BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The US should put less money into military and instead put more money into education and NASA

You're right, US education isn't the best. You want to abandon the education of children just because the system is 'broken'? A nation with that way of thinking wouldn't last long. By putting money into education, we can improve it. It's really that simple. By spending money to improve our education, we would be fixing it. Do you think it will just magically fix itself when it feels like it? No, everything needs money. You say NASA money is a waste, and it is clear to see that some projects have been failures. But building a rocket is much harder than forming a military team. Some NASA projects won't work, and we'll have to accept that. And most NASA projects have been tremendous successes, like the moon landing, Mars Curiosity Rover, and many others. You can see a list of successful missions here: http://www.nasa.gov... I agree with your last argument, we need to respect veterans more. Did you misunderstand something I wrote? On that fact, I totally agree with you. We should spend more money taking care of them then current military. Only about 7% of US funds go to them. Veterans in America are treated horribly. They often have a hard time getting a job when they get back and the healthcare process is horrible. We should spend more money on our veterans then on our military. We don't have to cut back on military much, but by doing so, we can improve many other fields and take better care of our veterans. We can also improve our standings on education leaderboards. I want you to look at this graph:http://pgpf.org... I don't think we'll lose our standing as number 1 anytime soon. Sources not listed: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The US should put less money into military and instead put more money into education and NASA

You're saying that the military gets to much money. Nasa spent $349 million to test a rocket amd now that place where they tested the rocket is now abandoned. Too much money is spent on nasa already. All that money was waste,the testing sight was only used once. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Nasa spent over $3 billion on other things that are useless. http://m.cnsnews.com... Would you spend more money on something that dosent work? The answer is no, noone wants to spend money on something that dosen't work. So why should more money go to education when we have a broken education system. The U.S. Ranks 14 in education 2nd in ignorance 24th place in literacy 17th in educational performance in the world. Before you want to spend money on something broken try fixing it first. https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com... You do know that the military protects the Constitution, the entire nation, and including you. The military is more important than nasa. The military needs the money to keep being number one in the world. http://www.businessinsider.com... The disabled veterans did an outstanding job protecting your children and everyone who lives in America. They deserve the money to be healed and to get them back on their feet for protecting you. Give the veterans the respect they deserve it.
The US should put less money into military and instead put more money into education and NASA

Since 2001, the base defense budget has soared from $278 billion to over $530 billion. In 2011, we spent over 20% of the total US budget on just defense, and only 2% of our budget on education! In 2013, the military budget rose to 37% out of the total US budget, pushing other things back such as social security funds, NASA and education funds, and funds to help disabled veterans. Last year, we spent $618 billion on military, making us first place overall in the world for the most money spent on military. Our military spendings were 3 times more than the second place holder, China. I think the US needs to stop and think about the priorities they've made. We spend more than 18x the amount we spend on the education of our children on our military budget. The NASA budget is miniscule, less than one percent. We need to decrease the amount of money we spend on the military and instead invest it into education for US children, NASA programs that have been losing funding, and taking care of our disabled veterans here in America. Sources- weboflove.org, washingtonpost.com, USAtoday.com
should brittany spears get her kids back

Thank-you for starting this debate and I apologize for not posting a beginning argument, but I was on vacation for spring break. "u suck" Opinion. "why would you accept the debate then" Because this is www.debate.org and you're supposed to debate here. Just becuase I did not post my first argument in time, doesn't mean I just gave up. "but anyway.....thanxs for even trying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"No problem! "i feel like she should't get her kids back.." I am guessing that from this statement, you are saying she should never again in her life have custody of her two children. I will now bring up this point. In life, there are ups and down. Spears is obviously at a low point in her life, but with help, counseling, and support, she has the ability to be the great, successful, and talented star she once was and still has the ability to be. "i feel like she put every thing before her kids..and then when the courts took her kids she tryed to act like she cared,but she could not put on a good enough." How so? Where are your proof or facts? Even if she did, there is nothing that is preventing her from changing her life around. She is suffering right now, but with counseling and receiving help, Britney could really do what she does best: sing, dance, and be a good actress. "SHE SHOULD NOT GET HER KIDS BACK" Again, I will state, she can and is changing! Take a look at this. http://abcnews.go.com... From this article, you are able to see that Britney is starting to regain control of her life. After all, they are her children and she can change. Who are we to say that she will always remain unstable or not able to properly care for her children? Spell check has saved my life and just so you know, her name is spelled "Britney."
should brittany spears get her kids back

i feel like she should't get her kids back..i feel like she put every thing before her kids..and then when the courts took her kids she tryed to act like she cared,but she could not put on a good enough.for the fact that during the whole drama, she could not get her act together.still getting drunk,partying,and not caring....thats what she do best.. SHE SHOULD NOT GET HER KIDS BACK
should brittany spears get her kids back

So your whole argument is that should get her kids back, but only if she get counseling .i think their is nothing wrong worth that...but my point is that, he did put everything before her kids because even when they were in court battling for the kids she was still committing crimes, drinking, and doing thing that you should not be doing, while in a court process fighting for your kids so i made my argument ,but you have yet to support your view.
The Creation Story from Genesis and Evolution are Not Necessarily Mutually Exclusive

The reason why someone can believe in God and in the Genesis story is the same reason why you can say that God doesn't exist: faith. Faith is believing in something when there is not definite proof in it. Just as I cannot prove that God exists beyond doubt, you cannot prove he doesn't exist beyond doubt. Just as some may say Christians blindly follow archaic beliefs, atheists equally blindly follow their own beliefs. The only belief subscription that can say they do not "blindly" follow a path based on faith is the path of the agnostics, the ones who don't believe in anything that can't be proved. They skirt the entire argument by stating that they cannot prove either way whether God exists. Scientifically, they are the ones who are most certainly right. I believe, most of all, because I just can't comprehend not believing. My family wasn't particularly religious when I was young (I wasn't even baptized until I was 12), but I learned to listen. I don't mean to sound histrionic, but I have always felt as though I could hear God in the wind through a Wyoming meadow, or the quiet creak of the trees in North Carolina, or even the lapping of the miniature waves upon the shores of a small lake in Florida. Faith is kind of esoteric, but until one opens their eyes, it is impossible to see anything. Faith is the mind's eye. As a final closing argument, and returning to the point of the actual debate, I have won because I have shown that the theories of Genesis and evolution can coexist, and my opponent has shown nothing to the contrary except for attack the integrity of the story of Genesis, which did not fit the criteria of the debate
The Creation Story from Genesis and Evolution are Not Necessarily Mutually Exclusive

If you know that Genesis has been changed a bunch, then why do you still believe it? It's like playing a game of telephone and choosing to just reinterpret what the last person says. It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it trustworthy. "I'm sorry that you have apparently grown so hardened that the world extending from beyond your nose is completely in doubt." Please show me that God exists then. I'm not hardened and don't believe that you should just merge two stories together for comfort. The likelihood of these ancient people making this as a metaphor is slim. I mean, they probably didn't even know where the sun went at night, let alone how the universe was made. Not their fault, but again, It doesn't make them correct.
The Creation Story from Genesis and Evolution are Not Necessarily Mutually Exclusive

I do not feel that you have actually addressed my arguments, but rather chose to simply attack my personal belief system. Not the point of the debate. To respond to your "argument", I am a Catholic who sincerely believes in the church, and in discovering how to become closer to God through science. Considering that the history told within Genesis was most likely handed down generation after generation, I see it as not only plausible for the story to have become adapted to be understood by earlier minds, but also likely. Whether or not God directly told the early Israelites the time span of the Earth, how does a civilization that does not even understand why the sun moves in the sky comprehend the concept of billions of years. When one of them is lucky to live to 50, how do they comprehend the fact that the Earth used to be swirling with molten rock. By the time Genesis was actually written down, it had been passed down numerous times with each generation understanding less of the original concept. Just because one decides to seek truth through science, doesn't mean that he forsakes his beliefs. If you are so bigoted to the point that you cannot understand the fact that science could possibly correlate to religious beliefs, then your mind is as an oyster, cloistered away from the world and refusing to see anything. The point of this debate was to depict whether two seemingly-contradictory theories could actually coincide. Your hate-flame has completely thrown any hope of a reasonable debate in that regard away. I'm sorry that you have apparently grown so hardened that the world extending from beyond your nose is completely in doubt.
The Creation Story from Genesis and Evolution are Not Necessarily Mutually Exclusive

You chose not to take it literally, ok. I saw The Ken Ham video, I know the stuff. I was raised Catholic. I don't believe creation is a fluid story unless you are a liberal christian. I will say then: I highly dislike liberal Christianity, because it is intellectually dishonest. I was once a liberal Christian, in between being a fundamentalist and later, an atheist. You guys have plenty of common ground with where atheists tend to stand: you don't deny science, or history, or anything like that. You aren't bigots, homophobes or racists. From a moral perspective, you guys are the best version of Christianity there is. However, therein lies the problem. Because to pull this off, you transform the bible's stories that conflict with reality into "that's an allegory/story so ancient people would understand the concept". You have to change most of the bible's moral system, old and new testament into "Well that was for them" and play endless pedantic word translation games so you can justify throwing out everything you find distasteful (sexism, racism, etc etc etc the list goes on for miles). It's a completely exhausting juggling act. What liberal christianity does is make the entire bible irrelevant, except for one tiny slice of Jesus' teachings that is used to justify doing so and then create a God in your own image. God becomes simply your buddy that you pray to and he blesses you, relieves you of stress, helps you get through the day and then when everything is over spirits you off to eternal undying bliss. Basically, you have created a god of wishful thinking. God agrees with whatever you agree with, and he is against whatever you are against. In other words, God is you. I could not tolerate the charade, as I eventually came to see it, of being a theist atheist (That is, believing in God, but approaching life like an atheist with a veneer of divinity coating it). And that is why I cannot respect liberal/progressive Christianity as a position. You are good people who are 99.9% atheist, just drop the God already and use your mental energies for more productive means. You are good because you are good people, not 'cuz Jesus loves you.
Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

I have learned much from the well researched citations in support of the pro argument. The burden that pro took on was simple: companies were better with/after Bain Capitol than they were before[1]. For this reason it is not necessary to connect any dots, it is not necessary to analyze all the steps taken and supply evidence that Bain was directly responsible for the decisions. If a company did better with/after Bain than before, Bain got the credit for the net good that had transpired. If a company was worse off, Bain must take the responsibility. Certainly my opponent can not expect Bain to be able to take all the reward of success without taking the blame failures. It is a poor leader that reaps the profits of his squad but makes them bear the burden for their failures. Bain does this in the financial world already, but that was not the groundrules for the debate. Simply put: were companies better off after Bain than before? Not always. Often enough to show a pattern the company was made so vulnerable that it filed for bankruptcy. Many survived, indeed thrived. Not all. To those that went under it had a devestating effect on the workers and community, and these things must also be considered as part of the whole. Does the good that Bain Capitol accomplished outweigh the negative effect they had on companies that did not survive? It depends on what is valued. Bain gambled with companies, and never lost. That is because when the dice came up bad, it was the company and the workforce who paid the price. Again, I thank my opponent and look forward to hearing his other arguments in the future. [1] Round 1 establishment argument.
Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

I apologize, due to non-internet life demands, I do not have the time to formulate full arguments for my current debates. I only wish to conclude by restating that Mitt Romney, under Bain Capital, was an economic force for good that helped to start, save, stabalize, and expand companies. The net effect of Romney's work was a tremendous amount of jobs saved and created. Con has only re-stated correlations with no basis or causation for bankruptcies, even ignoring that many of these companies continued to thrive and provide jobs after filing for bankruptcy. I showed that Stage still operates to this day, with more than 4,000 employees more than when Bain stepped in originally. Con also confuses the company's(Armco) loss of 544 million in 1992 with its financials in 1993, when Bain took over. Bain can't be held accountable for what a company did before it stepped in. I must assert that most of Con's arguments have been generalized, correlation, and refuted at this point. Clearly, Mitt Romney helped companies.
Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

I will begin this round by outlining the two aspects of Bain Capital's strategy, investing in start-up companies, and taking over companies that are either failing or in need of restructure and growth. -----Sealy Corporation-----Sealy Corp was sold to Bain Capital in 1997. [1] Sealy Corp reported in 1997 the following:[2] 5,456 employees $721 million in assets $11.7 million in net income In 2003, Sealy's last year with Bain Capital, they reported the following:[3] 6,562 employees $959 million in assets $18.3 million in net income Under Bain Capital, Sealy Corp managed to add 1106 new full-time jobs(a 20% increase in its workforce), $238 million in assets, and still report a 56% increase in net income. -----Staples----- Staples is one of the many companies Bain Capital has invested in during start-up and expansion. Staples now has over 89,000 employees. [4] Stemberg, the co-founder of Staples, said about Mitt Romney: “Most V. C. ’s thought it was ridiculous. .. Mitt was highly unusual in that he went to the research level to study it. ”[5]These two companies are exemplary of the type of work Bain Capital and Mitt Romney did. Businesses need money to grow, and sound managment. Mitt Romney and Bain Capital provided both for many, many companies. [1]. http://www.nytimes.com...[2]http://www.sec.gov...[3]http://www.sec.gov...[4]http://thomson.mobular.net...[5]http://nymag.com...
Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

In the interest of purely avoiding semantic arguments, I will use the following definitions in my refutation of the premise. Definitionsnet -[1]a: remaining after the deduction of all charges, outlay, or loss <net earnings> <net worth>b: excluding all nonessential considerations : basic, final <the net result> <net effect> help -[2]a : to be of use to : benefitb : to further the advancement of : promotec : to change for the better[1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Romney's Work at Bain Capital Helped Companies

I assert that Romney's work at Bain Capital helped the companies they invested in, as a 'net' effect. My burden is to show that companies did better with/after Romney/Bain, and Con's burden is to show that Romney/Bain hurt companies, as a 'net' effect.Please, no arguments over semantics. Any questions can be posed in the comments for clarification.R1 - AcceptanceR2 - Opening ArgumentsR3 - Rebuttals/ArgumentsR4 - Rebuttals/Conclusions
Women should have equal rights to men

The proposition we will be debating is: "Should women have equal rights to men?" Both parties have the burden of proof to prove their proposition: I will be arguing (Con) that women should not have equal rights to men. You will be arguing the (Pro) case that women should have equal rights to men. These are the definitions I will be using Rights: those things that one is morally or legally entitled to do or have. Women: humans with two X chromosomes. First round is for acceptance. After that anything goes. This is an informal debate, you are free to make your points in any fashion that you see fit.
Women should have equal rights to men

My argument is very simple: 1: Sufficiently different people require different rights This premise is true if you look at young children and adults. Children and adults are mentally and physically very different, so they require different rights to ensure their well-being and societies well being. For example: Children do not have the right to vote, since they lack the cognitive ability to make a rational, informed decision. Another example is: color-blind people. Color blind people are biologically different from people who can see color. Color blind people do not have the right to perform various jobs such as becoming a pilot since they require the ability to see colored signals to fly safely. 2: Women and men are sufficiently different Women and men are vastly different physically: Women have less muscle mass, and boobs which make them less biologically able to perform physically demanding tasks. This is why women are not allowed in the military in many countries. Women have the ability to get pregnant and have children, this is why women have more rights when it comes to maternity leave and abortion. Women have much longer maternity leave (with greater benefits) than men, as well as much greater rights in choosing to abort or not abort a fetus. Women and men are also vastly different mentally: Men have approximately 6.5 times more gray matter in the brain than wome. Women have about 10 times more white matter than men do. [1] Male brains are about 10% bigger than female brains on average. [1] Male and female brains are effected by different hormones, males have much more testosterone than females. These physical differences in male and female brains account for differences in cognition and males and females, such as males have higher sex drives, being more aggressive and males being more logical. Contrasted to females which are more emotional, less aggressive and less sexual. From premise 1: Sufficiently different people require different rights and premise 2: Men and women are sufficiently different We reach the conclusion: Men and women should have different rights This is a simple logical deduction. Men and women should have different rights (and already do). As I stated in my argument: abortion rights, and parental leave rights being two examples. I now pass the floor over to my opponent to make their case and refute any of my arguments [1]: http://www.webmd.com...
Abortion should be banned in the United States

We seem to be going in circles here. I hope we can break that trend in this, our last round. It is not okay to kill someone for ANY of the following reasons: 1. They are unwanted. 2. Their future is bleak. 3. Their existence will inconvenience another. I was hoping we would get to deeper issues in this debate, especially this being my first on this site, I see it is yours as well. Abortion ends the life of a unique human being. Nobody has the right to intentionally destroy an innocent life. This is the basis of my argument, and I await a thoughtful rebuttal.
Abortion should be banned in the United States

For the purposes of this debate "abortion" shall be defined as "the intentional termination of a pregnancy in which the death of the fetus is intended". I thank any opponent for accepting this debate on a hot button issue, and promise to treat my opponent fairly, and with respect and dignity regardless of how passionately we may disagree. I expect the same treatment from my opponent. Round 1 = Acceptance Rounds 2&3 = Arguments & counter-points Round 4 = Closing