BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"welfare" "spending on poor" as primary cause of gov spending problems is a misconception

i would like to debate someon who thinks "welfare" and spending on poor is the cause of our federal or even state governemnt fiscal problems. i'll accept most state budgets as examples except maybe california as examples of state budgets if someone wants to get into state specifics. i'll focus on fed budget with sometimes references to states. this graph breaks down what we spend money on. http://www.federalbudget.com... we could break major spending into somewhat equal sections, general spending, health spending, social security, national debt, defense. the health spending is a bit bigger, but all are roughly ball parked the same. most general spending is on things like EPA or adminstrative stuff... not poor stuff. SS is a middle class and everyone issue, and in theory is suppose to be self supporting by pay roll taxes. same with medicare, which is probably atleast half of the health spending. medicaid is for poor people, is probably less than half of that healthcare spending. but perhaps we could account it for half for the sake of argument? if health care is twenty to tewnty five percent of our budget, that's like ten to twelve percent of our budget. food stamps are only a hundred billion out of a three and a half trillion budget. two to three percent maybe. national debt and defense are for everyone. not to mention, most of the national debt is due to borrowing against social security. which is an accounting issue more than anything that has to do with the poor. welfare is a program that in most states, at least ohio, is a woman can only get cash assistance for three years if shes poor and has kids. that is the maximum. this was a result of welfare reform during the clinton admin, ie the feds do match some money spent. but i belieeve this is part of health spending and not much more than a few billion per year. there's also section 8 housing which is a marginal amount compared to the overall budget. (not that i woudln't mind redireecting this money somehow else but that's beside the point) grants to college students only add up to a fraction of the education budget which is eighty billion... maybe thirty billion max? (not that i wouldnt mind cutting this too but aaginst besie point) maybe a percent? so if we add it up, we got medicaid food stamps section 8 student grants matches for welfare. not much else? that adds up to like fifteen, sixteen percent of our budget.?? these are rough estimates. but enough to show it's not poor people as our problems and "welfare" etc. it's mostly governmetn mismanagement, borrowing against programs, not paying for what we spend, cutting taxes while running deficits, not keeping overall spending lower, etc. this website expands a few more expenditures on the poor... but even it with thwith the formal analysis doesn't put spending at much more than ten percent. http://www.motherjones.com...
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

I would like to cite rule #4 set in round 1:"Any argument that is not sufficiently refuted by Pro and is sufficient to justify denying the right to marry someone of the same sex (either by itself or coupled with other arguments) would mean a win for Con. In other words, Con is trying to build a case against same-sex marriage, while Pro assumes a prima facie case for gay marriage." I underlined the relevant parts. If one argument provided is insufficient to justify same-sex marriage, then it must justify illegalization of same-sex marriage in spite of the case for it, as in, outweighing the benefits to legalizing it. Quantity is not important, quality is. If there is one valid argument against same-sex marriage, and it is not sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal, it would not be sufficient to win the debate. All of this was clearly stated in round 1.I showed how a legal precedent regarding whether or not it infringes on Constitutional rights for a state to make same-sex marriage illegal is irrelevant to the resolution of whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal. As I have stated before, the precedent says that states CAN make same-sex marriage illegal. It has nothing to do with whether or not they SHOULD make same-sex marriage illegal. In other words, using this as an argument to justify same-sex marriage being illegal is equivalent to saying "Because we can". It proves nothing, because it relates to whether or not states can make same-sex marriage illegal, not whether or not they should. Its relationship to the resolution is tangential at best. There are a lot of things that we can do. That does not mean that we should do them, though. I hope that I have explained this clearly enough this time.Whether or not "sufficient" is subjective or not does not even need to be addressed - the arguments presented by Con were shown as irrelevant. While a legal precedent that actually showed a reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal would be quite useful for Con, what Con had was one that showed why it can be illegal.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

I only have to show "one" valid reason. My opponent clearly states that there are "NO VALID ARGUMENTS" My opponent is changing the rules. He is now saying I have to show more than one reason.I now have to combine several different reasons. Legal precedent is "one" valid and sufficient reason, if in fact the rule of law and court precedent have any meaning. Further more I have shown 13 legal precedents "using Baker v Nelson." Not just Baker v Nelson Baker v Nelson has held up 13 times in a court of law both state and federal with regard to same sex marrige. My opponent seems to think this as meaningless and insufficient. If it is then I see no point in even having courts or rule of law. I would also contend that the word "sufficient" is feelings based and therefore subjective in the context of this debate. All of my valid and legitimate arguments can simply be cast aside by the voter and my opponent because of their blatant and well established bias by stating that there is "not one" reason, be damned the rule of law and legal precedent.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

I would once again like to remind my opponent that a legal precedent only shows that something is currently illegal. It does not, on its own, justify itself. Just because a precedent was decided, does not mean that it was decided correctly. Furthermore, the precedent only rules that it is allowed by the Constitution for states to ban same-sex marriage, meaning that the legal precedent proves nothing in the context of this debate. Just because something is constitutional does not mean it should be done. There is nothing in the Constitution which specifies that all states must ban same-sex marriage.As for the accusation that I am pushing semantics by pointing out that the debate is not about reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, nowhere in the resolution or first round did I ever mention reasons to oppose same-sex marriage having any relevance. I only mentioned reasons to justify it being illegal having relevance in this debate.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

"This debate is not about valid reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, it is about valid reasons to justify it being illegal." This is clearly semantics. I have provided sufficient and valid reasons to both "oppose" and "justify it being illeagal" I have legal precedent to "sufficiently justify it being illegal" . There have already been numerous cases before the courts with regard to same sex marrige as I have clearly shown. These are also sufficient and valid reasons to "oppose gay marriage."
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

I would first like to clarify that my first rebuttal did not say that polls in favor of same-sex marriage are valid legal arguments. I was instead pointing out that personally-held opinions are not an argument against it, because even if it didn't completely ignore burden of proof and the need to justify one's claims, it would be an argument in favor of same-sex marriage. The point stands.The legal precedent argument is essentially a variant of an appeal to tradition. Existing law shows nothing about whether or not something should be legal unless the existing law can somehow be justified. I would also like to remind my opponent that this debate is not about valid reasons to oppose same-sex marriage, it is about valid reasons to justify it being illegal. The current state of affairs has nothing to do with this debate. Just because something is illegal, does not mean that there is a valid reason for it to be illegal.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

Public opinion has no place in the interpretation of law. Siting polls as eveidence in a court of law renders the court of law a kangaroo court. Polls are "feeling" based. They are in no way legal arguments for interpreting already exsiting law and are irrelevant. Legal precedent is a valid and sufficiant reason to oppose same sex marrige. Baker v Nelson Apllication of Baker v Nelson in federal courts Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006) Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005) In re Kandu, U.S. Bankruptcy Court (2004) Perry v. Schwarzenegger, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (2010) Defense of Marriage Act Cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit (2012) United States District Court for the District of Hawaii (2012) Sevick v. Sandoval, United States District Court for the District of Nevada (2012) Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005) Application of Baker v Nelson in state courts Morrison v. Sandler, Indiana Court of Appeals (2005) Hernandez v. Robles, New York Court of Appeals (2004) In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B., Texas 5th Circuit Court of Appeal (2010) Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court (2011) These are all legal precidents and not opinion. If legal precedent is not valid then nothing is.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

There are several flaws with this line of reasoning that makes it insufficient to justify a ban on same-sex marriage: The prima-facie case for same-sex marriage rests on the premise that we should not outlaw things when we have no good reason to do so. Without a premise to justify an opinion against same-sex marriage, the opinion alone isn't sufficient to justify a same-sex marriage ban. The case for same-sex marriage is not limited by this, since it argues in favor of personal freedom, which is something that our society undoubtedly supports. Even if personal opinion is a valid argument, most people seem to not share this opinion: http://www.cbsnews.com..."As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage - California's Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal."It also seems it will stay this way for the foreseeable future:"As the Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases involving two high-profile laws to do with same-sex marriage - California's Proposition 8 and the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -53 percent of Americans think it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry, while 39 percent say it should not be legal."When justifying something purely based on public opinion (assuming no prima-facie case), the strongest opinion always wins. Clearly same-sex marriage is winning here. That being said, it would be impossible to make something illegal exclusively because of a small minority that disagrees with it, since it is inevitable that someone will always hold a view opposite to the majority opinion. I would also like to defend the prima-facie case by stating that it is not based in opinion (or, as Con chose to put it, "feeling"), and that it is based in the fact that allowing people to marry someone of the same sex increases personal freedom for everyone. Yes, even heterosexuals can marry someone of the same sex if they want to. I await any other arguments Con has.
There are no valid arguments sufficient to justify same-sex marriage being illegal.

This is a challenge in response to a forum post, quoted below: (all [sic])At 5/6/2013 11:21:04 AM, sadolite wrote: At 5/3/2013 9:11:32 PM, drhead wrote: At 5/3/2013 7:29:59 PM, sadolite wrote:I have nothing against homosexuals. And quite frankly the idea that if you don't approve of everything on the homosexual agenda it automatically makes you against homosexuals is always the narrative. This narrative is used on pupose. It is used to marginalize any and all who would oppose anything the homosexual agenda puts forward. For instance, there is no possible way you could be in favor of defending the institution of marrige as being between a man and a woman. There is only one narrative. You are against gays and that is why you want to defend the institution of marrige. End of story end of debate end of all dialog. Works every time. Might I ask what you hope to gain through defending the institution of marriage? Or what you have to lose through failure of its defense? Oh, wait, that's right. Nothing. This is why people use this 'narrative' you speak of. There is absolutely NO REASON to be against ANY of it. I rest my case. As you can painly and blatantly see you have set the homosexual naritive. So anything I may put forward is all based on bigotry. As you have stated "there can be no other reason to oppose gay marrige". Diolog is pointless, debate is pointless. Works every time. This response appears to imply that there are valid arguments being dismissed as bigotry in the same-sex marriage debate, thus the resolution for this debate. This debate will be fairly simple: No arguments in the last round. Con should present arguments in the first round. The resolution is a negative statement, therefore, burden of proof lies on Con. Any argument that is not sufficiently refuted by Pro and is sufficient to justify denying the right to marry someone of the same sex (either by itself or coupled with other arguments) would mean a win for Con. In other words, Con is trying to build a case against same-sex marriage, while Pro assumes a prima facie case for gay marriage. This debate's purpose is to defend my statement, not as "Arguments against gay marriage are based on bigotry", but as "Arguments against gay marriage are fallacious, irrelevant, or otherwise invalid". I feel rather strongly about this, and I feel like my opponent feels strongly enough about the opposite view to the point where we can have a fruitful exchange of ideas.
eating meat is moral

con has only shown that sometimes it is immoral to eat meat. if you eat meat and help support a meat industry that is out of control, for several reasons, then you are acting immorally. con hasn't shown that it in inherently wrong to eat meat, if those other factors arent taken into consideration. that is because he can't, because our bodies themselves show that it is moral. if you grow a cow and eat it, how is that really contributing to a global problem? it's not. that's because eating meat is only sometimes immoral, if the situation makes it so.
eating meat is moral

Eating meat is immoral because of the large amount of land required to sustain animals. This is slowly destroying our planet and if we do nothing about it, we will surely destroy our planet. Although you are considering the animal being slaughtered, I think it is much more important to think of the impact we are having on our entire biosphere. Unfortunately it is not sustainable to feed a population of 9 billion (by the year 2050) on a meat-heavy diet like the one we have in the U.S and in most other first world countries.
We should follow the example of Finland's education system.

YO YO YO I just wanna make one thing very clear to the people of the internet. I like dickss! And there is nothing wrong with being homosexual, my opponent is discriminating against everyone. Bad boy, bad boy whachu gonna do, when the liberals come for YOU!!!!!!!! OH GOOD GAMME> So internet people, vote for me cause I am one of you guys. I am amaze #yoloswagger #420 #education #rights #ohyeah #money #hashtagking #nospacesinhaashtags.
We should follow the example of Finland's education system.

I'm sure many Americans and Finns would agree you don't have swag yourself, and that Finns know English better than you.The whole world's having a hard time. It's time we, whichever nation we come from, started thinking on the long term. Of course, this is easier to say, as money doesn't come easy or at least not to the right places nor to the right people. But maybe education is something worth investing in. I think it' something we'll come to regret very soon if we don't make it much better today, or even in the next generation.I won't bother repeating myself, as Con's not making the effort to produce anything useful. I'll put my trust in the voters' common sense.
We should follow the example of Finland's education system.

YO nigga listen up! the race card is over used today. yo yo yo, finald got swag nah b. American is swagin. American numba 1 dont talk nigga until you know what you talking about! finald dont got swag, america got swag. Ameriac swag. finald not swag. GOOD GAME U JUST GOT OWNED!!!!
Debate.org should allow swears, personal/opinon attacks, and racial/sexual/religious slurs

I understand your predicament. Anyway, here is my reply to your argument in the comments section. "not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others". (Definition of civil from Google Definitions)" A definition of profanity: "common or vulgar". I will go with my first instinct and say that vulgarity is rudeness, and that your point here is meaningless. I actually do not have to defeat any of your points. You know that our society does not tolerate rude, unneeded attacks on anyone, especially total strangers attempting to engage in a healthy, civil debate with you. All you are doing here is speculating on the meanings of words. I have nothing more to prove. Rather, I will say that the rules on Debate.org are in line with what is considered acceptable when it comes to interacting with others. This topic is completely unnecessary, serving no purpose than to create a similarly unnecessary debate.
Debate.org should allow swears, personal/opinon attacks, and racial/sexual/religious slurs

"not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others". (Definition of civil from Google Definitions) Well, the simple fact that profanity is not encouraged in our society is proof that curse words and the like are obviously considered extremely rude to use. This is directly contrary to the definition of civil. If you consider allowing someone else the use of profanity in your direct presence, that is your own personal preference. However, the preference of our society is clearly defined, and which is why the preference of the many out rule the preference of the few, in this case you. Profanity is not clearly prohibited in places because it is a given rule that people abide by social rules. Why do you think children are sharply discouraged from using profanity? By your rule, we should allow them their right to use such language. Again, to utter such language in the presence of others not your close friends it is extremely rude. On the second point of profanity as a demonstration of vocabulary, it is clearly demonstrated here. Curse words are usually a demonstration of excessive emotional expression. Words such as f*** are usually applied in situations where you experience extreme disappointment, or extreme pleasure, both of which usually have no place here. Also, your point that people usually replace such words are a demonstration of the fop as curse words bring about as a result of them being said. My last point here is that no one explicitly says "heck" or "dang" here. They have no place in a civil debate between two sensible people. My last point is about what a debate is, and how it needs no personal attacks on a person or their point. A debate is a formal discussion and argumentation of a point. The key word here is formal. Formal as in being of accord with the generally accepted rules of the society we live in. In our society, it is extremely rude to insult or attack another person, especially for what they believe in or in the way they exist. Attacks on a person are not "apart of the style of a debater". Debating is formally arguing the merits of cons of a point of a position. Attacking someone simply has no place in that form of activity.
Debate.org should allow swears, personal/opinon attacks, and racial/sexual/religious slurs

"Everyone one of these rules is justified. Debating is supposed to be a civil, organized arguments between two people of different points of view." This is labeling use of profanities, insults and attacks as non-civil. The concept of civility is a very objective one. There are many people, such as myself, who would say that using profanities does not at all qualify as uncivil. To me a mark civility, is accepting, and respecting the fact that people use profanity. "The first rule is obviously justified. Use of swear words and profanity is not encouraged anywhere, and there is a reason why it is considered extremely rude to use this type of language between anyone except close friends and relations." There are a number of places that directly or indirectly encourage profanity, but regardless of if it is encouraged in many places, it is rarely explicitly prohibited. Just because you allow something, does not mean you encourage it. "It only highlights the fact that the person lacks a sensible vocabulary, and can find no others words than rude language." Fundamentally, profanities are words that may represent a certain state of mind, type of person, or level of intensity, not necessarily a lack of vocabulary. Also people are allowed to use substitute swear words such as heck or dang or "censored" swear words like f*ck, so prohibiting the printing of a swear word does not prohibit people from conveying the meaning of that word. "The second rule, no personal attacks on a member or a member's opinions, is also easily justified. Why is there a need to attack someone you do not even know?" While there may not be a need to personally attack someone, I see no need to prohibit it, it reflects a person's debate style. "Besides, if you stoop down to the level where you need to attack your opponent's, it is obvious you can find no other point, and have run out of constructive things to say." This is very true, and if someone resorts to personal attacks, it may be an obvious indicator as to who won the debate, if someone is digging themselves into a hole in a debate, let them. Essentially I'm just saying that prohibiting the use of these things is inhibiting a person's debating strategy and style, and censoring a person's personality and background as a whole.