BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare should not be long-term

In this debate, I have established how most welfare recipients are actually in dire need of long-term government assistance. While there are a few bad seeds (as with every group in the world), many welfare recipients are legitimately unable to work due to physical, mental, emotional or social handicaps, or a combination of all four. These disorders are not distinguished by bleeding heart liberals, but rather competent and experienced doctors who receive absolutely no benefit to passing people along through the system. In fact, since the government is so inclined to remove people from the welfare program, it would probably behoove the doctors to deny a patient the right to receive government assistance unless it was undeniably necessary. For this reason, you must agree with me (as I believe Pro has) that long-term welfare is in fact justified. I am somewhat disturbed by Pro's presumed notions regarding how welfare works, though I believe this incorrect assumption is widespread in this country and hence the disdain for such a program. In fact, the government does everything in its power to deny a citizen the right to 'free money' from the tax payers (they'd rather pocket it themselves, obviously :P). Furthermore, the money that one does receive from the program is incredibly low -- hardly enough to get by. In fact, many recipients receive free transportation passes just to arrive at their scheduled appointments with their case managers (because most of them do not have cars and cannot afford the public transportation fare). In reality, it takes a lot for a welfare recipient to actually receive aid, and especially on a continuing basis. I believe that if more people did their research on how the system works - or at the very least did not judge the program without knowing anything about it - this country would be better at making informed decisions, instead of letting their ignorance run rampant on sites like this...
Welfare should not be long-term

Unfortunately for Pro, she cannot in R2 change or specify what the topic of debate is about (especially to lean so heavily in her favor!). Debaters argue based off of the resolution. In this case, the resolution is pretty clear: Welfare should not be long term. Pro has the burden of affirming this, while I, the Con, have the burden of negation. If at any point the Pro wanted to elaborate on the resolution, doing so must have been done in R1. In fact, Pro did make sure to clarify Con's burden when she concluded her round with, "My opponent needs to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so." Under these terms and conditions, I accepted this debate challenge. I then stated my argument which supported my conclusion, "Because of these problematic circumstances, many of these individuals both refuse to get a job and have no intention of doing so." Even Pro agrees that my argument was very convincing (it should be -- it's all true!). However simply because I have negated the resolution in one fell swoop - even under the specific guidelines set forth by the Pro during R1 - does not mean that the Pro can tack on additional burdens in later rounds. That's just non-sensical, and in debate terms, ABUSIVE. Pro writes, "If the topic of this debate was 'welfare is not necessary' my opponent would have won hands down; however this is not the topic of this debate." Similarly, if the topic of this debate was "Welfare is needed to support individuals who have NO LEGITIMATE REASON for being on welfare, besides the fact that they are unemployed, refuse to get a job (or start looking for one), and have no intention of doing so," then my opponent would have won this debate. Why? Because that would be a nearly impossible debate to argue as Con!!! Not only is that burden completely and utterly favorable to one position (Pro), it also disregards the current welfare system which has nothing to do with a 3 - 6 month maximum, but rather deals with individuals on a case by case basis to determine why they are on welfare in the first place and what can be done to get them off welfare as soon as possible. In conclusion, thus far I have won this debate: A) Based on the resolution - chosen by Pro B) Under the original specified burdens for Con C) Based on my superior knowledge of the system I wish my opponent luck in R3 at continuing this debate based on the original goals. Thank you.
Welfare should not be long-term

let me restate what this debate is about, and the topic of the argument. I am aiming this solely at people who do not have a legitimate reason to be on welfare, they are on welfare simply because they don't have a job and have no intention of doing so, not because of health reasons or pregnancy, but because they are lazy. My opponent is "beating around the bush" by arguing cases where people DO have a legit reason to stay on welfare, and some don't get a job because they can't. My opponent states: "In fact, using the example of pregnancy alone, that would require 9 months on welfare, whereas my opponent argues for a maximum of 6." --again, pregnancy falls into this category of when welfare is needed. I am not talking about these cases. This is not the topic of this debate. Again, this is not what this debate is arguing. While my opponent makes VERY valid points by surfacing cases in which the individual has to stay on welfare (ie pregnancy, health condition, mental illness, disability, etc.) and "has no intention of getting a job", this was not my intention with this debate. When I stated "and having no intention to getting a job" I am referring to those who have no legitimate reason for welfare, besides the fact they are unemployed and they refuse to get a job (and I think we all know at least one case of this where we live). Let me rephrase then what my opponent must prove, as she feels that she has already proven this when she, in fact, has not. In order to win this debate, my opponent must be able to prove that welfare is needed to support individuals who have NO LEGITIMATE REASON for being on welfare besides the fact that they are unemployed, refuse to get a job (or start looking for one), and have no intention of doing so. Again, if the topic of this debate was "welfare is not necessary" my opponent would have won hands down; however this is not the topic of this debate. I encourage my opponent to think about what I am debating, come back and give me a valid argument to why welfare would be necessary for those that have no reason to be on it in the first place.
Welfare should not be long-term

By "long-term" I am referring to indefinitely, or a period of time longer than 3-6 months. Now, I understand that some people on welfare have a good reason to be on it (i.e. they were laid off, fired, or some other personal financial tragedy), and welfare is there to pick them up until they can find a job. However, this debate is NOT aimed at those select few. This debate is aimed towards the ones on welfare who are not trying to find jobs, and have no intention of doing so. Those that milk the government for what it is worth because they know we will take care of them. While the idea of welfare is noble; helping those without a job until they find one, it has unfortunately become ridiculous. Now granted, the number of americans of welfare reached an all-time low in 2000, and that's great! But again, this is my resolution: From the day someone is put on welfare, they have 3-6 months to find a job before they are taken off welfare. And here is why. Every year, part of our taxes go to pay for those on welfare, about 6.8% to be exact, so if you make $25,000 a year, then $1700 goes to welfare recipients. Not to mention the other taxes that are taken out. And while I'm all for helping those in need, i do not condone helping those who refuse to help themselves. My opponent needs to make a valid and convincing argument that welfare is needed to support those who refuse to get a job, and have no intention of doing so. Not that welfare should be long-term for those who are trying to find a job and just need a boost for a bit.
A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet

This debate will be about whether a well-balanced vegetarian diet is generally to be preferred over a well-balanced omnivorous diet. Therefore, arguments about nutrient deficiencies will be excluded unless Con can show that even a well-balanced vegetarian diet leads to nutrient deficiencies. Additionally, no further arguments are to be made in Con’s final round as rebutting these is impossible. Definitions: Vegetarian diet: A diet that excludes meat. Omnivorous diet: A diet that includes a variety of meat and dairy foods as well as plants. [1] Thank you for accepting/reading the debate and have fun! Sources: [1]: https://ww2.kqed.org...
A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet

As I thought. Pro has changed their tack. And now adopted the word "should" and ditched the word "is". A seemingly innocuous change, but a change that actually alters the context of this debate completely. A vegetarian diet is to be preferred is a completely different proposition to, a vegetarian diet should be preferred. Under these circumstances I do not feel obliged to respond to Pro's third round evidence. My second round assertion that approximately 78% of the Worlds population ate a meat inclusive diet was derived from the Wikipedia article, vegetarianism by country. This evidence alone is enough to negate Pro's opening proposition. As it clearly indicates that approximately three quarters of the world's population prefer a meat inclusive diet. (Presumably no one is forcing these people to eat meat) Whether or not three quarters of the world's population should prefer a meat inclusive diet is another issue altogether. The same studies also stated that approximately 1.75 billion people were vegetarian out of necessity, rather than by choice. It is highly likely that given the chance, some of these people would also prefer to be omnivorous. But should they? Well, who has the authority to make this sort of judgement?...... And of course, that wasn't what we were discussing.
A vegetarian diet is to be preferred over an omnivorous diet

A curious proposition, that asks if there is a general preference for vegetarianism. And I would say quite confidently, without researching statistics, that globally the answer is probably, no. At a personal level, preference, if not instinctive is a subjective, individual rationale that doesn't really have any comparison. It will be interesting to see how Pro intends to take this debate forwards. I am inclined to think that they will attempt to move the goalposts.
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

The rating that IMDb gave BST was 1.8/ 10 -Summery. Rod (Alan Bagh) is a young software salesman living a successful life in Silicon Valley. He meets up with old classmate and aspiring fashion model Nathalie (Whitney Moore) and begins dating her. Things go well for the couple, with Rod receiving a large bonus that he uses to start his own business, while Nathalie is chosen as a Victoria's Secret model. As they grow closer, the couple remains oblivious to signs of something going wrong around them, such as unexplained wildfires and the corpses of diseased birds turning up on beaches. After consummating their relationship in a motel, Rod and Nathalie wake up to find that their town is under attack from eagles and vultures that spit acid and explode into flames upon striking the ground. Rod and Nathalie escape from the motel by joining up with an ex-Marine named Ramsey (Adam Sessa) and his girlfriend Becky (Catherine Batcha). As they leave town, they rescue two young children, Susan (Janae Caster) and Tony (Colton Osborne), whose parents have been killed by the birds. The group proceeds to drive from one town to the next, fending off more bird attacks along the way and briefly meeting a scientist named Dr. Jones (Rick Camp) studying the phenomenon. Becky is killed by the birds, and Ramsey, in an attempt to exact revenge, tries to save a busload of tourists. As they leave the bus, Ramsey and the tourists are doused in acid excrement by the birds and all die. Rod, Nathalie and the kids continue to flee from the birds, driving into a forest where they briefly meet a "Tree Hugger" named Tom Hill (Stephen Gustavson), who explains to them that the birds have only been targeting gas stations and cars and that the attacks are the result of global warming. After escaping a forest fire, the quartet ultimately settles on a small beach, where Rod fishes for dinner. As they prepare to eat, they are attacked by the birds, which are suddenly""and for no explained reason""chased away by doves. The film ends as Rod, Nathalie and the kids watch the birds fly off into the sunset. One of the best videos possible to describe how bad the movie is JonTron's video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzV8Q2fsN0o The worst (most funny)part is when they run out of the house and fend off terribly made birds as shown in this gif, http://giphy.com...
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

See? My opponent admits that people actually wanted to see how bad the movie was. But Zyzzyx broke the roof, people didn't even care, since the few people who HAVE saw it thought they wasted their money, at least BST is KNOWN for its badness. Zyzzyx isn't even infamous, it's the worst of the worst of the bottom-dwellers. Thus, Zyzzyx Road is the worst movie ever made. There's a reason it's the lowest grossing movie of all time.
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

Overall BST was a huge disaster, since the audio, speech, plot and many other things were a failure. It has a rating of 1.8/ 10 stars. It was so bad that people WANTED to see the movie since it was so bad and to criticize it. Again if you want to see how bad the movie was with great criticism then watch this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzV8Q2fsN0o
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

The reason the Road was so terrible was that it's a sequel. Sequels are usually worse than the original movie. Yet, BST was an exception. Zyzzyx was terrible, but its sequel was even worse, having even less people view it, as well as only grossing a measly 30 dollars. It is so dang bad that only those handful of people can spread its infamy, while BST is at least bad enough for loads of people to know it and review it.Here's the comparison if it's not clear BST: Incredibly terrible, but at least known for its horribleness and has a cult following from bad film fans. Plus, has a superior sequel.Zyzzyx Road: A terrible terrible sequel, even worse than the original film. No cult following, no fans, nothing. Not even up to 50 bucks for the film producer's efforts.
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

When you said that ZR did not have a sequel it was true, but ZR was the sequel to Zzyzx. One of the reasons why BST has so many "fans" is because of how bad the movie was. But this did not happen for ZR since it started off with little people liking it, no one would to someone else to see it to show how bad it was. If my contender is to read this I would like you to know that this was a rebuttal to your statements and that you should do the same thing, I forgot to add this to the intro.
"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie

While it has terrible ratings, at least people watched it. There are nearly 10,000 reviews on that movie. Look at Zyzzyx Road. http://www.imdb.com... It has only about 800 users, not even as much as 100 times less than the reviews on The Birddemic movie. The rating on Zyzzyx road may not be as low, but it's more inaccurate, since if 9,000 people voted it one star, then it would have been much lower, possibly even lower than BST. But 800 users is not a lot. It's not enough to compare to BST's 10,000 reviews. And BST is at least well recieved enough for a SEQUEL to be made. Not to mention the producers actualyl got to improve and got a better rating than the fisrt movie. You see that BST was only a "ploy" so that the next movie would be awesome in comparison (since BST number one was so so terrible) http://www.imdb.com... But Zyzzyx Road is so darn terrible the creators didn't even give it a second chance. No sequel! Also....you still haven't refuted the fact that Z.R. is the lowest grossing movie of all time.
The USA went to war against North Korea.

Your objection to my argument seems solely based on my definition of war. I never denied that the United States battled with or fought north Korea. The term that you choose was " went to war" and that is something we did not do. I stand by the argument that wars must be formally declared (at least when America goes to war). You have to differentiate battles from wars and the fact that we did not go to war was the debate. Had we gone to war, there would have been a winner and treaty... there was neither. in conclusion: since there was never a war declared on Korea, it is illogical to say that we went to war with them.
The USA went to war against North Korea.

War is something that has to be DECLARED. While it is true that we committed forces to the region, there was certainly no war declared on the part of the United States. You seem to use the term "war" to lightly. The following excerpt comes from the national archives: "Truman did not seek a formal declaration of war from Congress; officially, America's presence in Korea amounted to no more than a "police action." URL: http://www.archives.gov... So there you have it, I really have nothing else to say that can better prove my case. THE U.S. NEVER DECLARED WAR ON NORTH KOREA. TO SAY THAT THEY DID IS FALSE.
The USA went to war against North Korea.

Definitions:The first definition found for War at Dictionary.com is: "a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air" (1).And Conflict: "to come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash: The account of one eyewitness conflicted with that of the other. My class conflicts with my going to the concert" (2). Being fair, a more favorable definition found on the same page is "a fight, battle, or struggle, especially a prolonged struggle; strife."Argument:From History.com: "On June 25, 1950, the Korean War began when some 75,000 soldiers from the North Korean People’s Army poured across the 38th paralle, ... By July, American troops had entered the war on South Korea’s behalf" (3).By the end of the open warfare (July 1953), nearly five million were dead. Over half of that staggering figure were civilian, reaching as high as 10% the population of the country. Of the dead were 36,568 American soldiers, plus another 103,284 wounded (4). Diplomatically a ceasefire between the two Koreas was used, with the hope of a full peacetreaty later. As such they have maintained a 4km (2.5 miles) wide no mans land between them, better known as the Korean Demilitarized Zone. As a peacetreaty has failed to be reached, a strong military element from both sides remains stationed on the border. This fortification tactic includes roughly 37,500 US military personal spread over more than 85 active installations (5). This is far more than the US uses on its own border. Also of interest is them being paid Hardship Duty Pay, as an extra bonus for being stationed in that dangerous environment.While the US was a secondary participant in this, our soldiers were at a state of war. Of the clear enemies our soldiers faced were North Koreans, the blood being spilled to repel them from South Korea. While it did not escalate to the level of WWI or WWII, it remains having been a war. Some definitions would call it as a "limited war" rather than a "total war" due to among other things no nuclear weapons being used, in spite us having those in our arsenal; to do such would leave it being a war in place, and applied further attempt to say in recent history we did not engage in war with Iraq or Afghanistan.Sources:(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...(3) http://www.history.com...(4) http://www.britannica.com...(5) http://www.globalsecurity.org...
For GOD so loved the world!? NO HE DOES NOT! HE hates this world and chose a certain people!

1. RebuttalMy opponent has provided an abundance of Biblical verses, but the problem remains that not a single one of these verses support my opponent's two assertions that (1) God does not love the world and (2) God hates this world. My opponent has presented several verses referring to Israel; these are irrelevant as they say nothing about God not loving/hating this world. 2. ConclusionsRecall that my opponent was responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. I think we can reasonably conclude that my opponent has failed to fulfill this burden of proof, as he/she has been unable to provide a single argument to support his/her assertions. Thus, the assertions that (1) God does not love the world and (2) God hates the world remain mere unwarranted assertions. As such, my opponent has failed to carry the burden of proof and has lost the debate. Furthermore, my opponent has continually violated the rules which he/she set in the opening round by inserting personal thoughts and interpretation into the Biblical verses that were used.
For GOD so loved the world!? NO HE DOES NOT! HE hates this world and chose a certain people!

Thanks, Con.1. RebuttalAgain, my opponent has broken his/her own rules by trying to insert personal interpretations of Biblical verses into the debate. These interpretations ought to be dismissed. I have provided several Biblical verses which contradict my opponent's assertions that (1) God does not love the world and (2) God hates this world. My opponent, on the other hand, has not provided Biblical verses to support either of those contentions. Unless he/she is able to do this during the course of this debate, my opponent has not fulfilled the burden of proof and thus cannot win this debate.Many of the verses that my opponent presents are verses which refer to Israel. But notice that my opponent's two contentions have nothing to do with Israel. My opponent, in order to carry the burden of proof, must show that the following assertions are true:(1) God does not love the world (2) God hates this worldEven if it were the case (which I don't for a second concede it is) that God somehow favors Jews over others (as my opponent seems to be trying to show), this would do nothing to show that God does not love the world and hates this world. My opponent still has all of his/her work in front of them in trying to show that God does not love the world and that God hates this world. This feat cannot be accomplished by merely quoting Biblical verses that reference Israel; as I have already stated, God's love for Israel does nothing to show that he therefore hates the rest of the world.2. SummaryTo reiterate, if my opponent wishes to win this debate, he/she must fulfill the burden of proof by showing that (1) God does not love the world and (2) God hates this world. As my opponent has failed to do so thus far, we can reasonably conclude (for now) that the assertions made in the debate resolution are false.