BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

I was actually hoping for a policy debate with stocks issues and the rest... Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States My opponent stated, "the united states government simply cannot afford to help the majority of poor people in the U.S.A the usa spends to much money on things like the military etc and leaves no money for these needs of the poor" -However, our government's moral obligation is to protect the people which it governs over. By invading another country, they cannot do that. Therefore, they should just downsize the military to set aside the appropriate funds. "in these current economic times of spending billions coming on trillions to bail out American company's and banks they definitely have no money for it" - they can afford it they just don't want to set aside the appropriate funds *The fact of the matter is that the people of this nation are the future. If they are not warranted the necessary elements to succeed, the US has no future.
The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons livin

i think you are right and no decent person can argue against helping the poor really unless they are alcholics etc and dont want help and refuse to work them stuff them . but i know what you mean poor familys etc. so since i cant argue against your point i will tell you the flaws in it. the united states goverment simply cannot afford to help the majority of poor people in the U.S.A the usa spends to much money on things like the military etc and leaves no money for these needs of the poor. in these current economic times of spending billions coming on trillions to bail out american companys and banks they definitly have no money for it. but lets for the sake of it say they found the money from somwhere and were willing to help heres whats wrong with your idea. the country has millions of people in need of these services and even if it had the money it doesnt have the manpower because to get round all these people often enough to help them would require i would say one million + social workers which i doubt is possible . the other flaw in your idea is lets face it , social work helps sure but there has to better ways to help them , spend the money improving their education or even tax cuts for the poor . i think that its a good idea but the billions of dollars required could be spent improving their lifes in many other ways than just giving them social workers etc .
Sports are not a waste of time

Posted by DylanTheGreatk 22 seconds ago DylanTheGreatk Feeling bad after a loss can be tough but it can also make you strive to become better so I believe that feeling bad after a loss can be good thing. Star athletes help inspire kids to become better and practice so I don't believe they are bad role models.1 half of people in the world die from heart problems so sports would save more lives then it would kill. If kids can't handle competitive sports leagues then they could practice with friends or go down to less competive sports leagues and running is a sport and running is something you need to do every day. If there's many different options of sports so if you want to play something that isn't dangerous then you could do something like soccer or just run And it's human nature to do anything to succeed. My soccer team use to lose all the time but now we win almost every time and please remember that sometimes we want to do something that's fun that isn't video games
Sports are not a waste of time

Sports can cause a child to fall into a pattern of rationalizing unacceptable behavior. A good example is the athlete who becomes so competitive that he/she will do anything to win, convincing himself/herself that the ends justify the means. A few sports foster a culture of violence. Such a misguided culture too often spills over into barbaric acts in and out of competition, and also produces a copycat reaction among some impressionable young athletes. Sports can produce an unhealthy level of stress in a child, particularly a child who is pushed to excel and who feels a failure with every loss. Sports can produce irrational, boorish behavior among parents and athletes. Sports can produce many athletes who are negative role models. Sports can produce many coaches who are negative role models. Sports can produce many parents who are negative role models, especially those who overvalue athletic achievement. Sports, even team sports, can promote selfish behavior.
Sports are not a waste of time

A common opinion is that sports are a waste of time but right now I'm gonna argue that it isn't. The human body is meant to be active and there's no better way to be active then to play sports! Sports are something that you can always keep improving at sports often take a lot of teamwork or individual skill and sports are something that over billion people enjoy. To build pro sports stadiums you need to spend a lot of money but millions of of people go to sports games and watch them on tv. Everyone human wants to have fun and there's no better way to have fun then to play and watch a sports game! You can prove my points wrong but as a con you need to persuade me that sports are a waste time
Bible Errors Made Clear

Just to make this clear. I think that THE BIBLE IS COMPLETELY FILLED ERROR. However, I want to challenge myself to take this debate for the fun of debating. So to those of you who vote on this, do not vote only on which side you agree with but rather who made better points. Let us begin. The Bible does not possess error due to its essence itself. It is a book of faith and not a book of history. It is not a entirely a book of do's and don't's but rather it is a book of salvation. We humans were not the primary authors but were inspired by God. God cannot make any error because he is perfect.
If God exist & is concerned with the welfare of mankind, he uses pain, suffering as a teaching tool

If God exist and is concerned with the welfare and longevity of the human race, he uses pain, suffering as a teaching device.This debate is open to all theists (and atheists).I will be arguing this viewpoint from the perspective of a [variant of] pantheist (someone who subscribes to the doctrine that the universe is conscious, intelligent, and is analogous to God), but my opponent is free to challenge me however he likes.I believe these debates should be learning experiences for both the instigator and the contender (including the audience), so feel free to share your thoughts and arguments.My purpose in this debate is not to label God as necessarily good or evil, but simply to demonstrate my position to the claim in italics above. My opponent should take the position that negates the claim, however he chooses to do so.(Serious debaters only.)
If God exist & is concerned with the welfare of mankind, he uses pain, suffering as a teaching tool

People have a capacity for evil in this world. They can be selfish with resources, unfair to others, mistreat nature and other life-forms, unruly and combative. People can be incredibly destructive and self-absorbed. My position is that God created intelligent life (which includes people) as long-term companions in this universe, for the extent that it can last before entropy ultimately takes over. But in order to make intelligent life durable in a universe filled with possible danger and unpredictability, God (which I define theistically as the super-intelligent, conscious universe) must lay down some ground rules for intelligent life to follow, because certain behaivors (and attitudes), certain ways of life have a real potential to reduce the quality of experience, which will only aggravate mankind into increased unruliness, desperation, selfishness, combativeness - and ultimately extinction.God therefore presents mankind with rules for life, and encourages mankind to live by laws that will maintain civility, fairness, and encourage mutual joy in a society. But should mankind ever break these rules, should mankind ever descend into a state of increased lawlessness and depravity, he makes it plain that he will inflict great pain upon communities, through a variety of unpleasant methods.But why should pain work? Why should God use pain, suffering to encourage mankind back onto paths of moral rectitude, law and order? Because this has been an effective method on developing life-forms throughout the ages. Pain (and Pleasure) work to encourage life-forms to self-preserve themselves! (God wants long-term intelligent companionship.)Survival and Pleasure/PainHumans are motivated by survival. But more specifically, humans are motivated by Pleasure and Pain. Humans seek out pleasure. Humans try to avoid things that directly contribute to [their] suffering, pain. For example, humans that know touching a burning stove will inflict searing pain will try to avoid touching it intentionally. Pain and Pleasure are not imaginary phenomena, but genuinely arise from the body's biochemistry, in reaction to things that can benefit us (keep us alive) and harm us (kill us). Pain and pleasure are rudimentary impelling forces used by the body (and evolved [designed?] over hundreds of millions of years) to motivate us into action.It has worked to preserve developing life on Earth. It is one of the rudimentary languages of our bodies, and it has a tremendous reputation for working.Pleasure/Pain - which is a form of sensory experience - has worked for organisms in the past. Why should God abandon it now if he can use it to instruct mankind about vital lessons in this universe?DJ12 . . . you're up.
Liberalism has made terribly negative effects to the United States

Thanks for that response, and for your politeness. I"d like to Focus this second round on 3 main points you brought up in the second round namely black lives matter, legalization of marijuana, and caring for those in need. First, black lives matter. The pew research that you cited shows that 8/10 support black lives matter, but there are some issues with that. If you look at the methodology of the poles, people were asked if they supported black lives matter only after they said they were familiar (IE had heard of) the black lives matter movement. A more accurate description would be "8/10 Democrats that are familiar with black lives matter support black lives matter." Not only that, but if you were to ask someone the question if black lives matter, I feel the vast majority would say yes. This isn"t implying that all other lives don"t matter like you claimed earlier, it"s a simple statement. Black lives matter, right? Right. White lives matter right? Right. All lives matter, right? Right. The reason (as far as I can see) is that the founders of black lives matter felt as though black lives in particular weren"t being valued as all other lives, hence the reminder. But, I agree that the organization has done stupid and terrible things. But that certainly doesn"t mean anyone who supports the idea of black lives having value harms the US. Secondly, the legalization of marijuana. You said in your first round that marijuana is bad for you, and i agree. However, every single one of the points that you used against marijuana can also be applied to alcohol (and arguably more effectively). So, to claim that marijuana should be illegal is just about the same to me that alcohol should be illegal. Now, I"m not saying whether that should be the case or not, but it seems unintelligent to legalize one and not the other when they are extremely similiar in harm and benifit. Thirdly, you said "it"s good that in need are cared for by the left, but this has nothing to do with the points of my argument" I disagree. That is, to me, the whole arguement. The reason why liberalism isn"t harmful to the US, is that it does more good than harm for my reasons stated in the first round. This is Exactly what this arguement is about, and I feel that oftentimes people like you and I that lean conservative forget that liberalism is a necessary balancing force to conservatism. That, is why I believe that liberalism isn"t a destructive force to the US (although it can be if misused just like conservatism).
Liberalism has made terribly negative effects to the United States

I would also say that my topic sentence isn"t the best English (even though im 4th/5th generation U. S)as I shouldn"t have said terribly negative :) I think you had good points, but some of your points had flaws. For example, when you talked about how only a "minority" supports black lives matter like republicans to "white supremacy", but in this article . http://www.pewresearch.org... , it says how 8 in 10 democrats support black lives matter, while 23% of republicans support it. That shows that your point there is flawed as the movement "black lives matter" likely started with few members but is very populas now in the Democratic Party. For your second point, it hasn"t impacted the USA in federal laws, but in society/ state laws, as marijuana is legal in some states (Colorado, California, Oregon, etc). And for your final paragraph, I agree with you on how the left does try to help the people in need, while the right tends to worry about themselves. It is good that people in need are cared for by the left, but this has nothing to do with the points I made in my argument. With the most respect to you, I have to say that you didn"t answer my points. I am guessing it is because they are hard to answer (as you feel I answered them well), and I would hope you didn"t just ignore my arguments that had great points on how liberalism has made some negative effects to the United States. I would appreciate it for your second argument, to talk about my arguments, and then bring up more of your own arguments against my statement. Thanks
Liberalism has made terribly negative effects to the United States

First, I"m truly thankful to Policemanbob for this opportunity. I"m going to be straight with you, I"m a conservative/libertarian leaning individual and really think we can both learn. I truly agree with you, but I think your overall idea Is at least partially incorrect. Also, thank you for your service if you are indeed a policeman. Truly, thank you. First, I"d like to point at that the majority of your arguments aren"t against liberal ideas at all, and are actually about post-modern, neo-Marxist ideas that are held by a small minority of liberals. Attributing those ideas to liberalism as a whole is like attributing white supremacy to conservatives as a whole. It"s simply not the case, although there is a small minority that believe in white supremacy. Secondly, all those ideas you have mentioned have not impacted the US in any lasting way as of yet. I would agree with you that those cancerous ideas are pushing the US in a negative direction, but have luckily not resulted in lasting laws, or other effects, at least on a federal level. However, positive things like women gaining the vote, the end of segregation, and other truly good things have happened as a result of liberal ideas. For this next part, I openly admit that I could be wrong, and invite you to correct me. I view the right and the left as saying two different things the right seems to me to say "hey, societies have hierarchies and if you shut up and work hard and do your best, you can make life good for you and your family so your kids have a better life than you". The right likes the idea that everyone can move up the hierarchy. The left on the other hand, also recognize there is a hierarchy, but they know that being on the bottom of the hierarchy really sucks. So they try to help those that are at the bottom in any way they can. Without the right, the hierarchy would collapse because there is too much mobility, and not based on competency. But without the left, the hierarchy would collapse because all hierarchies collapse when their is not enough mobility up the hierarchy (like with soviet communism). The above paragraph is the main reason I wanted to accept this debate is to illustrate this point. The left is necessary to push for helping those in need. For those reasons, I believe that liberalism has not made as terribly negative effects as it could appear to the US.
Harry S Truman (president)

Believe it or not Harry Truman did many good things such as: 1). Integrating the marines. 2). Gave 13 billion dollars to rebuild Europe after World War Two. 3). Was the first person to acknowledge the Nation of Israel. 4). Aimed toward full employment in the United States 5). Expanded Social Security 6). Passed the Fair Employment Practices Act 7). Started "Fair Deal" policies 8). Sent aid to Berliners when the Soviet Union blockaded them. 9). Aimed for Ciivil rights for all American Citizens. 10). Pulled America out of a recession in 1945.
Abortion

I know that there are often such things as rape, young birth mothers and unplanned pregnancies, but there are other options as well as abortion. There is adoption you could also give the child to a family member. I understand that isn't considered a human but it is living, it eats what the mother eats it still poops but the mother digest it. My mother was my age when she had my older 16 almost 17, she chose not to get and abortion because it wasn't just any unborn child it was hers. An unborn child is still one of the earliest development of a human like an embryo or a fetus. So by saying it doesn't matter if their parents the ones who are supposed to be there for them kills them, because they are very well still living, they have a heart beat all the same they grow and they can feel. They can feel the stress that the mother is having, but do they have a choice of how they are made or brought up? No, but does the mother yes, she is killing and innocent, harmless unborn, living baby. http://www.mccl.org...
Abortion

Abortion is a really hot topic, considering all the moral aspects of it, no one can argue with that. But I have watched TV recently (Yes... I know I still watch TV) and they were talking about the fact that a young girl that just became fourteen needed to get out of a state pay thousands of dollars because she got raped. This girl faces motherhood at the age I understood the meaning of the word "Sex".Also, sometimes, it happens that a couple who just wants to have fun is faced with a broken condom. So if the intention is not there, why should they be forced to get a child, a huge responsibility when they are not ready?I live in Canada, and w have a Universal Health care System here. Not wanting to publicly promote Bernie Sanders, the US does not have that sort of system. So some will have to pay not only for the child but for all the medical procedures of expecting that child, which can cost thousands of dollars.And some will argue that you are killing a human being, but the definition of a human being is : A man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance. It is no use pointing out the obvious differences between human beings and all other animals. The definition of child is a human being already born between the age of three to nine years old. So that is the vocabulary part, but what about the moral part? Can one literally say that it is wrong for a woman to take her own decision, by not spending thousands of dollars, living a teenage life as a mother and not living through pain that can be sometimes deadly. Accidents happen like a broken condom and tragedies happen, like rape, but at the end of the day there should be help offered, not bills and motherhood in what may be the best years of your life.
Pascal's Wager is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

A God who'd award atheists is not an oxymoron. Maybe it's part of a test this hypothetical gives. An oxymoron is something like a square circle, for example. Also, surely a God would not approve of this kind of thinking, you know 'I believe in God just in case'. I'm sorry for my short entry for this round, but I don't feel there is much to reply to. If there's anything from your round 2 that I disagree with, I'll put it in the comments section.
Pascal's Wager is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

As a Christian, I believe what it means is that you have an incentive to want to believe in a deity rather than take the chance of going to hell by not believing, but I would never use this as a way of convincing someone that God exists, if a theist only believes in God based on Pascal's Wager, than he/she doesn't truly believe in God by faith but by fear. "Its just as likely that there's a God that will punish Christians or reward non-believers." But that's an oxymoron, why would a God reward an atheist if the atheist (especially an anti-theist) did nothing in his/her life but bash the idea of God? As for the first part of your statement, I guess you would have to have faith in your God and believe, because if you look at those odds, a Christian would have a better chance of getting into heaven than an atheist at that point. If an atheist were to say to me if I said that to him/her, they would probably say "Well what if a different religion's God is real, then you would go to hell", true true but than you would also as well, the whole statement is based on luck and chance, which is something that a true Christian doesn't base his/her faith on
Star Wars is not Science Fiction

However, I still disagree that Star Wars is not science fiction. I still claim that Star Wars would not be the same if it were in another setting (my opponent brings up medieval). I disagree but I will not list the same points that I have before. My opponent lists severl motifs in his closing argument which I would like to draw attention to, namely the second and third. I will start with the third. The Hero's Journey as my opponent calls it is not one unique to Star Wars. As the website he cites [1] says, this theme is not unique. Simply because this theme appears in Star Wars is not enough to automatically mean its not science fiction. The theme is critical in other movies such as The Matrix which I myself believe to be science fiction. The second motif he lists can in itself justify a media of being classified as sci-fi. Technology is the key word in this theme, as fantasy is defined as "a genre that uses magic and other supernatural phenomena as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. " [2]. Technology would not be a major part of a fantasy book or novel. My opponent is correct in saying that these themes don't rely on science, but that does not mean they can't apply to a science fiction universe. A poor farm boy rising to the top can be the theme in any movie, whether it be a sports movie or romantic movie. I believe my opponent has not proved the pardigm wrong. We agreed on the BOP in Round 1 and Pro has not made significant points to overturn the status [1] . http://www.moongadget.com...[2] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fantasy_(genre)