BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

I believe that the second option is viable. The state should provide an income safety net for those who, through sickness (physical or mental), age, or disability, cannot work; and those who can, but for whom no jobs are available. There are many people in the current economy who cannot find work despite having the ability to do work; it is not their fault.The opponent's plan isn't feasible, because then the government would be artifically creating jobs and thereby dominate the job market. Such an action would allow the government to greatly influence the market. This would lead to a system that is far more socialist than our country strives to be, leaving the current market vulnerable to harsh government intervention.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

Quite Simply,We have 3 options:1. Completely get rid of government provision of aid.The problem here is that this drives up crime rates as people try to find "alternative" methods of making a living and things becomce harder and harder for those such in a cycle of poverty to get out of poverty. The gap between rich and poor grows.2. Continue just giving people handouts.The problem here is if we're giving people money then the tax-paying public should at least get some services back.3. Give needy able-bodied citizens jobs in public works rather than welfare handouts.This is the most common sense solution. This would allow people to provide for themselves and still have some work and therefore a tie in with the community and experience job networking.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

Sometimes it can be hard to find a job, and it certainly is wrong for the government to abandon people in need. Furthermore when people are desperate crime rises. Doing nothing about the problem of poverty is not an option. However, the economy would be in much better shape and we would have less problems with national debt if people government aid were provided in exchange for work rather than just handed over to people for free. Furthermore, just giving people free money encourages a lifestyle of laziness. They get used to not having to work and just stay on welfare. If they are working in public works then they will be in the habit of working for a living and even if they remain in public works for life they'd still be giving back to the community and society that they live in. There should be only 2 exceptions: 1. People attending college who have significant financial need and do not have enough time for both class and work. 2. Disabled persons.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

Increased employment by the government for public works would be an attack of private enterprises that deal with parks and highways. Also, there are millions of unemployed people, definitely too many to strictly do public works. ---The opponent then suggests that a vague process is implemented to avoid employee displacement. The government, through statistical finding, would "REQUIRE THE BUSINESSES TO 'MAKE ROOM' IF IT IS GOING TO PARTICIPATE." So private contractors would now have to give up control over their companies' own hiring procedure and allow the government to do it? This means that in order to work with the government, private businesses would have to give up control over their own enterprises and allow the government to control hiring. Let us also remember that THIS DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. If the government were to artificially squeeze additional workers into a business, it would simply be too little work for too many people. The dilemma persists.---The government artificially creating jobs only hurts business and creates a surplus of jobs that leads to overemployment.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

The opponent states, "Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable disea[s]es.""Okay. So? Through creating these jobs, the government will be promoting the treatment of diseases? Let us remember that most health care-related careers are in moderate to high demand. Most unemployed people would not be able to contribute to medicine-related progress. The opponent should clarify the point he was trying to make."That was more just an example of how the government CAN do good things with public money.Better examples would be public highways and national parks. Public works could help lend to the maintenance and cleaning of these."So the government is going to provide incentives to private businesses to hire people in publics works programs (who would otherwise be on welfare)? The opponent must remember that a business has a set number of seats for new employees. Even with incentive to hire those in the public works program, other people would be displaced and will not have jobs. Look at it this from the perspective of a small-scale model: A business has 20 employment applicants and 10 seats for new employment. Whether the business hires public works program members (through government incentivization) or not, 10 people will ultimately be unemployed."A process could be involved to make sure the private sector is not "displacing" employees and creating new unemployed using the public works program, and also analyze the number of non-public works employees that would likely be hired if they weren't participating. Statistical analysis could determine how many would be there without public works and then require the business to "make room" if it is going to participate in the program, require them to change the number of people they are hiring."For the people who literally CANNOT work, due to health problems, the "safety net" of a public works programs is of no use. There are people in need who cannot participate in a public works program due to serious hindrances."I stated up in Round 1:"There should be only 2 exceptions:1...2. Disabled persons."If you can't work due to health problems you fit #2.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

The opponent states, "Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable disea[s]es."Okay. So? Through creating these jobs, the government will be promoting the treatment of diseases? Let us remember that most health care-related careers are in moderate to high demand. Most unemployed people would not be able to contribute to medicine-related progress. The opponent should clarify the point he was trying to make."...providing incentives to private businesses to hire people given jobs through the public works program."So the government is going to provide incentives to private businesses to hire people in publics works programs (who would otherwise be on welfare)? The opponent must remember that a business has a set number of seats for new employees. Even with incentive to hire those in the public works program, other people would be displaced and will not have jobs. Look at it this from the perspective of a small-scale model: A business has 20 employment applicants and 10 seats for new employment. Whether the business hires public works program members (through government incentivization) or not, 10 people will ultimately be unemployed. "Providing people in need money through public works programs both fulfills the promise of a 'safety net' and gets back what is spent through the gains to the community through public works."For the people who literally CANNOT work, due to health problems, the "safety net" of a public works programs is of no use. There are people in need who cannot participate in a public works program due to serious hindrances.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

"In 2010, there were over 4.4 million people on welfare in the United States. [1] So, let's get this out of the way: the United States government would be artificially be creating millions of jobs for those who are currently on welfare."Sometimes the government can do good things through public spending, such as funding for research into treating a number of treatable diseaes."The private sector is put in jeopardy when the government artificially adds millions of jobs into the market, doing work that could have been done by millions of private sector contractors."There's no reason the "public works" program itself couldn't be subject to some "contracting out", providing incentives to private businesses to hire people given jobs through the public works program, though it also would not work in every case to make that the entire program. In some cases government does a better job directing resources."The "safety net" argument for those who cannot work due to legimate reasons was dropped. [1] http://www.usatoday.com...;Providing people in need money through public works programs both fulfills the promise of a "safety net" and gets back what is spent through the gains to the community through public works.
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

In 2010, there were over 4.4 million people on welfare in the United States. [1] So, let's get this out of the way: the United States government would be artificially be creating millions of jobs for those who are currently on welfare. "The government would devote the workforce towards duties of a public nature, such as highways, cleaning neighborhoods, building libaries, schools, and homes for those in need," the opponent says. As it stands, though, the government often hires private contractors to complete these jobs. Hence, even by focusing on "public services," the government takes away from the stability of private businesses that thrive on the government's dependency on and cooperation with them. The private sector is put in jeopardy when the government artificially adds millions of jobs into the market, doing work that could have been done by millions of private sector contractors. The "safety net" argument for those who cannot work due to legimate reasons was dropped. [1] http://www.usatoday.com...
Nearly All Welfare Should Be Replaced With Public Works

The second option is a bad option for both taxpayers and recipients. People are given money with no strings attached without requiring anything in return. This promotes a lifestyle of dependency on welfare benefits.My opponent's contention that this would lead to a full government take over of creating jobs is ridiculous.The government would devote the workforce towards duties of a public nature, such as highways, cleaning neighborhoods, building libaries, schools, and homes for those in need.There's no reason this could lead to the government outcompeting the private sector fully.That it would allow the government to influence the economy is true, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. With the right policy the government can direct public works towards those things that will best help people and enterprises as they go about the economy, such as by creating better roads and transportation.
Abortion

All abortions (other than those taken for health reasons), are done in the first trimester. A time, in with the fetus cannot exist without the mother. It is attached to mother via the umbilical cord and cannot exist outside of her uterus. Therefore, the fetus in the first trimester cannot be regarded as a separate entity. Also, abortion is almost never used as a way to avoid giving birth. Only around 8% of abortions are a result of a lack of contraceptives. Even the most careful people can end up getting pregnant. If they did not intend to have the child, then why do others get e chance to force them to do so? You would not force a couple to have a baby otherwise, so why now? when they are at their most stressful?
Abortion

If the mother was in a state were she couldn't raise a child then she should not have tried to have a child or she should move if she wants one and if the family was in a place were the child wouldn't be able to be raised safely then put the child up for adoption its for his/her own good or give the child to a trust worthy family member who you know can take care of a child and if the mother is suffering from an illness in which she can not take care of the child give it it to a trust worthy family member as i said before or adopt it but only if its for the benefit of the mother.for the newly wedded couple they will eventually start a family so if they have a child before they planned why cant they just raise it together in stead of killing one and having another baby later that's just retarded if you really think about it that's if you can think. we can argue about this all day but im just telling you how it is and i hope you can see that and if the retarde word affense you then im sorry
Abortion

You cannot compare the school shootings and abortion. The children who died, were human beings that were viciously murdered by others. They had received a glimpse of life, before it was taken away from them. Fetuses, however, do not know what life is. It is not taken away from them. Therefore, you cannot compare the two. Not all people who have abortion for birth control are being unreasonable. What if the mother is in a state, in which she cannot raise a baby? What if she was in a place where she knew the baby, his/herself wouldn't be safe? Should she allow the baby to be born, and be unsafe, based on just the fact that the fetus has the potential to be life? What if the mother is suffering from an illness, one with which, she is certain that she cannot take care of a child? Should she HAVE to raise a child? What if the baby was unplanned by a newly wedded couple, who are more than certain that they cannot care for a baby? Should the baby have to be born into a world where it was, at some point, unwanted? As to your question on how i would feel if i was aborted, i would not feel anything. My brain would not have developed completely, and therefore, i would not have the ability to know that i was aborted. This is why you cannot compare actual murder, with abortion. Because the aborted child never knew he/she was aborted. But the murdered person knew what was happening, and thus that he was leaving behind loved ones.
Abortion

In cases of rape and incest abortion is acceptable but not as a means of birth control wouldn't you agree and aren't you glad you weren't aborted, abortion kills more innocent babies than wars,hate crimes,and diseases combined people always make a big deal about 10 or 12 kids dieing in a school shooting but their is 50 million babies killed by abortion every year world wide and don't get me wrong im sickened by schools shootings but abortions sicken me to unless its because of incest or rape or the health of the mother.
Abortion

I would say that abortion is acceptable in CERTAIN situations. For example, imagine this scenario. A 12 year old girl is raped and becomes pregnant. Would you say that because of this, something that happened through no fault of her own, she would have to suffer through giving birth,a painful process, to give birth to a baby, who could possibly destroy all her future plans? Now, if you say that you could give the baby up for adoption, can you guarantee that the baby will have a good, and fulfilling life? How do you think the child would feel when he/she realises that her parents, regardless of who they may have been, gave her up at birth? How would YOU feel, if you were in that position? Feeling rejected by the same people, without whom, you wouldn't have life. Would you not feel unwanted? I know I would. I realise that this is an incredibly sensitive topic,one where many people have a strong opinion. I would like to make it clear that I am NOT stating that abortion is acceptable in all cases,but they are in some.
Abortion

Abortion is pretty much murder if you think about it some may say oh well its killing an unborn, child how would you react if your doctor stuck a pipe in your fist born sons head when he was a baby and sucked his brains out? That's sick, if you say you don't care then your pretty much a child murderer its just as sad as as killing a 1month old or any living baby or young kid if you don't want kids use protection if you do want kids go through with it if you change your mind you can always put the child up for adoption at least give the baby a chance to live his or her life.
The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not flat.

According to the Bible, it is said that the Earth is flat like a pancake. Source: "four angels standing at the four corners of the earth." - Revelation 7:1 And the Bible is a real source of Information. [1] The Horizon thing proves nothing of a round earth. It is just the Science of Linear perspective. [2] The Earth casts round shadow on the moon. Reply: That is because according to the BIBLE, the Earth is a FLAT PANCAKE. PANCAKES ARE ROUND. Therefor, the shadow on the moon is Round. [3] There is no physical evidence that the earth is flat. NASA has a history of manipulating images to appear as a different image. Though NASA's pictures of earth are all spherical, NASA might've just done a good job of tricking the world. You have no physical evidence that the world is a sphere. [4] The government is also a huge fan of lying. They want their people to believe the world is a sphere, because if the people knew that the world was flat, Everyone would start to create chaos and the studies of astronomy will be destroyed. The world is FLAT ALL THESE REASONS ARE WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR NEGATIVE (CON)
The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not flat.

1. The Earth is Quasi Spherical shape. Reply: To be precise, it's official shape is "oblate spheroid " source: http://geography.about.com... Christopher Columbus thought that the world was round. Christopher Columbus was trying to get to India, but he stupidly ended up in America. This proves that Columbus was an idiot, so his belief that the world was round is INCORRECT. The world actually is flat. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
The Earth is quasi spherical in shape and not flat.

The earth is a flat place. The earth is flat, because the Greeks said that the earth is flat. Greeks are always correct, because the Greeks have genius people like Pythagoras. Pythagoras created the Pythagorean theorem, and that was correct. The Greeks are always correct. The world is not a "Quasi spherical shape", but it is actually a Oblate Sphere, so your Resolution is incorrect. These reasons are why you should vote for Negative (Con)
Should You Believe in Miracles

[q] You claim that an event that cannot be explained becomes a false event. [ec] However, our debate stands on accepting the fact that the event did indeed occurr. [q] The implicit question is "how do we explain this event?" [re] You have created a red herring; the question of whether or not the event occurred is not relvant to the issue at hand. [ri] As far as miracles solely providing the believer with hope, it does much more. [q] It provides the believer with a sense of confidence, which inturn improves his quality of life. [q] If one only acts based on sufficient evidence he will never entertain new experiences. [s] This is true of any event which the subject has not yet encountered. [s] His chances of being successful improve exponentially if he believes that is the case. p.s. you didn't subordinate :)
Should You Believe in Miracles

Believing in miracles only gives one hope, sufficient evidence provides one with physical proof. You don't need faith to have a theory or believe in a theory . A theory provides scientists with an option. When the experiment is carried out with the theory it only further provides sufficient evidence. Anything that one believes is a miracle which doesn't provide sufficient evidence is just testimony. Telling of ones miracle can only provide questions and said questions will be answered with proper evidence. If the question cannot be answered with evidence it becomes bullsh*t and cannot be believed. Being bullsh*t concludes that the miracle can only be false.
Should You Believe in Miracles

[ri] To say that man should not believe in miracles puts a lot of onus on the individual. [s] In stating that a miracle is not real and therefore should not be believed, because it has no evidence, suggests that no beliefs should be held without sufficient evidence. [q] To take the time necessary for one to sufficiently investigate every belief that he holds would inhibit him from progressing in his life. [ri] That being said, there is no harm in believing in miracles. [s] "The risk goes to the believer, likewise the profits and losses." [s] As Williams James explains, "The option is trivial when the opportunity is not unique, when the stake is insignificant, or when the decision is reversible if it later prove unwise. Such trivial options abound in the scientific life." [ri] For a scientist to progress in his studies he must first have faith in his own theories. [s] If his theory proves false there will have been no harm done. If his theory proves true, he would not have obtained this knowledge had he not believed in the first place.
Should You Believe in Miracles

According to Paul Gomberg, miracles are defined as "a supernatural (or divine) intervention in the natural order" [I] There are many arguments as to why one should not believe in miracles. [re] With miracles you rely on the testimony of the experience. Not being able to replicate a miracle allows oneself to question miracles authenticity. Therefore, miracles cannot be proven. [s] Science is a perfect example as to why miracles should not be believed. [s] In science , experiments are tested multiple times to further support the results of the data collected. [q] "As scientists we must exclude the supernatural cases from our database because they go against the course of nature, and science only studies nature." Miracles are unable to b reproduced and do not provide efficient evidence to be considered support, therefore are not believable and go against nature.
Alternate energy

Yes, my argument is that the amount of Solar/Wind energy used will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels. There is two main points that I would like to make in reference to my claim. 1. ) Creating a wind/solar infrastructure is very expensive. Although there is a massive movement towards the 50/50 ratio of wind/solar vs fossil fuel energy, humans haven't actually reached 15% yet. That is, 15% of all energy created by ALL renewable energy sources. . The IEA, international Energy Agence, claims that in "2012, the world relied on renewable sources for around 13.2% of its total primary energy supply. " . http://www.iea.org... 2. ) Big businesses and governments will do everything that they can to prolong and preserve the market for energy created by fossil fuels. Companies such as ExxonMobile, which is worth 412 billion dollars, have political power and will do everything in their power to not only keep the production of fossil fuels but also to slow the expansion of renewable energy. . http://mashable.com... . http://energyrealityproject.com... I have viewed you're sources and I cannot find any information that leads to the conclusion that we will ever be at a 50/50 ratio of fossil vs renewable. Only information about the minuscule renewable energy infrastructure that is now being created. What would I have to do to get you to change you're mind? Tell me and I will do it.
Alternate energy

Thank you for this Debate.From the brief description, you say that Solar/Wind energy will never surpass the amount of energy created by fossil fuels (this is incorporating the comments section as well).I have evidence that proves this is not the case, And will discuss in further detail later - However will post the sources for ease and future reference now:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://lasvegassun.com...[3]http://www.ubergizmo.com...[4]http://www.smithsonianmag.com...Looking forward to your response :)