BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If not in a liquidity trap, monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy.

Yes, burden of proof is shared. Is it all right if round 2 is just opening statements, no rebuttal> Here are my core arguments: 1: Monetary policy has no immediate costs. A central bank (the Fed) can increase or decrease the money supply and interest rates without borrowing or taxing money. This is incredibly important, because borrowing or taxing both have very clear and severe costs. 2: Government spending is either run off of taxation or borrowing. Taxation reduces a person's income, which lowers GDP and thus employment. If government spending is run off borrowing, that money not only be paid back (by either higher taxes or more borrowing), but also, borrowing raises interest rates through a mechanism known as the crowding out effect. The crowding out effect occurs when government borrows in the loanable funds market. This additional demand for funds raises interest rates. Crowding out effect source (MIT): http://economics.mit.edu... 3: Fiscal policy implemented through tax cuts runs into the problem of savings. According to business insider (http://www.businessinsider.com...), the savings rate for the wealthiest 1% of Americans is 51%, meaning that only 49% of tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans directly increase aggregate spending. For the third quintile (middle class), the savings rate is 11%, so essentially 11% of the stimulus from tax cuts is wasted. 4: Historically speaking, monetary policy has been successfully used to alleviate the hyperinflation of the 1970s, and the 2002 recession. 5: When monetary policy was not used, the consequences were disastrous. According to Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, the great depression was caused when the Federal Reserve failed to use monetary policy to guide the economy following the 1929 flash crash. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org....
LEAST ideal candidate for President

Okay because it is site custom that no new arguments can be posted in the final round, and since con forfeited round 3, con therefore forfeits all of the following arguments:1 - Hillary Clinton has a MASSIVE amount of experience in politics of all levels that qualifies her to be President2 - Carly Fiorina has absolutely NO experience, and has never even held public office, making her the most UNqualified to be President3 - Carly Fiorina holds very unpopular and outdated stances on a variety of issues such as gay marriage, discrimination against gays, environmental protection, the minimum wage, immigration, etc which makes her out of touch with American sentiment4 - Half of Carly Fiorina's platform isnt even known, since she has no given stance on drug legalization, Social Security, and Welfare, whereas we've known about Hillary's stances on issues since her run in 20085 - All of the 'scandals' that con brought up against Hillary are acts that have either been committed by every other major politician in DC (Use of private emails), or are harmless and not even relevant to how she would perform as President (Foreign donations to her charity)6 - Carly Fiorina's performance as CEO of HP resulted in the termination of 30,000 employees before she was fired after 5 years, meaning that not only does she have zero public office experience, but she also has a terrible track record when it comes to running a business. 7 - Hillary Clinton will not name her Husband as her VP, as con claims she would, which is something that anyone with more then 6 brain cells knows wouldn't happen anyway. ===========================================================================================Hillary Clinton certainly is not perfect, not by a long shot, but she has an undeniable amount of experience working in the highest stages of US politics that absolutely nobody else can match. Carly Fiorina is a reality-disconnected republican who is running for president just because she is a woman. She has no experience in public office, she has a terrible track record as a CEO, and half her platform is completely unknown while the other half of her platform is complete garbage. Carly Fiorina is certainly the least ideal candidate for President when matched up against the entire field of serious candidates who are running, not just Hillary Clinton.
LEAST ideal candidate for President

This is going to be way easier than I thought....1) Bill(?) Clinton"Hillary Clinton will never be able to distance herself very well from her lying, cheating, self-absorbed husband, who is surely to dictate policy to her behind the scenes and be her vice-president."I'm not sure if you know much about American politics at all, but you cannot pick your own spouse to be Vice President, so your claim that Hillary would be a bad pick because she would make her husband her VP is completely unfounded in logic or reality. "Bill Clinton is also on record as saying"Do you even know which Clinton im talking about at this point? Your arguments for why Hillary would be bad are just denunciations of her husband, whose actions arent even relevant to the argument here since he's not the one running for president. "Hillary Clinton brings includes; lying about sniper fire in Bosnia"That was 2008"She took responsibility for the Benghazi terrorist attack"Do you realize that its not necessarily a bad things for leaders to own up to mistakes that happened under their watch, or are you just that irrationally biased?"deleting 32,000 state department emails that were unlawfully kept on a personal server"Both Colin Powell and Jeb Bush did the exact same thing. Using one's personal email instead of the assigned email is something most people in DC do all the time, its not something just limited to Hillary http://www.msnbc.com...http://www.politico.com...http://www.nydailynews.com..."accepting donations from foreign governments"The donations went to the Clinton foundation, which is a charity organization, not a Super PAC. There's nothing wrong with either Clinton accepting foreign money into their charity since they are not using that charity to fund their election.... "having involvement in the the Whitewater controversy"That was literally from before the 1980's, which was 30 years ago, and holds no relevance on whether or not Hillary would make a good president....."Fiona has at least helped make billion of dollars legally and thousands of jobs for the country"She laid off 30,000 workers in her 5 year term as CEO, try againhttp://www.politifact.com...2) Record"she led the failed "reset" negotiations with Russia"Thats not something you can pin entirely on her, especially when the guy trying to be dealt with is an autocrat like Putin...."and Obama's failed policy attempts to manage the Arab Spring"Breaking news out of the debate section where Strategery apparently cannot distinguish 'Obama' from 'Hillary', as evidenced by how he is attributing Obama's mistakes by name to Hillary instead of Obama. More of this story at 11. "she also had the nerve to vote for the Iraq War"Which she admits was the hardest decision she ever had to make and openly regrets ithttp://www.politifact.com..."which is basically the same quagmire as those DDO idiots who voted for the Mikal Administration."Uh-oh, looks like someone has a major case of butthurt :3Extend all arguments that Con outright dropped
LEAST ideal candidate for President

1) First Case: Baggage Hillary Clinton has more baggage than could fit into a 90 car freight train. Wilst Carly Fiorina is her own self-made woman, Hillary Clinton will never be able to distance herself very well from her lying, cheating, self-absorbed husband, who is surely to dictate policy to her behind the scenes and be her vice-president. Bill Clinton is also on record as saying that "presidents should be able to serve more than two-terms," http://thehill.com... and as only the second President in history to ever be impeached, a "third term" for Bill Clinton would be disastrous and would undermine Hillary's Presidency. Among the other things Hillary Clinton brings includes; lying about sniper fire in Bosnia (http://www.politifact.com...); responsibility for the Benghazi terrorist attack (http://www.cbsnews.com...); deleting 32,000 state department emails that were unlawfully kept on a personal server (http://www.businessinsider.com...); accepting donations from foreign governments to the Clinton foundation while secretary of state (http://www.washingtonpost.com...); and having involvement in the the Whitewater controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). . So while it's the Clinton way: to rake in millions of dollars from undisclosed Russian-Uranium deals behind closed doors, Carly Fiona has at least helped make billion of dollars legally and thousands of jobs for the country while working as a private sector CEO. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she is at least trustworthy public figure. . 2) Second Case: Terrible Record. Hillary Clinton also has an unimpressive record as a senator and as a secretary of state where in the latter role she led the failed "reset" negotiations with Russia and Obama's failed policy attempts to manage the Arab Spring. As a senator, she also had the nerve to vote for the Iraq War; which is basically the same quagmire as those DDO idiots who voted for the Mikal Administration.
LEAST ideal candidate for President

Alrighty then, I pick Carly Fiorina. 1) First Case: ExperienceHillary Clinton, cons choice, has the most experience of anyone in the entire race at the moment. She has been the Secretary of State, she has been a Senator from the state of New York, she has even already been in the White House for 8 years with Bill Clinton, where Hillary even acted as co-president at times http://www.wnd.com...So in terms of experience, Hillary has perhaps more experience of ANYONE. Carly Fiorina on the other hand, has NO experience. She has never been a Senator, she has never even been a member of the House of Representatives, she has never even held a single position in public office. She has never been elected EVER, which means she would have absolutely NO experience going into the white house. The gap in experience between Hillary Clinton and Carly Fiorina is the biggest between any two candidates in the entire race, with Hillary having the most, and Carly having absolutely none. If Carly Fiorina became president, she would literally have no idea how anything around her works, whereas Hillary Clinton has already seen how things in the White House, and also in the Senate, works firsthand. 2) Second Case: PositionsCarly Fiorina holds the following stances on these big issues:Opposes Same Sex MarriageOpposes protecting people from being fired for their sexualityShe is one of the 'Dirty Dozen' who are routinely vote against environmental improvement acts. (http://www.lcv.org... )Believes people allowed on the No-Fly List should be allowed to have guns(http://www.ontheissues.org... )Supported Arizona's tough immigration laws that were soon found to be illegalhttp://www.ontheissues.org...She Is against raising the minimum wage and equal pay for womenhttp://thinkprogress.org...And her stances on the drug war, Social Security, Welfare, is completely unknownHalf of Carly Fiorina's stances are completely unknown and the other half are out of touch with what the majority of americans want. So not only does she have absolutely no experience in politics, she doesnt even have a clear platform. I'll end here for now and allow con to make his case
LEAST ideal candidate for President

We've seen a load of debates where people argue that someone is the BEST person to be President in 2016, but I havent seen one where someone argues who is the LEAST qualified. So here we are. Con will pick whoever they believe is the least qualified person to be president in round 1 I will then reveal my pick for the least qualified person and begin arguments. LIST OF PEOPLE YOU CAN PICK (those who have actually declared)(Failure to pick one of the options results in a full forfeit) Dems: - Hillary Clinton - Bernie Sanders Reps: - Carly Fiorina - Ben Carson - Marco Rubio - Ted Cruz - Rand Paul - Mike Huckabee Third party candidates are not eligible because they don't have a shot in hell in winning in the first place and i'm not blowing a debate like this on some nobody.
Severus Snape is a good guy

Snape aided and abetted Voldemort in multiple counts of murder including Harry's closest thing to a father: Dumbledore. He did nothing to stop Voldemort despite having multiple chances to just because of some stupid prophecy. He had free will he could choose and he chose to not stop of all that madness that does not make him a "Good guy". His final acts saved him from being a straight up bad guy, but good guy? No.
Severus Snape is a good guy

Deep within, Snape is a good guy. Snape was close friends with Lily when they were kids. James Potter bullied Snape. How would it feel to lose the love of your life to the person who bullied you as a child? Yes, it was wrong for Snape to bully Harry, but his ultimate goals were good. I entirely agree that it is not right that Snape bullied Neville, but how would it feel knowing that the person you loved could have been saved if a different decision was made? (Neville being the chosen one instead of Harry). Snape never got over losing Lily, shown by his Patronus. Some of Snape's choices were not the right ones, but he made these choices in pain from his lost love.
0.0(r)1=0.0

My opponent again says that the one never occurs. However, it does; otherwise, the number would be notated as 0.0(r). Instead, it is notated as 0.0(r)1. There being the 1 makes it irrational, as it is impossible to notate that a 1 could occur. If the 1 occurs, then the zeros do not repeat. If the zeros do not repeat, the one occurs. So, the number is a paradox that cannot exist. This makes it irrational, as I have shown. Therefore, the number 0.0(r)1 is irrational and not equal to 0.0. The resolution is negated.
0.0(r)1=0.0

Repeat: -Ending in zero means that it does not repeat indefinitely. Therefore, it is not rational. Terminate: -As already conceded by my opponent, the "1" never occurs. Therefore, the number never terminates and is irrational. The statement that "rational numbers terminate or repeat" is true. They EITHER terminate OR repeat. Trying to make a number do both makes that number irrational. Zero, however, is rational (0 divided by 1). A rational number cannot be declared to be equal to an irrational number, so the resolution is negated.
0.0(r)1=0.0

My opponent's claim doesn't really matter, as 0.0(r)1 cannot occur. irrational- (mathematics) containing irrational number: describes a mathematical expression that contains an irrational number http://encarta.msn.com... An irrational number is "any real number that cannot be expressed as the exact ratio of two integers". http://encarta.msn.com... If, as my opponent claims, 1 never occurs because 0 repeats infinitely (I concede this point), then 0.0(r)1 is irrational. Therefore, 0.0(r)1 cannot be equal to a rational number, such as 0.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.

Well, first off I would have to disagree due, not only, to the fact that my opponant is not going directly to the point, but also because the issue in this deabte is about MUSIC AND ART. Music should be provided in all institutes, public and private. It is essential for the growth of a proper, knowledgable, and creative minds. Art inspires creativity and helps the students to create there own person.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.

Well I will start out by attacking this case on two levels. I'm not sure exactly how you intended this so we will just have to see. Level 1 You state that, "I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in schools, public or private. It is a way to bring culture and education into children minds." Yet you offer me no one that you agree with. Were you simply intending to say that "Art and music should be essential to learn in schools"? Level 2 (Assuming you are trying to argue that they should be.) You say that it should be in schools because it brings culture and education into children minds. However what the community needs to keep in mind is the fact that many things do this all to different degrees. Music: Yes it brings some education. It also brings a lot of culture. Music goes back a very long way. Art: Maybe not as much education? Has quite a bit of culture. Foreign Languages: Lots of education, and a very great deal of foreign culture. Debate: Lots of education, a lot of culture (you need to know about every society to potentially debate well) Soccer: Not so much education, lots of culture though if you would like to get into it. Religion: Lots of education no matter what religion you choose, lots of culture obviously. World cultures: Same. Dance: Some education, lots of culture. Cheer leading: Nothing. Anyways my point is this. There are a great deal of activities that offer education and culture but clearly there is not enough time to do every single one of them in school. You say that it is essential yet I disagree and advocate instead for the freedom of choice. For some people art and music just isn't their thing, they need the opportunity to branch out. For some, having these classes mandated would simply be an aggravation every day. I would say instead that joining extracurricular activities should be strongly encouraged because of educational, cultural, and physical value. Thank you.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.

I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in schools, public or private. It is a way to bring culture and education into children minds. I think that there should be more government invovlement such as prividing aid, specially, for public schools to buy instruments and other tools in order for this to happen. There should be more music competition between schools so the childern would also have to particpiparte in a productive and interactive way.
I agree that art and music should be essential to learn in school.

Alright I will offer my conclusion as briefly as possible. Level 1: My opponent completely drops my argument thereby proving that he does not agree with anyone or anything. Level 2: My opponent once again drops my argument in order to reiterate his points. He simply states that art and music are somehow essential with no evidence to back this claim up at all. My points from earlier thereby all still stand. Being: 1. Not everyone is good at art and music. 2. Other activities offer the same benefits as art and music. 3. Being in art and music potentially detracts from other activities an individual would like to do. 4. Individuals should have freedom of choice, a right to choose what activity best suits there needs and capabilities. Extracurricular activities should pushed by school administration as desirable. With all these points still standing I see nothing but a Con vote. Thank you.
Marajuana should be legal

In moderation and used right, alcohol and other drugs are completely safe. Marijuana, however cannot be used responsibly at all. It's not a "one hit is completely fine" thing; one instance is enough to harm you. "Some immediate physical effects of marijuana include a faster heartbeat and pulse rate, bloodshot eyes, and a dry mouth and throat. No scientific evidence indicates that marijuana improves hearing, eyesight, and skin sensitivity. Studies of marijuana's mental effects show that the drug can impair or reduce short-term memory, alter sense of time, and reduce ability to do things which require concentration, swift reactions, and coordination, such as driving a car or operating machinery. " http://www.well.com... * Problems with memory and learning; * Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch) * Trouble with thinking and problem-solving; * Loss of coordination; and * Increased heart rate, anxiety. http://alcoholism.about.com...
Marajuana should be legal

Marijuana is not toxic to humans and it is not nearly as addicting as alcohol. There have been more serious cases of alcohol poisoning, binge drinking, and even death from alcohol. Alcohol damages the brain, and causes memory laps, liver disease, and loss of brain cells. According to MSNBC, 75,000 deaths a year are caused by alcohol abuse; whereas marijuana has caused zero deaths from 1997 to 2005 as stated by the FDA. FDA approved drugs are responsible for more deaths than marijuana. Approved drugs such as Ritalin (which is the primary suspect of 121 deaths) and Neurontin (which is the primary suspect of 968 deaths) far outweigh the zero deaths caused by marijuana. Compared to the effects of alcohol and other FDA approved drugs, marijuana is much safer and is not a lethal drug. If alcohol and other lethal drugs are legal, then why shouldn't marijuana be legal? http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Marajuana should be legal

"okay, my opening statement was a bit rocky," At best. "but marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, for example people who have glaucoma, symptoms of cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other medical conditions. There have been no documented cases where a person has overdosed on marijuana." It works anyway, doing things such as: -Faltering your memory and learning -Distorted perception -Trouble with thinking or problem solving -Loss of motor coordination -Increased heart rate -Cancer -Pneumonia -Damaging your immune system "Cymbalta--a drug used to treat depression--has sideffects that include possible convulsions, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, and feelings of contemplating suicide." That's small potatoes when compared to the ways marijuana devastates your body. "Every drug has may have sideffects, but to jump to the conclusion that marijuana makes you loopy and causes you to die is farfetched." Not at all. http://www.nida.nih.gov...
Marajuana should be legal

okay, my opening statement was a bit rocky, but marijuana is used for medicinal purposes, for example people who have glaucoma, symptoms of cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other medical conditions. There have been no documented cases where a person has overdosed on marijuana. There are side effects that come with smoking the drug, but so does other drugs. Cymbalta--a drug used to treat depression--has sideffects that include possible convulsions, abdominal pain, tightness in chest, and feelings of contemplating suicide. Every drug has may have sideffects, but to jump to the conclusion that marijuana makes you loopy and causes you to die is farfetched.
Marajuana should be legal

"California has legalized marajuana; therefore legalizing marajuana will lower crime rates, presumably, unless legalizing marajuana causes more problems with crime." So all you have to say is that because California has legalized marijuana, the crime rate will go down. Unless it goes up. You have made absolutely point that doesn't contradict another. Anyway, marijuana's health hazards far outweigh the benefits, what with outright killing you, causing you to go loopy and get killed by accident, and the drug trade hullabaloo.
Mandatory Hamster Wheel Running

I disagree. First-Peoples feet would get caught in between the wire and hurt their legs. Seems very hazardous. We would then have MORE people with disabilities. And like you said, they would be excluded. We would soon have a new welfare class system. Second- You also recommend that 'healthy people' that exercise regularly be excluded. Well 'eventually' the fat slob running the wheel is gonna lose weight. Between his running and food rationing he will be in great shape soon and be exempted. You entire workforce will eventually be depleted. Third- The hit to the economy in general would be more than it could bear. Energy companies, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and all other weight loss food companies and gyms would go out of business. Hospitals and Big Pharma will tank with less medical issues to manage. So in the end.... the hamster wheels would be abolished and fossil fuels brought back into the fold to support the lazy inefficient folks we are.