing a child after birth. My argument was always that women should be allowed to make the choice within the specified time period. "Does finance determine whether someone should live?" Well let's see, if I can't pay for my child to have a healthy birth, which greatly risks their chances of being born or being born healthy, then I'd say it's pretty important that I have the money to support a pregnancy. It's not just about what would happen to you financially if you keep it, it's about the financial issues involved with actually being pregnant. "The law can be wrong." So should we just ignore all laws because they could be wrong? Can I stop paying my taxes and argue that the law could be wrong and that it might be fixed in the future? No, I can't. "I would argue that the law of double murder is the accurate law and the law of abortion is the incorrect law." The law of abortion gives women the CHOICE to abort their child whereas the law of double murder does not give the victim a choice. Did she choose to get shot? Of course not. Did she consent to that form of abortion? Of course not. Can the women chose to have an abortion on her own? Yes, she can. So comparing the two laws is not the same. And the argument that the double murder law means abortion is also wrong does not hold because the law of abortion means that the mother has the LEGAL right of choice to decide whether or not to abort. Sorry for the short response, I would've written it a lot better and covered more topics brought up but I've been pressed on time and I'm heading out soon so I wouldn't be able to write a full response in time.