BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
welfare promotes laziness

For a brief roadmap i will be covering all of my opponents prior arguments, and proving how my side of the debate should be the one accepted. Observation1: First of all "proud" is a word that has several definitions. According to dictionary.com proud is defined as "having, proceeding from, or showing a high opinion of one's own dignity, importance, or superiority." If felling proud that means showing one's importance. So i bring up the case of suicide. Suicide is commonly a case shown in people felling that they are unimportant, and frankly committing suicide makes people appear weak. In today's time suicide is the 11th leading cause of death in America, and in 2006 the total number of deaths was 33,300. Due to the last statement, 33,300 people seems quite a significant amount of people not felling proud, and appearing weak. Observation2: The definition of survive according to thefreedictionary.com is "to remain alive or in existence." According to my opponent all welfare recipients have to do is remain alive and they can live on welfare. Observation3: It is human nature to be lazy that is to reason why communism will never work with people. As soon as someone realizes that they do not have to do anything, THEY WON'T. If my opponent shows me a case in someone would decline to such a thing then great, but in this point in the debate he has not shown any sort of evidence except his personal opinion. HIS DEFINITIONS: (During this time i will be proving why his definitions are not the ones that should be used in this debate) Welfare- His definition was neither cited or a contextual definition. Lazy- He does not show his citation for his definition, and therefor should not be accepted within this debate. MY Definitions: Contextual definition: Coming from a source related to the topic. His arguments: C1. My opponent stated that once people are on welfare they will do anything in their power to get off of the government help. I make a request that he post a significant amount of cases in which people try to get off of welfare. HIS SOURCES My opponent lists his sources put upon closer examination the sources he listed are completely different than his definitions he presents. Why Vote AFF. (pro) Within this round i have shown why my opponents arguments are flawed. Unless my opponent can find significant amount of cases in which welfare would not promote laziness among people then there is no doubt in my mind who should win this debate. Unless my opponent can completely reject my arguments i can see no other possibility than a Affirmative (pro) win.
welfare promotes laziness

First off let me start this round by thanking me opponent for the opportunity to debate this subject. Next, I will make the clarification my opponent forgot to in their opening statements; This debate is relative and in regards to the United States. Not another country, and not internationally. --- As a brief roadmap, I will be offering framework, then definitions, and finally arguments. =Framework= Obs1: People are proud by nature; accordingly, people do not want to do anything that would make them appear weak, stupid, or otherwise inefficient. Obs2: People one welfare usually do not survive on welfare alone Obs3: Because my opponent has stated that there are no circumstances in which person would decline having everything they need payed for by another, they must prove their stance beyond the shadow of a doubt. IF they are unable to do this, then they will lose this debate. =Definitions= 1. Welfare- [1] "Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need" 2. Lazy- [2] "disinclined to work or exertion" =Arguments= With my argumentation I will go Con then Pro. I would also like to note that I will only be presenting one argument per round, and will offer no new arguments unless my opponent does so as well. Con- C1: People are naturally prideful- As such, they aren't going to want to do anything that makes them look bad. Whether people are made to look lazy, stupid, fat ugly, etc.; they don't take it lying down. And as sad as it is, when a person is on welfare they're already looked down upon in the first place. We see it then as a logical truth that people aren't going to look to welfare except as a last resort, and once on welfare will try as hard as they can to get off. Pro- The only thing I have to say against my opponent, is that their entire case is unwarranted. They give us not proof, or real reason to believe what they have said. So I urge you all, please Vote Con! =Sources= [1] http://bit.ly... [2] http://bit.ly...
welfare promotes laziness

The basis of my argument is that by giving people the option to welfare by human nature they will rely on government aid as long as it is offered. Let us first look at the number of people drawing welfare which in 1994 was around 15 million people, and is obviously risen a significant amount since that time. During my extensive research of this topic one thing has became aware to me, that if given the option people will allow others to do the work for them without themselves doing anything. Lets use logic for a moment, if someone offered you the chance to have everything you need payed by another person, who would decline? There are no circumstances that someone would not decline to that proposition. There are a several ways in today's age that people can obtain some sort of government help. Out of all these options there are "loop holes" in everyone that would allow some one to get away from having to work. That is my opening argument, its not in depth but i will wait for my opponent to argue his view of the topic.
Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools

Menstruation. Something that is unavoidable women. Thousands of impoverished girls risk their own health and safety without access to these necessary products. Reverting to makeshift methods like plastic or grocery bags to try to keep themselves clean. While condoms are made readily available for free in various locations, girls in shelters and prisons and even some schools are denied easy access to these vital items. Should these products be made free and available to those in the aforementioned locations?
Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools

But I'm not at all arguing that women shouldn't have the sanitary products they need. I do agree that we as a society are responsible for making sure that everybody can always get their basic needs met. This includes sanitary products but also food, housing and water. Now if you think these products should be made available for free, yet you don't think the same should apply to housing and food, then you need to give a good reason why these products need to be treated differently from other basic needs. Of course you could argue that housing and food should be made available for free as well, but they would mean we'd be doing away with capitalism completely. You could argue that the difference is that it's unfair because it's a cost only women have, but I wouldn't have anything against it in principle of unemployment benefit would be higher for women than it is for men, or vice versa, if the basic cost of living is higher for one of the two genders. On the other hand, men tend to require more food than women, so it isn't even clear that women would get more in this case. Again, I totally agree that these situations you described should never happen and that it's the responsible of our society to take care of this, I'm just not sure if providing these products for free is the best solution. Instead I'd say we should make sure abject poverty doesn't occur any more.
Women's sanitary products should be available for free in prisons, shelters, and schools

For decades now we as a country have been fighting unemployment and poverty. This would be another initiative to help aid the problem. Women don't choose to be born women, they don't choose to have to shed their uterine lining every month, yet they're subjected to pay thousands in a lifetime to pay for this is unavoidable issue. How is this fair? How is this just? I understand that this argument may be viewed as a feminist rant. Some may see the idea of women having access to a necessary product certain locations (not everywhere), unequal, as men aren't directly benefiting. In the case of women in poverty, men are already benefiting, the issue of finding plastic or paper products to avoid ruining their perhaps only pair of pants is not something that affects men. This resolution simply levels the playing field, it doesn't put any one above each other. Yes unemployment initiative may help the situation so women would have more money to pay for pads or tampons, but imagine this: having to choose between eating that week or being clean and sanitary. This is a choice that men don't have to go through in the same manor. I am simply arguing that this idea would be beneficial ALONGSIDE other initiatives. I urge the con to see this issue from the perspective of the women and girls who live in poverty across the nation.
Abortion

Calling me disgusting and calling your reasons good enough doesn't make your reasons all that compelling. It is rather baffling you would care about matters such as an aborted fetus which doesn't affect you or me in the slightest unlike being forced to go through the stages of pregnancy and risk pain and death. And just to test your morals, answer this question for yourself for future debates. Under what levels of suffering to a person are acceptable to you as long as a fetus makes birth?
Abortion

What do you know if giving birth? You"ve never done it. Yes, it is painful, the most pain a person can withstand without passing out. Nowadays, though, in case you haven"t heard or been around for the last whenever, painkillers exist and there are other options, surgically. Also, if they didn"t want to have a baby, than they shouldn"t have had sex. And for those who were raped, that is apsoluty terrible and I can"t even begin to imagine what a terrible and scaring experience that must have been but they shouldn"t murder the child, they should give them up for adoption. As for why you should car, I"ve already given you reasons and if those aren"t good enough for you then that"s pretty disgusting and I feel terrible for you. If you don"t care, why are you even here? Why did you click on this? What"s your point to- anything?
Abortion

So like I said earlier, no one that is not a fetus, including me, doesn't have to worry about becoming a fetus as opposed to becoming an elderly person like all people do, so why should I care about what happens to the fetus individually even if you or a group of people call it a "person" or "murdered brutally" when you abort the fetus? Even if the fetus pragmatically falls in the realm of being a person and aborting a fetus was considered murder, is it really utilitarian to force pregnant people to give birth against there will? Giving birth I hear can not only bring a lot of pain and torture, but will in some cases kill you, so I wonder what levels of forced torture are acceptable to you if doing it for an hour or so meant maintaining a fetus through birth. You are also gonna have to give me that evidence where other animals besides human don't possess nostalgia, hope , despair etc.
Abortion

I meant person to murder to mean what they classically mean. Person as human being and murder, to take the life of. You should care because that is a part of this world, sadly, abortion , that is, and you live in it. It"s really quite awful that we even have to argue about whether or not it is wrong or right to murder someone. As for how it"s Equivalent, in what way is it not? It is taking away the life of a human being in both cases. I do not think we should Dispose of human sperm or egg, either, though, As we Do not and probably cannot understand it to the fullest in that sense. It is different, though, however than a fertilized chicken embryo or tapeworm as those are not human beings and, as we shouldn"t try to inflict pain onto an animal, it"s not the same; people always come first; tapeworms and chickens don"t have souls.
Abortion

Define the word "person" and "murder", and explain why I should care even if you call it or it is a "person" or "murder". Explain pragmatically how being murdered as an elderly (which I and you worry about becoming), for example is pragmatically equivalent to being "murdered" individually as a fetus (which I or you don't worry about becoming) as opposed to being "murdered" as a sperm or egg individually before they meet (which I or you don't worry about becoming) or being "murdered" as a fertilized chicken embryo, or being "murdered" as a tapeworm (which I or you, you guessed it, don't have to worry about becoming) which you pro lifers care so much about btw. And by becoming, I am talking how people age into being elderly.
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

I'll simply go down the NC flow. Value: Moral Obligations --> I have 3 responses: First, the resolution never asks us to do what is moral, thus it is not inherent. Second, even if you don't drop it for inherency, the ideas of moral obligations are unclear in this debate because he never provides a bright-line as to what moral obligations are, and what determines them. Third, if you dont accept my two kicks agaisnt it, you can turn this agaisnt him on the fact that it would be moral to increase methods of protecting human rights, which would be done through this court. VC: National Sovereignty I have 3 responses: First, national sovereignty is a block agaisnt lots of morality. It creates some of the worst crimes in the history of the world. If a nation can have full, absolute sovereignty then there is no check on that country. That is why we need the ICC. for example, Hitler committed the holocaust within the boundaries of national sovereignty. This leads to response #2 Second, I would argue that when national sovereignty presents a block to justice, then that national sovereignty does not exist. E.g. The Holocaust. Third, even if you dont buy the first 2 responses, I would argue that joining the ICC gives a balance of protecting national sovereignty and the protection of human rights because by joining we would be able to enact our own policies within the ICC, thus avoiding national sovereignty interference. C1 - National Identity Summary of contention + responses: 1. Morality based on US standards --> The US allowed slavery, so did that make it moral? Morality cannot be based on strictly an American standard. 2. Hurts American Interests --> The only way to win, is to join the game. Bascially, by not joining we are stopping our influence in the ICC, and thus not helping. But furthermore, if we dont join, we would have no say if a country in the ICC arrests say, one of our humanitarian workers. C2 - Abuse A. No checks and Balances --> The ICC is checked by the security council, and needs a UN referral before proceeding with action. --> The ICC is checked by the "national committed." Link this back to an above point of mine. THe US needs to join to influence. B. Unchecked power leads to Abuse --> It isn't unchecked. --> Even if it was unchecked it would have less influence because no one would join it, thus they would not abuse their power.
Is Paul George better then Carmelo Anthony

Paul George, age 23, has become a better player than Anthony, age 29, and that's a problem. A big problem. It's one thing for LeBron James to be the superior Eastern Conference talent, quite another for George to have hurdled Melo in the power rankings, too. "He's got a lot better, especially offensively," Anthony said after George finished with 35 points and outscored the Knicks in overtime 9-7 in the Pacers' 103-96 victory. "All it takes is confidence in this league. I think with George, that's what he has right now, and it's growing day by day, game by game, and you can see that when he's out on the court."
Is Paul George better then Carmelo Anthony

Ok, let's get one thing straight: Paul George is not a better player than Melo. Last year nobody had a clue who in the world Paul George even was. This seasons stats for Carmelo Anthony: 27 Point/Game, 44.8% shooting, 41.4% 3pt-Shooting, 8.6 Rebounds/game,and 3 Assists/Game (according to . http://espn.go.com...). For Paul George: 22.6 Points/Game, 44.2% shooting, 37.2% 3pt shooting, 6.4 rebounds/game, and 3.5 assists/game. Still great numbers but not as good as Carmelo Anthony. At this point in George's game he is not as good as Melo. Who says he won't be better than Melo when he is 29 but at this point he is not as good as Melo. The only thing George is better than Anthony at is getting good teammates. Not too long ago, there was a guy named Shaq whom Carmelo would have won a title with had they played together. Not too long ago, a Tim Duncan would've gotten Carmelo a ring. If he and Paul Pierce had traded places in 2008, Carmelo would have a ring. In other words, he's more than capable of winning at the highest level. He just needs -- get this -- better teammates. Remember, he got to the West finals with Chauncey Billups in 2009. But Melo has never had a Shaq or a Duncan or a KG. He's never even had a Russell Westbrook, who's playing alongside another "pure scorer. " Melo got a past-his-prime Allen Iverson, a broken Amar'e Stoudemire and now some Knicks creation that includes Andrea Bargnani and Metta World Peace. How's that supposed to work? Yes, George is the all-around player of choice in this discussion, but Melo is getting too bad a rap these days.
To take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, you must have a biblical ultimate standard

GodSands is trying to say basically that we cannot be sure of anything unless the bible is correct. Perhaps he is right and we can't be sure of anything. What reason is there to believe the bible is correct? Because already intelligent men wrote it? Whether or not its with the help of God doesn't really matter, because how would they know that God was real, even if he was talking to them? You cannot prove anything is real, and religion doesn't change that one bit. In order to take the laws of logic for granted you must aknowlage that what you can sense is true. That in no way says that you must believe in God because people cannot sense God and the ones that can tend to end up in the asylum. Who is to say who is right? No one can say for sure, we could all be living in the Matrix world, we may be a TV show for some aleins that laugh at our existance, or nothing could be real at all. They are all possibilites, but most people don't believe them to be true. When it comes to proof there may not be any proof that we are intelligent from evolution or from God. The fact is though in order to take it for granted you just have to experience it and believe that what you feel is real. You don't have to accept the bible or its standards to do so, all you have to do is be like any other living creature. If you run after a cat it will run because it senses danger. Whether or not you are dangerous to it does not matter, its instinct. Every animal has it, every animal lives with it. Every animal acts upon it. Humans are no different.
To take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, you must have a biblical ultimate standard

Not really feeling up to it but I suppose I should post something for my last round. If you really think evolution is stupid here is a link explaining how it works in the beginning, I'm pretty sure its a Christian friendly site too, http://www.questioningchristian.com... The article talks about squares and balls in a barrel and how more survive depending on their environment. Another link explaining evolution and how there is no difference in micro and macro evolution http://atheism.about.com... My opponent says that without the biblewe would never be able to understand logic, but that is just not true. There are some key parts on how to determine if someone is insane based on how they act. Read up http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Like most other animals we can tell when others feel pain and most of us do not like it, thus the majority has dubbed harming others as wrong. From the veiw of a society it is the only way to keep any order so we make laws and such against such things. Humans aren't so special http://rudhro.wordpress.com... There is really no reason to believe that the bible is what gives us the ability to think logically as opposed to we evolved into a certain way of thinking, especially when we can clearly see other animals with similar ways of thinking.
To take the preconditions of intelligibility for granted, you must have a biblical ultimate standard

How can you be sure that the biblical world veiw is correct? Why is it so unreasonable that man just evolved into a more logical species? Why can't we just understand that what we sense and deduct is true? There is no real reason for believing that the bible is the source of logic. It may be but there is no reason to just decide that it is, or to say that that is where truth comes from. My opponent says that if evolution is true then the word of God must be false, since evolution is pretty much proven, it looks like my opponent says that the word of God must be false. We know we are knowlagable because we know what we can sense. We started doing things that helped us better survive, such as fence in cattle and other such animal used for food. We adapted to the environment, much like every other animal. We are just different not superior. Like any other animal we accept what we can sense to be true, and that is how we came to accept logic. There doesn't need to be any biblical truth to prove that logic is correct. We adapted and formed logic, and using my opponent's argument proves the bible is false, so the bible cannot be the source.
The existance of the holy trinity is probroly the truth.

In this rebuttal, I'll be addressing the weaknesses in my Opponents case.Bible Contradicts trinity General critique: My Opponent is presuming Biblical innerrency, which is illogical. The Bible was written by men inspired men yes, but still men who are ultimately fallible. Prefer my logical arguments regarding the nature of God to his presumptions. He's misunderstanding the Holy Trinity. It's not like "oh there are actually three Gods", but rather that Gods nature is that of th Father, Son, and holy Ghost. Remember the Cube God example where God's full nature is unexplicable to his creations. This turns most of his arguments describing God as a singular entity. Yes, God is the one and only, but he is a complex God. Jesus being a part of God in no way takes away from his "oneness". He tries to show that God is Jesus's soveirgn. I don't doubt that he is, given that Jesus is a part of God--just as my arm is a part of me. He argues that Jesus is below God using Josh 8:42: "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me." This fails to disprove the trinity because while it does speak of Christ as a servant of God, this could be much like parts of my body are controlled by other parts--that is, Jesus is a part of God. Take note of the bolded portion as well, who did Christ come with if not a piece of the Lord and the Holy Spirt as they are all one being? This verse is thus turned.Recall also that my opponent has not explaied what exactly the Son and Holy Spirit are if not a piece of the overall Lord. My opponent makes no logical arguments at all, prefering to cite an array of Biblical verses as if they are a matter of fact, when he hasn't proven them to be so. Sorry for the shortness of this rebutall, I will go into further detail later as I'm running short of time, but it needs to be noted that since my opponent hasnt resented any logic based arguments (despite claiming initially to find the trinity as illogical) you affirm by default since I have.