BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare

I would like to first point out that my opponent never re-addressed Contention 2. Therefore, it still stands. What your charts show makes sense, there should not be any correlation between government spending and inflation. Government spending in and of itself does not cause inflation, but the United States government almost always spends more than it takes in (the late 90s were an anomaly): . http://bit.ly...; What I should have said (although I thought it could be implied) was that government overspending causes inflation. Since government overspending is the direct devaluation of the currency, government overspending is inflation. When the government spends more than it takes in, it is printing money that it doesn't have. This devalues the currency, resulting in inflation. Welfare contributes to overspending, so eliminating it would slow the devaluation of our currency and cause prices to stop skyrocketing. Your charts comparing spending to inflation, then, are irrelevant, as overspending is what causes inflation. Because of this, Contentions 1 and 3 still stand. Contention 2 was never refuted, so it also still stands. Therefore, all of my points still stand:1. Welfare hurts the poor. •The inflation caused by overspending through welfare results in increased prices for the poor. •Decreasing inflation by eliminating welfare will open up the free market and create tons of new jobs. Once people have jobs, they will no longer feel the need to commit crimes. 2. Welfare gives incentive for people to immigrate to the US, both legally and illegally. •54 percent of legal immigrants with children and 70 percent of illegal immigrants with children receive welfare assistance, only 39 percent of native-born Americans with children receive welfare assistance.3. Welfare decreases incentive to work •Unemployment benefits in America last 99 weeks. •The person does not have to work during this time, and since they are getting welfare assistance, there is a much lower incentive to work.
Welfare

Thanks 32no, here are my rebuttals:Contention 1: The first part of your argument describes how people who recieve welfare support the free market because 80% of what they recieve is spent in the free market, and this contributes 3% to our GDP. This is fundamentally flawed, however, because all of the money they are recieving is coming from the government. Government spending causes inflation, which hurts the free market by devaluing the currency. Therefore, even though people on welfare are spending into the free market, they are hurting the free market because the money they are spending is only inflating the currency.The second part of your argument describes how taking away welfare would cause people to lose part of their "value" and cause them to commit crimes. This is another fundamentally flawed statement because getting rid of welfare would open up the free market and create tons of new jobs. Once people have jobs, they will no longer feel the need to commit crimes. Eliminating welfare, then, would ultimately cause the crime rate to go down.You never refuted my original argument: welfare causes inflation, which devalues the currency, which destroys jobs, which causes people to need welfare in the first place. Contention 2:Your argument on the validity of the source I used is flawed because I referenced data from within the article (originating from a study by the CIS) and not the article itself. Therefore your argument about the author and her support of Rick Perry is completely irrelevant. Here is the original study: http://www.cis.org...The exact wording from the study:"In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.""We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children."Putting in a stricter applicant policy would require far more work on the government's behalf. This means the government would have to spend more money, inflating the currency more, and ultimately destroying jobs.Contention 3:Want to know the reason people can't get jobs in the first place? Inflation. What causes inflation? Government spending. What is welfare? Government spending. Your argument about people not being able to get jobs is flawed because welfare, which contributes to inflation, is what causes the lack of jobs. If the government stops inflating the currency through welfare, jobs will be created and those people won't need welfare anymore. Therefore, my original argument: "Welfare decreases incentive to work" still stands.
Welfare

Contention 1: Welfare hurts the poor. http://www.youtube.com... The US government spends 13% of it's budget on welfare.[1] Because of "modern" keynesian economics, the government is constantly spending money that it doesn't have because the budget is almost always unbalanced. This spending causes inflation which has extremely harmful effects on the economy and especially the poor. Inflation devalues the currency, so the poor have to pay more for things that they can barely afford already. Inflation also takes a toll on businesses, who see decreased sales. This ultimately hurts the poor because when businesses do poorly, there are fewer jobs to go around. Contention 2: Welfare gives incentive for people to immigrate to the US, both legally and illegally. A 2011 study by the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services showed that while 54 percent of legal immigrants with children and 70 percent of illegal immigrants with children receive welfare assistance, only 39 percent of native-born Americans with children receive welfare assistance.[2] This goes to show that people who come here, both illegally and legally, tend to get on welfare. Getting rid of welfare would get rid of the incentive for people to come here and take jobs, which would give that 34 percent of native-born Americans more job opportunities. Contention 3: Welfare decreases incentive to work Unemployment benefits in America last 99 weeks.[3] That's almost 2 years of no work! During those two years, the government provides enough money to sustain a person. The person does not have to work during this time, and since they are getting welfare assistance, there is a much lower incentive to work. President Obama's former economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, has argued against unemployment welfare, saying, "The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work."[4] [1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... [2] http://blog.chron.com... [3] http://www.cbsnews.com... [4] http://www.econlib.org...
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

It's not a fallacy he can impact his creation. And yes it's hard to logically argue against the idea that God is beyond logic but what else could happen and still define a God? To create something you had to have existed without it. And that goes for the polytheism stuff too if Zeus existed he wouldn't be a God he would be a higher being but not be a creator.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

I forgot to mention it before but you've repeated the same fallacy I ignorantly missed in the last round special pleading saying that god is not subject to logic and rationality because he is god and he created those things is another great way to derail a debate it is a logical fallacy and should be ignored as such. " God does not play by human rules he created them." So there is no evidence for god but that's only because he exists outside of human comprehension? If that's the case then no one has any real reason to believe in him. "God is this thing that if real is beyond human comprehension" If this is the case then we wont find any evidence therefore there is not a logical reason to believe in gods. I make my unicorn argument because its the first thing that popped into my head but you could insert any other god that isn't yours and it would have the same effect I assume you don't believe in the gods of classical Greece so I have no evidence that Zeus doesn't exist but I'm not going to live my life as if he does, belief in the existence of Zeus should be suspended until proper evidence of Zeus is gathered. This also applies to any other gods. If you can dismiss Zeus or Shiva or Osiris based on lack of evidence why not dismiss the other religions on that same lack of evidence, or you can continue special pleading for your own deeply held religious beliefs.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

First i did not suggest others ability to have experiences is a valid argument for the existence of God. I would not i'm saying why others are able to do what you say is not logical, anecdotal evidence is valid in defining your own beliefs since the fallacy part comes the lack of reliability. Second you keep suggesting that God is likened to a unicorn this is not the case. God is this thing that if real is beyond human comprehension, unicorns are a variant of horses you've been told don't exist. God can not be likened to personal experience. The teapot orbiting the sun should make you consider well is it possible someone put it there? Did any astronaut take a teapot and not come back with it? This is relating the personal experience and the logic you are aware of, e.i everything happens because of a equal and opposite reaction and all the other laws of physics. Now stay with me what would a 4th dimensional world look like? Don't know? Good because that's point at which people say God could comprehend and possibly exist in. God does not play by human rules he created them. To biasedly liken it to there not being a box of pop-tarts in your fridge is downplaying the implications of what's be suggested.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

Simple do you think there is as much a chance of unicorns existing as not existing? If so then I doubt ill be able to convince you of anything, enjoy your unicorn hunting, but if not then why not apply that same logic to god? What makes him/her so different. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you just used a very common logical fallacy, Argument from personal experience, or an anecdotal fallacy. How should I know that that funny feeling you get when you pray isn't just indigestion you seem intelligent and I doubt you are really an existentialist so you rely on logic to draw some conclusions so why not use it here.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

Okay i guess that comes out from your opening statement but the title made it sound like you wanted to prove the religion is false. Since were at pretty much the same point ill try and give my thoughts on what i think you don't understand about how many religious people justify their beliefs. "faith is not a reason it is the suspension of reason so belief can be preserved." again there is no logic to disprove faith it's a standstill from both sides. Belief in your senses is as much of belief as religious belief i don't think i need to give examples of your senses not always being perfect. This belief in the validity of your senses is a good parallel, to some they think of the existence of a higher being as being the best explanation you think the screen in front of you is tangible because it the conclusion you have gotten from touching things that look to be in front of you. You aren't leaving out reason you're just doing what you think is best in lieu of a better more consistent answer. "There are so many different gods, and its not possible for all of them to be real but it is possible for none of them to be." Personally i'm Universalist that believes a single God was seen and described differently creating monotheistic religions with similar practices. Polytheism was the worship of flawed humans. Some stretch and say nature worshipers indirectly worship god. I'm iffy on it. "I'm asking for clear evidence for the existence of god because if you want others to believe your radical claims you require radical evidence" People who believe often have a reason as to why this ranges from asking for unlikely help and receiving it or others like myself are convinced they've experienced oddities when God was asked to do something that can't be explain by chance or conformation bias. "The idea that the existence of a god or gods is on equal footing with the possibility of there being no gods is incorrect." Why? i would guess but the character limit is too short.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

I don't believe they are wrong I just don't believe they are right. In the same way that I don't believe that unicorns are real, I have no proof of there nonexistence but that doesn't mean i'm gonna hunt one so I can drink its blood and become immortal like Voldemort. I have no basis to believe there is no god but i also have no basis to believe there is one, or many, lack of evidence against something doesn't make it plausible. I used Russel's Teapot to Illustrate that fact. The idea that the existence of a god or gods is on equal footing with the possibility of there being no gods is incorrect. I have a lack of belief in gods which is different from the belief that there are no gods, although I believe there are no gods that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying there is no reason to live as if there is a god until testable evidence is given supporting it.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

It does you didn't ask me to prove religion true you asked me to convince you that your statement: "I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true" is not true. I'll admit that existentialism isn't what you're looking for i was in a mood i guess. But the argument at the end was the real answer to why you're wrong: "it's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, it just means that not enough evidence is present to make a conclusion since that's how logic works you need more then feelings and "well i think" statements to find relative truth" Imagine if i said x+y=7 assuming y is 5 and asked if it was true you would say it's true if x is 2 but that's the problem we don't know what x is. Assuming "the material world is real, or what we can observe with our senses is correct" feelings do not correlate with logic i know you already know this but you still insist on religion being false because you don't feel it. You feel a scientific theory is correct because you associate science as being correct because it's just the observation of reality. And it concerns itself with all physical truth but you treat it's guesses at what it doesn't know the same way. Look at string theory after more evidence it's proven wrong. There isn't any good logic to deny it or prove it. Truth at a level higher than human understanding is all around us we humans are limited beings in a (possibly) infinite universe there's a point beyond human comprehension and the existence of a creator is not something you get to have gut feelings about. Also The teapot analogy is correct but you're using it wrong "it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense." His argument is a criticism of the absurdity of religious details that we would reject due to trends we believe like information coming from a long time ago. He's saying its religious arguments are absurd he's not saying they have to be wrong.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

Your argument does not pertain to this debate if you are a true existentialist you wouldn't believe that anything is real, to debate this subject you need to accept a few things "the material world is real, or what we can observe with our senses is correct. an argument of existentialism is just a way for someone to derail debate and say that nothing is real so we cant draw conclusions about anything if you want to debate please stay on topic and don't try to confuse people. Stating that Descartes was a Christian also has no bearing on this debate and if you feel like talking about logical fallacies that was an obvious appeal to authority, not to mention missing the point with your existentialism argument. you have given no reason to believe in any religion so far, and i hope you'll do a better job and stay on topic in the next round.
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

The great dilemma of philosophers is the question of why? The answer Modern philosophy is based off of was proposed by Rene Descartes "I think therefore i am." here's the part of Discourse on Method in which he states it: "(he talks about how dreams are false memories and that your senses can lie to you) But immediately upon this I observed that, whilst I thus wished to think that all was false, it was absolutely necessary that I, who thus thought, should be somewhat; and as I observed that this truth, I think, therefore I am (COGITO ERGO SUM), was so certain and of such evidence that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, could be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it, I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the philosophy of which I was in search." Pretty poor reasoning is used and he made it his first principle of his personal philosophy. The point is that he's caught up on foundation. Without the idea that he could work up from a point of which he could prove he existed he would not have been able to reason why he should do what he did best that is improve himself and his opinions. The sad truth is that a unshakable foundation to build upward from doesn't exist you can not prove you are real. And now to get to the point truth can be found from your point of reference in terms of the lowest form of absolute truth. Descartes was a christian that he proved to himself from the Cogito. Existentialists like Sarte would say that truth doesn't exist. Pinning your foundation to your senses often results in the belief that lack of proof means no God. Pinning your foundation on the idea that there is something greater unknow and relying less on your senses can lead to religious belief. and... it's a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance, it just means that not enough evidence is present to make a conclusion since that's how logic works you need more then feelings and "well i think" statements to find relative truth
I don't need to prove your religion is false you need to prove it is true.

I have no reason to believe that your god is real. There are so many different gods, and its not possible for all of them to be real but it is possible for none of them to be. faith is not a reason it is the suspension of reason so belief can be preserved. I'm asking for clear evidence for the existence of god because if you want others to believe your radical claims you require radical evidence. Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy illustrates this argument very well and it goes as follows "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Gun Control

With guns turning into the biggest debate in the United States questions have surfaced on what to do and I will argue nothing should be done. I'll be giving three main reasons for my argument, it is a right, the truth about guns, and real solutions to gun violence. First it is a right, more specifically a constitutional right. In the 2nd amendment it states that "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It shall not be infringed that is pretty strong words, it doesn't state that is should be regulated, controlled, or even managed instead it states that it shall not and will not be infringed. If the Constitution is the law of the land than this is the law and it will stand. People have a large misconception about guns and the truth must come before action. First of all guns don't kill people, people kill people. Guns doesn't make someone a killer just like how a hammer doesn't make someone a house constructor. Time for the real numbers the fact is 99.9% of all guns in the United States are not used in violent crimes because most gun owners in the United States are good law binding citizens. Only 4% of guns used in crimes are obtained legally because making guns illegal doesn't stop gun crime because if someone is willing to kill a group of people or rob someone that obtaining an illegal gun is then crossing the line, I don't think so. When a mass shooting occurs when the shooter is stopped by a armed civilian the average number killed in the shooting is 2 while if the shooter is stopped by the police the average killed is 18. Police officers can't stop crime they just come and clean up the mess, it takes civilians to have save streets. Truth can set you free and save. I find it ironic that those in Washington calling for gun control have security officers that carry guns. If they feel so strongly about gun control why don't they set the example and have their security officers give up their weapons, but they won't because they know if something bad happens they want guns to protect themselves, then why can't a civilian do the same with their own life. This is how you stop gun violence let people get guns because bad people will always find a way to get guns, take marijuana for example it is illegal in 48 states, but it is the largest cash crop in the United States because is someone wants something all it takes is a call from a shady character and sell in the black market. Gun control doesn't stop bad people from getting guns it only stops good people from getting guns. If you want schools to be save than let the teachers have training and have a gun in class so that if something horrible does happen they can protect the students. Because in Connecticut where the shooting took place was a "gun free zone" , but this is a hollow promise because to a killer it will says "target practice." Time to give good people guns to stop the evil in the world. Vote Con because in the world evil will always exists and it needs good to fight it, but it needs to be a fair fight. Sources http://beforeitsnews.com... http://www.law.cornell.edu... http://www.drugscience.org... http://www.wnd.com...
Should Taxes Be Raised Exponentially For The Rich

CON has a really nasty habit of stealing other people's work, and I noticed that he's done this in his other recent debate, so I was pleasantly surprised when I saw what appeared to be an interesting case, but it nevertheless looked familar. I poked around on Google, and lo and behold, he plagiarized his entire argument from a debate 1HistoryGenius did a while back. You can locate that debate here: . http://www.debate.org...So, judges, we have a few options here: I obviously expect to win conduct because plagiarism isn't cool. But I also love this topic, and I'm a nice guy, so I want to give my adversary one more chance to post an actual argument that he himself has created. Heck, I've also been dying to debate 1HistoryGenius, so I may, if the muse strikes me, type out a couple dozen paragraphs refuting the (plagiarized) case my adversary has provided. But all of this is contingent on how PRO opts to respond in the next round.