BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare

Welfare was created to help individuals who were not able to provide for themselves or their families but only for a short time. It was established to get people working again, but now people are more dependent on our welfare system even though it has advanced over the decades. If people that are on welfare and are getting more from the government then they can get from a job they will not want to work. In an article called Why Get Off Welfare? by Michael Tanner, he explain how people on welfare are able to get more when on welfare than from a job. "Most reports on welfare focus on only a single program, the cash benefit program: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. This focus leaves the misimpression that welfare benefits are quite low, providing a bare, subsistence-level income. In reality, the federal government funds 126 separate programs for low-income people, 72 of which provide either cash or in-kind benefits to individuals" (Tanner). There are so many welfare programs that are funded by the government because there is it need to apply to a large body of people, it is easy for people that are already on a welfare program sign on to another to get more money. What our welfare system needs is to reformed. From an article called The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending, Ed Feulner explain a reform that took place in 1996 that showed a great decrease in the number of people on welfare. "Unsustainable debt is bad news, but we have to remember that this isn't simply about dollars and cents. It's about people. After the 1996 reform, the number of welfare recipients in the primary welfare program (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) dropped by 50 percent as more people got jobs and learned to take care of themselves. Earnings and employment rose. Child poverty went down" (Feulner). With the right type of reformation of the nation"s welfare system, it is possible to effectively reduce the number of people on welfare, The only way that has shown results is that if we shorten the length people were given welfare. Tanner, Michael D. "Why Get off Welfare?." Los Angeles Times. 22 Aug 2013: p. A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct 2013. Feulner, Ed. "The Spiraling State of Welfare Spending." Heritage Foundation. 25 Oct 2012: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 22 Oct 2013.
Welfare

Reed Nelson Mr. Joubert Civics and Senior Project 16 October 2013 Welfare Debate 1 I will be arguing for the Democratic point of view of welfare. The Democrats view the policy of welfare as long-term. Welfare was created to help fund the individuals who lack the ability and resources to provide for themselves or their families. An example of welfare providing for a large group of individuals is the Freedman"s Bureau. Shortly after the Civil War ended the first Federal welfare agency, the Freedman"s Bureau, was created to pay for establishing schools for half a million freed slaves education (Tobin). The idea behind this was to educate them so the freed slaves could reach out of poverty. This was a good replacement to the old system because Americans used to depend on voluntary welfare from citizens. This was good for small amounts but not for large groups of people. Since then welfare has increased to help pay for housing, health care, unemployment, and more social issues under the department of welfare. In the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government became responsible to provide long-term help for anyone in need, and to give social insurance for retirement (Mauldin). This is an even more advanced form of welfare introduced which applies to large bodies of people as well as the social issues of an individual. Works Cited Mauldin, Marcus D. "welfare benefit rights." Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. (2005). Facts on File. Web. 8 October 2013. Tobin, Kathleen A. "welfare policy." American Government. (2013). ABC-CLIO. Web. 15 October 2013.
Welfare

There is one point that I agree with that you made in your last argument and that was there does need to be more specific outlines and or quotas but from the state level. As a nation, what we need to do is put more effort into reforming our welfare program. If not we will continue to see welfare population in America grow, in an article from Mark Regan called "Welfare Reform", "Many states governors and program administrators and policy experts say that there are fundamental flaws in the AFDC program. The solutions have to come from the state level if we want to see actual results" (Regan). All of the experts that have dealt with the welfare system know and understand that states in the U.S. needs to have more power when it comes to Welfare. There have been situations where there have been decrease of welfare users in states. In the same article, Regan explains what the AFDC did to accomplish this. "An AFDC program occurred in 1988 with the passage of the Family Support Act which then opened up job opportunities for many. For the first time states were required to increase a percentage of able bodied adults" (Regan). The one and only goal of welfare is help Americans who have lost their job to help them along until they are able to find a new job. Welfare"s purpose was never for long term purposes and is why the Family Support Act was a great example of that states are capable to make an improvement when it comes to welfare if they are given the power. In conclusion, The Family Support Act even if for a little while did show the Welfare system can be improved if states had more power. Regan, Mark. "Welfare Reform." Encyclopedia of Public Administration. (2003): 1. Facts on File. Web. October 8, 2013
Welfare

Reed Nelson Mr. Joubert Civics and Senior Project 19 October 2013 Welfare Debate #2 In addition to the formation of long term welfare introduced by the Social Security Act of 1935, there is still discrepancy weather the amount of time as a resident can affect the amount of aid to an individual. There has been a group of Supreme Court cases where state residents of less than a year have argued for higher benefit rights. Some examples include, "In Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), the Court barred states from paying lower welfare benefits to families who have lived in the state for less than one year." And thirty years before this decision, "Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S 618 (1969), the Court found that the basing of aid on residency requirements violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Mauldin). This proves that the Federal government allowed the states to regulate welfare based on the residency of the people needing aid. Although in the 1999 case broke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, while the 1969 case relied on the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. Knowing that these individual acts of the state were declared unconstitutional can make one realize that the Federal government may need to more specific outlines or quotas for the states to follow under the subject of welfare. In conclusion this would make a more efficient system in allowing Federal Aid to help the many individuals in need.
Welfare

This may been a more advanced form of welfare that was introduced at one time, but it is not working now, there are more people than ever on welfare in America. The U.S. government has been fight a war on poverty for many decades and is losing. In an article by Warren Kozak titled The Myth of Starving Americans, he explains why America is losing this war on poverty, " The U.S. government spends close to $1 Trillion a year on providing cash, food, house, medical care and services to poor and near poor people"with all of that money going out, why are the number of Americans on food stamps at a record high? (Kozak)". With all of the money the US spends on to fight poverty why is it that we have not seen a decrease in the poverty rate. Also in his article, Kozak included a report published last September by the Heritage Foundation, carried out by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield. "They found that, according to Census Bureau data for 2009 (the most recent year statistics are available), of the almost 50 million Americans classified as poor, 96% of the parents said their children were never hungry. Eighty-three percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat, and 82% of poor adults said they were never hungry at any time in 2009 due to a lack of food or money (Kozak)". One of the main problems that the welfare system is facing today in the US is that people are using welfare for the wrong reasons. Because this welfare system applies to large bodies of people, more and more people are going on welfare and staying on it. This why in the US the welfare system needs to changed for the better.
If Evil Exists, God Does Not Exist

I will be arguing that if Evil exists, God does not exist. We all know what the conception of evil is, but just to be more specific about the deity in question: God: "The factually necessary omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient being of classical Theism" The focus over the years has been over the Evidential Problem of Evil. Most Atheist philosophers grant the theist the "free-will bone" due to Alvin Plantinga. However, many esteemed and prominent philosophers still don't buy it. I don't buy it. I think that Evil and God are not compatible.
If Evil Exists, God Does Not Exist

Look, I don't know about the rest of you but half the crap my counterpart is saying sounds like gibberish to me. Sorry. I don't follow it and that's because I'm not familiar with the technical language philosophers use in their writings. I'm willing to bet that most people reading this don't either. I do know that SOMETIMES the reason people write the way my counterpart does is in order to deliberately obscure what is being said; or to make them selves sound intelligent. I could be wrong. My counterpart is wrong about my argument. He misconstrues it. I never said that all suffering could be explained in terms of a higher cause or that it would work out for a greater purpose. That's not even close to what I said. I said that suffering is the result of the misuse of freewill. I never said God was OK with it. I did say that when God created the Universe that He did so with the goal in mind of maximum freewill and minimum suffering in the context of all the people He imagined to create. So it wasn't as simple as erasing some inconvenient people. My counterpart argues that God should have made it so that people would have chosen good within the context of freewill. What nonsense! That's not freewill anymore than a loaded set of dice is a fair game of craps. Choice is there or it isn't. If it's fixed from the beginning then it isn't choice. REAL CHOICE COMES WITH REAL RISK. The reason choice is such a big deal to God is because Love is impossible without choice. The whole point to this is that God wants to have a real relationship with the individuals He created. The Bible teaches us that God is love. The choices we have have to be real. That means some loaded choice that results in a predetermined outcome isn't a choice and isn't love. He didn't "Wire us for evil" He wired us for freedom. My counterpart seems confused about the status of evil. Evil does not have a real ontological (real being) status. It is a state of affairs. If you use a skill saw to cut a board and you stick your hand in front of it and lose a finger, the skill saw is not evil. You end up suffering but it's not the saw's fault. I believe the reason many of the awful things that happen in this world are not stopped by God are not because He doesn't want to stop them. But He does have the power to that's true. He chooses not to. If he did intervene our freedom would be a joke.
Doctor Strange vs Superman

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhl;adj;ldfkj;glkdjf;lgksdjg;lkrejgt;oejfg;dofirjht;ojerthe;orwijg;lwetjhr;lgehjet;og;wltnhrg;jwpeogkjetlgerogk
Doctor Strange vs Superman

So... I really like movies. And when talking about superhero movies, I hear a lot of people talking about Marvel vs DC. Without getting into their annual profit or anything, I decided to talk about the strongest (arguably) characters in Marvel and DC. I have chosen Doctor Strange and Superman. A battle between them. We are talking about the movie versions only. And I have chosen Doctor Strange. The Con will choose Superman. Any items associated with the character can be used. Thanks! So here's my first argument: I think Superman has great powers. I can see why people like him so much. But Doctor Strange in the movies will probably beat Superman in the movies. Well first, Doctor Strange can make a time loop. You're not defeated if you die over and over again. If you kill a zombie and its remaining parts crawl toward you, you have not defeated it. Anyway, Doctor Strange can make a time loop so that he never loses. He has proven that he can do this when he fights Agamotto in the Doctor Strange movie. Also, Doctor Strange can transport everyone into the mirror dimension. In there, you can never get out unless you have the 'transporting ring' (sorry) and you need the magical concentration, something Superman does not have. Third, Doctor Strange can do anything to the dimension you are in. He has transported Loki in Thor Ragnarok (Still a movie). So Superman could be instantly transported somewhere far in the mirror dimension. Besides, Superman does not have any familiarity with any other dimension than the one we live in. Finally, Doctor Strange has great magic with combat skills. He can conjure whips and shields. He even has a magic levitation cloak that allows him to fly. It even fights for him! I await the Con's reply. Thanks again!
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport

Resolution - Golf is the most mentally challenging sport Note : This is not one of the most mentally challenging sport but the most. There are a lot of things that contribute to what is mentally challenging. When we are saying mentally challenging in this type of debate, it is to be inferred as on balance. Meaning in general golf is the most mentally challenging sport. While I think Golf is one of the most skillful sports, I do not think it is one of the most mentally challenging ones. I will argue in favor of Chess Chess is a sport It is even recognized as a sport by the Olympics [1] Reasons chest is more difficult It makes you think minuets and moves in advance. While golf requires you to be skilled and have precision, chess requires you just not think about the current move you are making but moves you have to make in the future. A move you make at the present turn can cause a butterfly effect for moves in later turns. It is all strategy and planning, making yourself think ahead and trying to bait your adversary into moves that could be turns in length. Chess all requires the knowledge of multiple roles and how to play them well. Each pieces has a certain way in which it is to be used, and knowing how to use the pieces, knowing how your opponent will use the pieces, and trying to figure out the best way to use them is mentally challenging as well. People even use chess as a way to improve their mental capacities. While it can improve their chess game chess also helps some people improve their mentally ability in other areas. It is often used as a training tool, and has been used in history for the same reasons [2]. It has been primarily used throughout history in military education and teaching people to read their opponents actions and moves. [3] While golf has its mentally challenging moments, it is no where near as mentally challenging as chess [1] http://www.olympic.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://uni-nke.hu...
Golf is the most mentally challenging sport

Physicality aside - a round of golf will cause more mental fatigue than most (if not all) sports. Reasons include: - the decisions throughout a round of golf are extremely complex - in order to succeed, a high level of CONSTANT focus is required (in most sports - especially team sports - focus is only intermittent) - most sports rely on instinctual reactions/muscle memory as a form of decision-making - golf requires a longer decision-making process which is entirely based on achieving a particular state of mind (confident visualization) - this constant effort to achieve and maintain a state of mind is more mentally demanding - especially with regard to team sports which require only intermittent focus - personal accountability (not a team sport so there is no one sharing the responsibility of succeeding)
God is dead

I understand that you said that god is dead in a figurative manner. But I must also make the observation that human kind can never out grow God, no matter how advanced we become. I will also agree that people couldn't explain lighting and earthquakes a thousand years ago, but they were and are today constructed by God and his plan for this world. Natural occurences can only happen because God allows them to, without God, nothing would exist, no atoms, molecules, or anything else in the realm of man. But, you go on to bash the ten commandments. In case you hadn't noticed, most of the actions that are spurred out of the thoughts that these laws talk about, are the same actions that make us immoral. Laws are predicated upon these notions. Law requires religion. But to specifically talk on the Bible, it carries meanings that are conotative and denotative at the same time. It is the mold that allows humans to replicate their lives after. Furthermore, you state " ... more research doesn't mean anything. The results of the research are more important than the amount of research done." Historians have proven that the Bible and fact (which are one in the same) are parallel in what they show. History proves that there was a man named Jesus. History proves that he would have been born in Bethleham, and history proves that certain stories in the Bible are fact. So why should I infer anything else, but that Jesus was God, Savior of man? And, you advocate that these people think that they can only make it to heaven by going to church. This is wrong also. The only way into heaven is to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. To denounce the evil that is this world. And to confess and be forgiven of ones sins. It is not by entering an edifice, it is by building the spiritual church of God. I believe that noone can truly acknowledge the limits, or lack there of, of space because we have never seen it. We have never traveled further than Mars (not humans, but machines.) Therefore I will always state that it is the unknown, and sometimes it is better not to know. Somethings were never meant for us to find out. To explain, in my words, what Descartes was battling with, was that without God or an after life, there would be no need for morals. Without ramifications of the after life, why not share your bed with more than one woman? Why not steal what you please? Civilizations have lived without morals and Gods, and they ended up in ruins. Thank you for the debate. It was fun!
God is dead

Thanks again. I truly hoe that good clash can occur. I am going to start off in a sort of backwards order. You state that you are agnostic because you think that there might be or have been a God. If there was a God, then he could not die, because that just isn't the thing that God does. Next, more research has been done to prove that God exists than work to prove that evolution exists. Religion came first. The earliest recorded civilization had a belief in a God and found God everywhere, before they had mathematics or even a written language. Sense then, wars have been fought over religion, people have dies for their cause, and research yields more proof everyday that God exists. If we go back to the holy land, and if we compare the Bible to parallel, accepted history, we see that they coincide together without problem. History proves that there probably was a man named Jesus. It would be more likely to take Him as being the Son of Man rather than to accept him as being a perfect human being. Math is based on theories about the universe. Math books use words like "hypothesis" and "postulates" whereas history is set in stone and supports the idea of there being a God. Now I will answer your contentions about science proving that earth has a high probability of happening at random. You state that "There are an estimated two hundred billion known galaxies in the universe." No one has ever traveled or seen that far. There is no way of proving that or even inferring that. And, the earth is not 4.6 billion years old. That is only a guesstimate done by a scientist. It is impossible to judge that amount of time because too many variable are present. Asteroids (we haven't been wiped out by one yet), ice, heat, any type of weather, and erosion. These could all effect the results that are produced in a laboratory. Next, I am not Catholic so I cannot speak for the Pope. Most Christians don't believe in a spark that could cause evolution to happen and I am no different. In a more philosophical perspective, God can exist in the thoughts of people. If you believe in evolution, then you believe that man is the most superior being and therefor establishes the beliefs of this world. Because of this, if people believe that a god exists somewhere, then that god does exist. In an evolutionist perspective, we keep God alive. From my perspective, God has always existed, exists today, and will always exist. Finally, I would like to make a notion that God is with us everyday. He sits with us, talks to us, and enables us to decipher right and wrong. I believe that God IS our conscience. There is more proof swaying towards there being a God than any other way. I am also using my right to speak out against ignorance and I will gladly use my rights to do such.