BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ANY government handout is freeloading.

Actually I was raised in a privileged home. My dad left when I was a child. Never knew him. My mother put her feelings away , got a job, and raised us 4 kids. We lived with my grandmother. She was totally blind. My mother NEVER received welfare. She did it the right way.Work. She Instiiled in me a sense of honor that has served me well.Sure we were helped by my grandmother. That is what family is for. But government has replaced family. The freeloader people now look to government as family to provide for them.And it is commendable for you to help people. But it is dishonorable for you to do it by stealing off your neighbor to do it.You seem to think that the American people would let people starve in this country. We are the most giving nation history has ever known. And the great majority of people who spend the most NEVER earned anything. That is because we have generational poverty. Young mothers who were raised in that environment don't use good judgment when selecting a sex partner. If anything goes wrong daddy government would take over. Of course the only wealth generated by government has to be forced from the earners. Every one is in poverty because of someones bad choice. Whether it is parents or adults themselves.It used to be that even if a child grew up in a bad choice family, he or she could pull hiself up. Opportunities abounded. But when a child grows up under government, they tend to gravitate to that evil way of doing things. You made the statement that most people on welfare today is because of the economy effected by government. Why would you say that government is the problem, then turn right around and say government is the solution. Freedom without government intrusion has and always will be the solution.
Barrack Obama is a socialist

Also, I wanna clarify with the audience in case they have qualms over the spelling: I'm quite positive that by "Barrack Obama" my opponent means "Barack Obama" so there will be no semantics in this debate. This is evident not only from the single addition of a letter, but also that my opponent refers to our "current President" (as of February 2009). =====Counterarguments===== >>>I am proposing that our currunt president Barrack Obama is a socialist. .. <<< The funny thing is that this all started with an old 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama that caught the eye of the conservatives and soon popped up in the blogosphere. If you listen to the entire thing, the aforementioned humorous aspect is that what Barack Obama is supporting is actually CONSERVATIVE[1]. He was advocating limiting judicial activism. His usage of "redistribution" in fact does not pertain to economics, but instead of rights. He was discussing about positive such as right to a lawyer, etc. >>>. .. and is leading America down the wrong path as far as the economy, morals, and lifestyle. <<< This is irrelevant to the topic at hand - if whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. However, I do challenge you to prove these claims: 1. How is the stimulus package the "wrong path" for the economy? 2. How is Barack Obama leading us on the "wrong path" for our morals? 3. How is our lifestyle possibly being affected, least of all being led down the ominous "wrong path"? . =====Conclusion===== I do understand that my opponent's argument may stem not from the interview but rather from another source or reason. However, since he has yet to put an argument, I do not know from which "angle", if you will, he will come at. So I have refuted the most common example of Barack Obana's supposed socialist ties, and will await my opponent for a more clear round. ---References--- 1. . http://www.truthfightsback.com...
Barrack Obama is a socialist

=====Counterarguments===== 1. Socialism - Economy - Barack Obama My opponent accuses me of defining communism instead of socialism and "not respond[ing] to the statement that Mr. Obama said about 'spreading the wealth. '" It seems as if my opponent hasn't read my previous argument. One of the main tenets of socialism is to have public or state ownership of industries[1]. This also includes the economy, which will be taken under control by the state. Barack Obama is NOT doing this he is simply regulating the economy. He is not implementing a system where there is equal opportunity and egalitarian compensation for all. Just because he doesn't advocate for total freedom of the market doesn't mean he's a socialist. There's MANY people who believe in regulating the economy - whether that is the right thing or not is not the point. The obvious issue is that Barack Obama is NOT a socialist. To say so would be a great and naive error of understanding of political ideologies. 2. Abortion I have stated that this isn't part of the debate, but notwithstanding I have ALSO offered my rebuttal. That abortion is not murder if the fetus is not a person so Obama isn't "destroying our morals". Since you obviously haven't even bothered to refute this argument, I have nothing left to say on this topic. =====Conclusion===== I have refuted my opponent's sole accusation of Obama's supposed socialist beliefs and have answered/refuted his three other irrelevant points. He doesn't even bring up or defend the first and third point and his second point about abortion has been refuted - without any resistance. Vote for CON. ---References--- 1. . http://www.worldsocialism.org...
Barrack Obama is a socialist

Mr. Skeptic, there is a very broad line that separates socialism and communism. I believe that the definition you gave for socialism is in fact on the communist side of that line. Mr. Obama is proposing that the economy be regulated by creating a big government that will tax the small businesses taking their hard earned money and giving it to people who don't spend the time they should working for a living. Aside from that, I would like you to please respond to the statement that Mr. Obama said about "spreading the wealth." Your response about that not being socialistic will be very entertaining. And what about my 3rd challenge about our lifestyle? It seems you have left out vital information with only one more round to "wrap it up" if you will. The topic of abortion is not irrelavant sir because it is a moral or value that a person chooses to have, or not to have. Just because we have different views on this issue doesn't mean that it is irrelavant or not an important issue. I bring this point because it is one of MY morals, you choose not to believe the same way I do, that's OK. Abortion doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Mr. Obama is a socialist, just that as I stated in the previous round that I wanted to discuss several issuse in one debate. In conclusion, I appreciate your sticking to the first point, but would like you to respond to my unanswered questions. You are absolutely right when you say that this debate depends on your definition of socialism, and that politicians need to know what the big words mean before they start throwing them around. It has been fun debating these topics with you, and I look forward to having another insightful and intelligent with a person such as yourself.
Barrack Obama is a socialist

=====Counterarguments===== >>>Mr. Skeptic, I did spell Barack Obama incorrectly<<< Dude. Look at the freaking resolution. .. >>>But seeing as this is not a debate on grammar, I will now procede. <<< ----> You didn't make a lot of spelling & grammar errors, but in the future it can cost you. If you notice in the voting systems, spelling & grammar is one of the points. 1. Obama's economic plan Ah, I understand now. My opponent was referring to the "welfare state" idea Barack Obama is instating. The incredibly false assumptions my opponent makes is that if it isn't laissez faire, then it must be socialism! No. Socialism entails that business and industries should be nationalized by the government. Basically, there will be no private property and the workers will take over since they are considered vitally important in the tenets of Socialism. Barack Obama simply supports capitalism that is regulated - a lesser form of laissez faire which advocates total freedom. He wants to regulate the economy to prevent recessions, failures, etc. This is a COMMON political route used by many presidents before. Obama will not set up a government agency to plan the economy. or require businesses to meet quotas for production. He is not advocating socialism, but a tried and true method of regulating the economy. 2. The "other 3" topics A. I've explained the economy - socialism aspect of this debate. B. ----> I believe a fetus is a human when it becomes self-aware and self-conscious. This is when it has become defined as a human. I don't want to debate this in this topic - too little space - and in the last sentence you say that if we disagree then we can't debate this. Then don't bring this point; it's irrelevant to the main topic and resolution. C. Your plight seems tough, but as I have shown it has nothing to do with Barack Obama's "socialism". =====Conclusion===== I don't want this debate to stray from the main point - about socialism. However, if my opponent intends to get sidetracked into abortion, then so be it. However, my original argument of how Obama ISN'T a socialist stands. This is simply knowing your definitions of what socialist or not. It's quite pathetic when conservatives throw the word "socialist" or "Marxist" around, just like when liberals throw the word "fascist" around. Both sides need to pick up an encyclopedia once in a while.
In the Bible, God is the one who is evil and Satan is good.

First, I'd like to point out my opponent has been completely quiet on the evil actions I pointed out that God did in the Bible. Therefore it is still legitimate to claim God is evil for my purposes in this argument. My opponent argued near the end that Satan caused a rift between man and God, but if God is evil, which my opponent has not argued against, wouldn't that be a good thing? If Satan tries to make man rebel against God, and God has done this many evil actions that I pointed out previously, then Satan is encouraging people to rebel against evil. My opponent claims Adam and Eve already had knowledge of good and evil, however, if this was true, why was it called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, even by God himself, if the tree didn't give them that knowledge? Was God being deceptive again and the tree really wasn't about the knowledge of Good and Evil? My opponent claims it caused them to feel remorse, sorrow, etc, while this is true, it also gave them a deeper appreciation of happiness, gratitude, etc. For how can we fully appreciate the good without experiencing the bad emotions? What Satan did here was allow them to experience bad emotions and that then allowed them to better appreciate the good. Secondly, my opponent makes it out into a bad thing for someone to die, as they point out that the consequence of eating from the tree is death. However, how would anyone ever get back to heaven unless they were to die? Isn't this a necessary step? If it wasn't for Satan, man would never be with God again, or Satan for that matter since I'm arguing Satan is the good one. As for the second death my opponent speaks of, since I established that God is the evil one and my opponent hasn't argued against that, then we can conclude that this second death is likely not a bad thing. Since God is evil, the view of what happens in the after-life would be skewed. Of course the one who is evil would want to make it seem like it's a terrible thing not to get into heaven. Many Christians believe that in Heaven we will be serving God, is that not something that an evil person would want? Servants and slaves? In Satan's plan, we are essentially given more freedom. The only source we have for what Hell or the second death is like is from God himself, who I established is evil. Where is Satan's account of what the second death is like? We can't conclude that it's a bad thing unless we hear from both sides or an objective source. All terrible things about Satan are said either from God, or from God's prophets/apostles. There is no actual record of Satan doing anything that would indicate he is the many terrible things God claims he is though. There is really nothing evil to find about Satan that I know of. Perhaps my opponent can find something, but I doubt it.
In the Bible, God is the one who is evil and Satan is good.

For this debate I'll let you choose the judges. As this is not a religious issue, ie. the existence of God is not in question, but more of a moral/ethical one, I request you to choose judges that have had experience with such issues. Now let's begin. I believe that murder is wrong. Period. But I define "murder" as : The killing of one human being by another with malicious intent done with the prospect personal gain or gratification in mind. So war, assisted suicide, etc does not count. Now for the second one. I agree that deceiving people is morally wrong only when it is done with malicious intent and for personal gain. Legally, lying is lying, deception must be punished. But in terms of morality, there are benfits to telling half truths and sugarcoating. For example, will you tell a kid that one of his parents is cheating, at a very young age which may scar him/her? Or will you wait till he grows up and matures into a person who can handle it? This type of deception is done with correct motivations and is not morally wrong. Sometimes it is wiser to tell a lie than to tell the truth. The keyword there is sometimes. In all other circumstances telling the truth is much more morally justified than lying. And yes, I do agree that people should be held completely responsible for their words. Let's debate.
In the Bible, God is the one who is evil and Satan is good.

Note: I am going to make this debate voted on by judges. To make it fair, my opponent should name up to 5 people to be judges in the comments(I'll then nominate these people), and I'll choose up to 5 as well(please note that if I can't find 5 people I want to judge, then I'll just choose the number of people I do find and nominate the equal amount for you of the ones you name, so it can be less than 5 each). If you accept this debate before asking for judges, then you forfeit your ability to choose who to be judges. First, I wish to establish some morals with my opponent before we begin this debate. First off, do you agree that murder is wrong in every circumstance? I need both of us to agree on that in order for this debate to be worthwhile. Perhaps some exceptions would be the death penalty, self defense, and killing soldiers in a justified war, do you agree that killing outside of these instances is always wrong? Secondly, do you agree that deceiving people is wrong? Do you also agree that people should be held responsible for their own actions? I wish to debate someone that can only say yes to the above.
The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care

TheLibertarian has failed to respond to any of my points or ideas; which are, in brief: 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance. Thank you for reading.
The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care

I wanted to go into more specifics about the second point that I made in my first argument (about cost and GDP per capita). Health technology is radically behind almost every other industry. Most medical records are still kept on paper. Costs will radically decrease if medical records are electronicized. The most effective way by far to do this is to have everyone have insurance. The only way to do that is to subsidize it for those who cannot afford it. The policy writes itself.
The US should not have universal or publicly funded health care

I will first refute your points, then make my own. Throughout the debate I am basing my assertions about universal health care plans on Hillary Clinton's plan; as she is the Democratic front-runner (and Obama's is very similar) it is a good platform for what is actually being proposed. What she proposes, in brief, is this: 1. If you have health insurance now, keep it. 2. If you do not, you can: - buy private insurance direct from an insurer - buy private insurance through the government (like what Congress gets) - apply for a subsidized plan. These will be given need-based. 3. Everyone must have health insurance, and all plans must meet certain standards. "My first point, being that there isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?" It is easy to find examples of any system that does not run well. In fact, publicly funded health care would sidestep this problem by having the government do needs-based subsidizing for lower-income families. In terms of universal health care, Germany is a good example of what happens when it works right, and they spend much less of their GDP per capita on health care than we do. "My second point deals with how if we go through with public health care, it will become premanent just like social security turned out to be." It is meant to be permanent, as was Social Security. This is a bit of a non-issue. "And now my third and final point states that patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now." The subsidized private plans that lower-income families will be purchasing will cover doctor's visits, of course - just like every other private health insurance plan that is worth its salt. "In closing, by establishing free and universal health-care, we will drastically hurt our economy, everything our nation stands for, and it may also harm our actual health, doing the exact opposite thing it tried to do. Thank you." You have failed to prove any of these. And now, for my points. 1. No industrialized nation except for us lacks some sort of universal health care system. It's a basic right. We are the richest nation in the world, and yet 47 million of us lack any health care. 2. No industrialized nation in the world spends more of its GDP per capita on health care than we do. If socialized medicine is so expensive, than why does the rest of the world spend less? Because hospitals transfer the free emergency room costs onto the medicare plans, because medicare cannot negotiate its drug or hospital costs. With a mandate for health care, there will be fewer costs at the hospital level, because everyone will have health insurance. Period. 3. This is not socialized medicine. A true socialist model is single-payer government, this is blatantly not. This is basic subsidization for those in greatest need. Everyone should be able to have access to quality health insurance.
We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization

Culture and language define each other and evolve alongside each other. It is natural for parts of a language that are irrelevant to the culture (or no longer generally favored by it) to fall out of use. By forcing outdated languages to be spoken, we are halting natural cultural transitions, which is far more costly than the loss of a culturally irrelevant language. And stories that are culturally relevant can be translated. I don't think any new scientific insight was acquired strictly through language. And humans communicate and store knowledge using the same language, regardless of language, whether its dead now or not.
We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization

Language defines a culture, through the people who speak it and what it allows speakers to say. Words that describe a particular cultural practice or idea may not translate precisely into another language. Many endangered languages have rich oral cultures with stories, songs, and histories passed on to younger generations, but no written forms. With the extinction of a language, an entire culture is lost. Much of what humans know about nature is encoded only in oral languages. Indigenous groups that have interacted closely with the natural world for thousands of years often have profound insights into local lands, plants, animals, and ecosystems, many still undocumented by science. Studying indigenous languages therefore benefits environmental understanding and conservation efforts. Studying various languages also increases our understanding of how humans communicate and store knowledge. Every time a language dies, we lose part of the picture of what our brains can do. Languages are an important part of human history and deserve to be preserved in as many ways as possible.
We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization

"If they preserved like that, cultures could still hold on to ancient languages. I do not believe that something as culturally important as languages should die out and be forgotten." Why SHOULD cultures want to hold onto ancient languages? Surely, languages are "culturally important," but they are dynamic and evolving. When a language becomes less culturally relevant to a society, it naturally evolves or transitions into another. Why should we artificially include languages that we are evolving from or transitioning from into our new, changed language."I [sic] could be saved in subtle ways, such as offering college courses, or foreign language classes...". Let us remember this: without native speakers, a language dies. Therefore, my opponent has not stated how or why we should promote people to speak dying languages as native speakers.
We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization

When I stated that languages can be saved in museums, I did not mean writing it on a wall and displaying it as my opponent makes it seem. I meant that the languages could be preserved in writings and such like Latin, a "dead" language but still lives on in some ways and that people choose to learn. If they preserved like that, cultures could still hold on to ancient languages. I do not believe that something as culturally important as languages should die out and be forgotten. And I do not believe that it is possible to force a specific language among people. I could be saved in subtle ways, such as offering college courses, or foreign language classes on it so that some people might be interested in speaking it for fun, like high-school students in America who learn languages like German, French, or Spanish that they may never really use in life but enjoy speaking for fun.
We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization

Resolved: "We should attempt to rescue endangered languages through language revitalization."Should: Ought toEndangered language: A language that is at risk of falling out of use as its speakers die out or shift to speaking another language. [1]Language Revitalization: An attempt to reverse the decline of a language [2][1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...