BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
April Public Forum Debate

First, my opponent claims I am being too restrictive in my definition. The phrase successfully mitigate simply means that the stimulus must lessen the impact of the slowdowns while meeting its goals with a favorable outcome. I don't have to prove solvency, mitigate is defined by Merriam-Webster as " to make less severe or painful," it is clear that the stimulus makes the slowdowns less severe and painful. I will address this fact as well as my opponent's argument shortly. Alright, my opponent claims the goals established will not be reached. For the first goal of increasing consumerism, he first questions my st6atistic of 26%, which I did source, although I spelled the source wrong . My source is the ICSC, the International Council of Shopping Centers. Even if we take my opponent's statistic there is still an increase in consumer spending. It may be small, but it mitgates the effect of the slowdowns. Businesses will have an 11-26% increase in Profits. For my second goal, my opponent claims the benfits will not occur within the allotted time. He did not however directly rebut my argument. It follows that if you uphold that argument, that there will be short term benfits as well. For my final goal, my opponent claims that people won't be able to afford new homes, but, that's what mortgages are for. They can buy now, pay later when the economy is back to normal. Furthermore, contrary to my opponent's worries about the budget deficit, any problems regarnding the deficit will not develop until more thean a year from now Finally, even if the rebates are not spent, they still mitigate. They will allow at risk families to last the slowdowns. Why vote PRO 1. Any negative outcomes occur too late to be relevant 2. The stimulus meets its goals 3. It will allow low income families to survive these times of trouble.
April Public Forum Debate

I am representing the PRO side of the April Public Forum topic Resolved: That the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 will successfully mitigate economic slowdowns over the next year. Observation 1: The resolution reads "successfully" this does not imply substantially or significantly, it implies successfully. Successfully is defined by Merriam-Webster as "resulting in a favorable or desired outcome" Therefore, we must look in this debate at whether it meets the goals of the legislators in proposing the bill. The CON must show the complete failure of these goals or a negative result. Observation 2: The phrase "over the next year" limits all positive and negative outcomes to those occurring within the next year. Contention 1: The stimulus meets all of the goals it was created to achieve. Benjamin Bernanke in a testimony to Congress stated that the goals of the stimulus must be the following: 1. to put liquidity into the market by increasing consumerism 2. increasing business spending 3. raising home prices. The stimulus meets the first goal. According to the ISCS, there will be a 26% increase in consumer spending. Any increase will meet this goal, so this goal is upheld. Business spending will increase. During recessions businesses have tended to spend more money. If they are given a tax allowance as the stimulus package does, they are very likely to increase this spending. It is common sense. Cutting the loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA will increase real estate value. Stephen Horan, head of private wealth for the CFA institute said, "Banks, knowing that they can possibly repackage these jumbo loans and sell them back to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, might now be willing to refinance at lower rates," This will make buying a home easier and will increase home prices. Why vote PRO? Because the stimulus package meets its goals in that it will: 1. increase consumerism by 26% 2. increase business spending through tax allowances and 3. increase home prices by making home buying more accessible.
Star Trek: The Next Generation is currently the best out of all the other Star Trek shows.

I will now rebuttal my opponent's arguments. "compared to both Voyager and DS9 the TNG series only touched the surface" I would disagree with this. For real life physical issues, yes, but not for deeper actual issues on life. I will show some example: "All the Good Things" – Focuses on anti-time, the existence of anti-time, and how something from the future can possibly affect from the past. "Justice" – Focuses on the ideas of a Utopian society, how to achieve it, how justice should be dealt, and the quality of life. "Conspiracy" – The idea of conspiracy, influence, and control, also governments "Skin of Evil" – What is evil, what forms it takes, what are it's qualities, and it's metaphor and definition "The Schizoid Man" – The Essence of the Human soul, Immortality These are only a few of the topics that TNG touches on. While some might think them to be pointless, they are the deeper questions of life and humanity, not only the outer layer of skin that DS9 only offers. And Voyager barely offers any of this, because as you said, it is "one big struggle with the prime directive." They struggle with the Prime Directive only, and mostly it isn't even a struggle, because as you said "Voyager cataloged an entire quadrant of alien species and entities", meaning they had barely any trouble. Plus, to make a good affect somebody would have to die in a plot story such as Star Trek. Voyager never killed off any main characters. TNG killed off Tasha Yar. Voyager was even afraid to kill their enemies in the series. Voyager did catalogued much of their own data. While TNG's Enterprise D Databank was given loads of information (including a whole planets historical information) from the episode 11001001. Yes, Seven was a member of the Borg. But let us not forget that Worf was one of the first Klingons to join the Federation (if I think he is the first), Data was the first Android to join a Starship, and let us not forget that Captain Picard himself was a Borg at one time. Meaning Picard had the same feat as Voyager did, with the exception in Picard came first in and out of the Star Trek universe.
Star Trek: The Next Generation is currently the best out of all the other Star Trek shows.

First off thanks for starting this debate this is going to be very interesting sense I love every series except for the original and the animated ones. 1) Really when you look back TNG did touch on real life affairs but compared to both Voyager and DS9 the TNG series only touched the surface. The TNG series was created by Gene Roddenberry and his vision was to have a perfect world of peace, and he portrayed that in his work. So it was for the most part not like the real world. You can try to use the argument that after he passed away they started to focus on the real life but this is not so when he died they took it into a whole other direction they wanted to show the evil side off tech after showing how much peace it brought. The result was every other day was a living hell for the crew It was unrealistic. But DS9 represented everything a community stood for. There were businesses, families, law enforcement, religion, conflict between species, domestic issues and so much more. 2) Then there's the prime directive you say the TNG had moral problems with the prime directive that was nothing compared to the Voyagers problems. The TNG crew was sometimes hesitant to follow the prime directive but all they had to do to comfort themselves was say it's the law. But Voyager didn't have that luxury from their first day in the delta quadrant to their last it was one big struggle with the prime directive. "Should I still from this ship to save my crew but if I do I will be disobeying the law I swore to uphold." That is one of the smaller examples there are but I don't want to give it all up in the first round so I'll change subjects. 3) Voyager cataloged an entire quadrant of alien species and entities how you can compare that to the meager findings of the TNG Crew is beyond me. Not only that but Voyager made the biggest breakthrough of all when they accepted seven of nine as a crew member even though she was a borg. That's all I want to say for this round so I don't use all my info. Your turn
Star Trek: The Next Generation is currently the best out of all the other Star Trek shows.

Star Trek: The Next Generation is currently the best out of all the other Star Trek shows (The Original Series, Deep Space Nine, The Animated Series, Voyager, and Enterprise). 1. The crew of the Enterprise D goes through a multiple of missions that deal with a multiple of issues including, but not limited to, the Human Condition, Love, Philosophy (which plays a big part of the series), Family, Values, Logic, and science, faith, and moral dilemma (especially involving the Prime Directive). Not only do they indulge themselves in these issues, but they use many examples from our real world to back up what they have to say. The other Star Trek series indulge in little bits of each issue, biutbut do not fully encompass every issue in it's entirity. 2. Star Trek: The Next Generation has a multitude of diverse crew members, including, but not limited to, singles, family, husbands and wives, and children. Many different cultures inhabit the story and different life paths change throughout the difficulties that they face. The Senior staff alone, which is the core of the series, has always had a dynamic cast of characters, and not flat characters. 3. Star Trek: The Next Generation expands the Star Trek Universe like no other. Yes, Voyager did travel to another quadrant, but the Enterprise D discovered not only a multiple of new species, but he discovered new planets new anomalies, and Q. They expanded upon Vulcan, Klingon, and Romulan Culture, and established what exactly the Earth looked like after what we are living right now. The Klingon language was even developed here. These are my reasons for saying Star Trek TNG is currently better than all the rest.
The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

What makes you think law stops people that gives a thrill to the fact of breaking the rules.That is what makes it so attractive. Many people see that if they were able to do the things that were illegal then they probably would not do it as much considering that it isnt as fun. Then what do you think basic instinct is? It is to survive, to be free and ones own self. What is the meaning of life? That cannot be answerd consideringno one knows. So how can a meaning be lost if it was never there in the first place. People make their own paths in life and with people controlling that out come that is the only thing being lost, their choices freedoms and paths. The only way people could ever create a civilization it took for a need to create civilization. So there was the begininning, too many complaints caused for a gathering which turned into a government after going through various stages. Before commercialization the only jobs needed to be done was to work on your own (family etc.). This included growing your own crop or having your own livestock. What they did before money, was traded bargained or stole. Read the Jungle for instance. It talks about the anarchy that was before the government.Ruthlessness is not my concept of good only the concept of survival. Good would be the moral things a person himself knows is right. Whether society likes it or not they can not say it is wrong because they are not within the same life of that person. Besides why would the government need to protect people from the tyranny if the world would go back to no governments at all. Conquering is apart of a goverment scheme to gain more. With only people themselves trying to gain more it is a easier handled problem. Of course you say to me that my fancies are naive yet it is only opposites to trying to get everyone in the world to walk the same direction. But the fact is both views are impossible and naive. What is not naive is for people to follow their own lead and not be pawns for others. But then again that is basically what I am saying.
The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

"There will be bloodshed and there will be slaughter. There will be the most horrible things happening you can imagine. But isnt that already happening." Yes, because of the human condition. The ONLY thing that keeps it at bay is the fact that people fear reprisal of the law. If there is no law, there is no punitive measure to fear, except for the man next to you who would kill you over a tic-tac. "Revert? That means go back to the beginning when man had gotten tired of lawlessness and decided that they needed oder to protect people." I know what the word means. I asked you to substantiate that the world was ever without order. I asked you to name me one civilization in human history devoid of some type of hierarchical system. There was never a time where humans lived under such conditions, so there is nothing to revert to. Even other mammals live in the same way. You therefore are going to have to substantiate your claim for your audience. "even if criminals outnumber those who help, those who help have something that criminals dont and that involves a way to make things happen in the name of good." You seem to impute some sort of intrinsic value when you speak about the concept of "good" in relation to the topic. Everyone's concept of "good" differs now. Under your system goodness would equal ruthlessness. If survival is the ultimate good, then being cutthroat in order to achieve that survival would require us to acquire ruthlessness as a virtue. What incentive is there in being good in a traditional way? "I would prefer to be free from somone else running my life than sit by and get told that for my freedom I will get protection. In the end people can protect themselves or learn to." Governments are not there to protect us from every single danger. It isn't the government who taught you to look both ways when crossing the road. The protection the government does provide is in the legal sector, where the more people exist, the more complicated things get. For instance, in a small town setting, thievery does not pay. It can cause you to become excommunicated. However, in a large metropolis, most people will not know about your thievery, and so can continue to prey upon others. The government is there to establish a baseline for what is socially acceptable and unacceptable to protect the good against tyranny. If these matters were left to humans to each individually decide for themselves, nothing would get accomplished. Jobs function off of a similar system. Order rules the day, not chaos. If everyone was left to their own devises, businesses would fail, money would lose all meaning, murder would reign supreme, and we would devolve into a squalid race devoid of any meaning in life. I suspect that you have an aversion to authority, and in your mind a world completely devoid of authority would fancy you. But this is very, very naive, overly-simplistic, and too idealized to ever be practical on a plausible level.
The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

Yes, There will be bloodshed and there will be slaughter. There will be the most horrible things happening you can imagine. But isnt that already happening. War against drugs? That is just pissing people off or getting them off for the thrill of competition and not getting caught. The bloodshed will come but so will the lesson. It will start like a dream and soon thereality will shake peoples worlds into taking action and teaching people that they can no longer collect off of the state to get rich. It will also mean a natural life not ran by someone else. Revert? That means go back to the beginning when man had gotten tired of lawlessness and decided that they needed oder to protect people. Before that a persons will to survive was all they needed. If that was not strong enough then they needed to be taken to the promise land. criminal action is never going to disappear. But it makes sense for a person or a victim to take actions into their own hands instead of leaving it up to chance that they get put in prison or get let off because they have the money to do so. even if criminals outnumber those who help, those who help have something that criminals dont and that involves a way to make things happen in the name of good. Lets take a look at the war. The war pres bush started in the name of taking out the terrorist. Then come to find out that this had way more to do with other things rather than just having to do with payback or looking for terrorist or nukes.Yet we are still in the war in the name of good.I dont want bad things to happen but it cant be helped. It is the way of the world. The balance as one could say. But I would prefer to be free from somone else running my life than sit by and get told that for my freedom I will get protection. In the end people can protect themselves or learn to. The worst that can happen is that they will die trying. But if they have no freedom, the worst that can happen is that you will have spent your life not doing what you want but what someone else wants you to do or thinks you should do.
The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

"Although it is effective and productive plus more controlled, the government" So if it is effective and productive, why precisely would you want to change it? "should be let go and the world should revert back to the strong vs weak." Can you demonstrate a time in human history where we lived in such an anarchistic way in order for us to even be able to "revert" back something? What makes you think that we lived this way at one time? "Complete freedom to do whatever-whenever-however is the way things should be." If society opted for an anarchist way, the very first thing I would do is slaughter all of the anarchists because I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want, and however I want. If they are too weak to defend themselves against my onslaught, oh well... Cry me a river. "society will fall under complete control over the government in a matter of time and people will be in oppression." Society has lived with some form of government since its inception, and there has never been a time where people fall under complete control of the government for the sole fact that the people always outnumber the government. Society and government act as a buffer against one another in a checks and balances system. Aside from which, what makes you honestly believe that people will somehow behave better under this convoluted plan you are proposing? No laws means that I have to enforce my own personal desires at the behest of my own arbitrary whims. Things could get mighty bloody when my only law is law of the bullet. "But when people were free to do what they pleased people were happy." Prove there was a time or a society devoid of some form of regulation. Every civilization, from the most primitive to the most advanced have rules, laws, and regulations enforced by someone. Your plan is unrealistic and it has dire consequences. "This includes the religious fanatics also should not force their religion on others and cause pointless wars and meaningless deaths." Under your anarchist plan there will be nothing BUT meaningless deaths and unmitigated violence! If there is no legal basis for not slaughtering you, then that is precisely what I would intend on doing in your world -- because I can and because I would have to. Societies run by order. Do you think that businesses could really run without laws and rules? How would anyone get payed when it isn't illegal not to pay someone? If there is nothing preventing me from stealing, then why would I need money? Seriously, how would society operate under your plan, let alone explain to me how everyone would skip off in to the sunset because everyone is "happy?" If you wanted selfishness to reign supreme, then this is the consequence of selfishness reigning supreme. This just may very well be a case of getting what you want, but we will see if you really want what you're going to get.
The world should revert back to the law of strong vs weak.

Although it is effective and productive plus more controlled, the government should be let go and the world should revert back to the strong vs weak. Complete freedom to do whatever-whenever-however is the way things should be. society will fall under complete control over the government in a matter of time and people will be in oppression. But when people were free to do what they pleased people were happy. This includes the religious fanatics also should not force their religion on others and cause pointless wars and meaningless deaths. That is complete freedom to worship who they want and do what they want.Yes their will be those freaks out their but their are also those who choose to protect the weak. does anyone disagree?
Barack Obama

i started the other thread, after i started debating you in this thread. you didn't have to go to that thread, but you chose to. if anyone is copy and pasting, it would be you since you're the one who engaged me the second time. bill clinton most agree was qualified. people didn't diss him though for his age even though he was in fact three years younger than obama. clinton was the attorney general for twelve years, and governor of arkansas for two years. he was a con law professor too at a less prestiguous law school for a year or two. clinton got his hands dirty too practicing law with a short stint. surely, out of all the things done, i'd agree that beng governor is best. but, people get in debates all the time about whether senator or governor is better. obama was in either a state or federal legislature for twelve years, similar very much to clinton's. in fact, the only real difference is that obama is older than clinton was, and practiced law and civl rights for mroe time. the debate about experenice if you accept clinton comes down only to whether govenror or legislor is better. it's the same difference. reasonable people disagree. something tells me you're only debating this, if you continue to debate this that is, because the media is telling you that you're suppose to.
Barack Obama

Ok, you just copy and pasted the same argument from our other debate. Sure, we can look at substance too. So, Barack has none of either. You haven't pointed out any substance that Barack has. You just pointed out all of the typical positions that a democrat or any politician would have. What substance does Barack have that make him the best candidate for president? Experience too. Where is Obama's? He has a run-of-the-mill senate record at both levels. His greatest achievement is his experience at Harvard. So, since harvard graduates students at the top of classes every year, we would have dozens of president worthy law students. His record is good, I don't deny that. But, is a successful law school experience followed by a mediocre record really grounds to give someone the country's reigns? Age isn't the only argument. Its not just that he is young, he is unqualified and unfit. You want to give Obama a handicap because he is younger, but he needs to be examined on level ground. His record and merit simply doesn't match up. My position doesn't advocate age voting, quite the opposite. There is flat out no reason Obama should be president. Good thing he talks pretty...