BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government Spending to Help the Economy is a Waste of Money

I don't need sources for my argument. I am using economic reasoning to show how the governments spending has value. You want one anyway? http://www.debate.org... That's proof you are a Romney Supporter. Not just Ad Hominem. Leave the voters to give points, don't tell them what to do. I will close my argument with rebuttal. First up, naming sources is rather cheap when it's stuff like source 1. It doesn't explain why Keynesian theory does not work. Reducing unemployment reduces the amount of welfare required and increases taxes, boosting the economy. But that's a smaller point. You claim that spending to help the economy is a waste of time, but if 40% of America's population starved to death due to welfare cuts, then that would have a detrimental effect on America's economy. You're not thinking long run here. Recessions are quite short in the grand scheme of things. Option one; cut spending. Welfare goes down, republicans suggest charities as you did, but charities can't sustain almost half the population. Not even close. The 40% can no longer afford food or shelter and end homeless on the streets, most dying. The missing 40% are no longer buying food and the stores and shops are now missing 40% of their customers. Eventually, as the recession ends, a demand for labour appears from new businesses, but the lack of people seeking employment means their businesses fail, adding them to the list of unemployed. By cutting this spending, you remove a massive sector of the markets, which will have a detrimental effect on the economy. Option two. Keep spending. In the next few years, decline increases, but people must always buy food, even bread. Eventually, the bread ovens need maintenance, and a demand for repairmen appears. This demand is fulfilled by the unemployed, and with the money they receive, they buy food, and the money multiplies as it moves around. http://en.wikipedia.org...(economics) Duncan.
Government Spending to Help the Economy is a Waste of Money

Keynesian Economics or the government getting involved in the economy through spending and intervention [1] does not make the economy better. The government's money comes from people who work to people who are failing in the free market. If their job isn't working out for them, they can get or start another one. It fails. [2] The money that is given to failing businesses [2] [3] [4] and individuals who are underemployed usually isn't spend well. There is a lot of fraud, [4] but most importantly, free money doesn't give a prerogative to work. There isn't really a good example of government spending more to get back an economy. The New Deal, bailouts, welfare, and the Stimulus bill of 2009 didn't bring back the economy; [2] the free market did with cutting regulations [6] and taxes [7]. It gives more flexibility. The people spend it better because they are interested in using it wisely and know the best way to use it rather than some politician. [1]http://www.economicshelp.org... [2] http://www.forbes.com... [3]http://connection.ebscohost.com... [4]http://online.wsj.com... [5]http://www.capitalisminstitute.org... [6]http://www.forbes.com... [7]http://www.moneychimp.com... My opponent did not cite any sources and used the ad hominem abusive (personal attacks) by calling me a "Romney supporter." Whether or not that's true is beside the point. Respectfully, he shouldn't get those points.
Government Spending to Help the Economy is a Waste of Money

The recession can only end if the government begins spending again. Yes, the process can take a long time, but what is the alternative? You haven't addressed the Keynesian system yet. On another note, you have said that Government spending takes money away from people who earned it and gives it to those who don't, and by your profile, you must be speaking of your arch nemesis, the 40%. Welfare is not a waste of time. You fail to understand that unemployed people don't want to be unemployed, they look for jobs but none are available. Without welfare those people would literally die, being unable to afford food, water or shelter. I don't think that saving lives is a waste of time. Do you? Oh, and taking taxes isn't spending. So don't say it's spending. Your idea that charities can support almost half the country is a horrid mix of capitalism and communism. You would defend the rich, but expect the middle classes to be selfless and donate. A true Romney supporter, that's you. I'll see you next round, Duncan.
Government Spending to Help the Economy is a Waste of Money

Government spending doesn't really help the economy. In fact, it usually makes it worse. It takes money away from people who earned it and gives it to people who don't deserve it or use it poorly. Now, this doesn't mean all government spending is bad, after all we need the roads, but it turns out it's better that the free market handle it. Infrastructure: The facts are that the really Liberal states like New Jersey spend the most on roads, but see little improvement. Mississippi spends very little, but sees a lot of improvement. This is not saying we shouldn't spend some money on roads and buildings, because obviously we need them, but spending on them like the people on the Left is not going to do much.[1] Welfare: We've spent $15 Million dollars since President LBJ and there is no improvement on the poverty rate. In fact, it's gotten worse. We're climbing back up to the same poverty level since 1964 when the program started. The best way to handle the poor is to have free market charities support them and help them find work. At least it's money that they are personally choosing to give rather than the government forcing them to pay higher taxes. [2] Education: There is no correlation between more spending and better performance.[3] Government Spending Should Be Done Mostly By the Private Sector: The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found out that the more government spends on things, the less private businesses or people spend on them like education. [4] The CATO Insitute finds out that Private GDP goes up when government spending goes down. [5] [1]http://reason.org... [2]http://www.deseretnews.com... [3] http://rossieronline.usc.edu... [4]http://research.stlouisfed.org... [5]http://www.cato.org...
We should not attack Iran

I will begin by countering my opponents counter arguments. 1. I have done some more research, and I now agree that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. But why does having a nuclear weapon make it a threat to the United States? This like saying that China or Pakistan is a threat because it has nuclear capabilities. Now a counter argument would be to say that Iran is to unstable to have a nuclear weapon. There is a flaw in this argument. Since nuclear war is unreasonable, Iran would not use it. This leads us into argument 2. 2 and 3. In your counter-argument, you state that we should not allow Iran to get weapons that could be used to counter. You are saying that Iran should not have the ability to retaliate. This goes against the reasoning of preventing nuclear war. If only one country has a nuclear weapon, it can be used as a threat against a country. If both countries have them, they will not attack each other. A country should have the ability to defend itself. Also, you say a strike would eradicate Iran's nuclear program. This may be true, but it not fully work. Iran would not stop its nuclear program. It would continue it. The goal of an attack would be stop Iran from making a weapon, not to delay it. 4. So many flaws in your counter-argument. I will begin with you saying that we do not want to reach Cold War conditions. The truth is, the cold war prevented nuclear war because both sides had weapons. You also said to eliminate a threat before it grows. I have already proved that Iran is not a threat. The contradiction is also non-existent because I have said that Iran is making a bomb. 5. Your first statement is false. A strike does not eliminate the possibility that Iran will create a bomb. It may try to build one again. This is still justified because it would prove that Iran needed a weapon for self-defense. Also, their was no contradiction. This is because I was not saying that we should attack Iran. I will now refute your underview. You talked about my contradiction in the first paragraph. There was no contradiction because I never said that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear bomb. Even if I did, you failed to point out where. You are very right on another point. WE DO NOT WANT ANOTHER COLD WAR! The problem is, does fear justify a war where thousands of lives could be lost. Is it more important to stop fear or to save lives. I have also proved why their wouldn't be war, so the fear would be unjustified. The second paragraph does not matter because I agree that Iran is making a bomb. You're also right on the third paragraph. Iran will not stop on its own. In the fourth and fifth paragraphs you said that Iran is threatening other countries. The thing is, almost every country threatens. The threats do not matter in the face of a devastating war. Conclusion In the end, I have refuted con's argument and kept many of my own points.
We should not attack Iran

Here are the main points of my argument. 1. Our own officials say Iran is not building a Nuclear bomb. 2. Nuclear war is not reasonable. 3. Nuclear weapons are used to prevent war. 4. We should try to avoid a war. 5. An attack would show Iran it needs a bomb. Argument 1: Our own defense officials are saying that there is no major evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb. Here are some examples. Our 16 intelligence agencies are saying that Iran abandoned plans for a nuclear bombs years ago. James R. Clapper, the national director of intelligence says that Iran has the option but hasn't decided. Leon Panetta, our defense sectary, says Iran is not decided to build a bomb Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is Israel's former head of intelligence, says that Iran is acting rationally. Argument 2: There is a reason that the Cold War didn't end with nuclear war. That is because it is not reasonable to use a nuclear bomb if your opponent can strike back. Nuclear weapons our the symbol of mass destruction, and will be seen as a cause for full blown war. This will result in millions of deaths (which very few leaders would want). If Iran were to use a bomb, it would be bombed, invaded, and probably have soldiers in it for years. This is not something Iranian leaders would want to see. Argument 3: There is another reason their hasn't been nuclear war yet. If both sides have nuclear weapons, then they prevent war. If one side attacks, the other side will retaliate. No matter what the situation is, no country wants to get blown off the map. Argument 4: War is horrible. We have spent the last 10 years in Afghanistan andIraq. War should be only a last resort. Argument 5: Now lets say the U.S. Attacks Iran and delays their nuclear program. This would show Iran that we want to stop it from protecting itself. This would prove to it that it needs a nuclear bomb. They would begin building it. This would happen without really knowing that they made a bomb. Conclusion: In the end, nuclear weapons are rational because they prevent war. This would allow Iran to make sure it will not be attacked. Also, their has been no major evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. This is an important issue, but war is not the answer. References http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.cbsnews.com...
The minimum wage should be increased

If the national minimal wages were raised then prices in EVERYTHING will go up as well. Gas may go up to $4.50 a gallon "Big Mac's" might raise to $5 Ect.... Not only that, but, students in primary and secondary school will have the idea that going straight out of high school he/she will be making $15 dollars an hour as a cashier at a fast food restaurant, instead of actually getting an education and a respectable job.
The minimum wage should be increased

Resolution: The Federal Minimum Wage Should be IncreasedRules1. Burden of proof is shared. 2. No semantical games -- they will result in an automatic 7-point loss.3. Con will begin his arguments in round 1, and will post "no round, as agreed upon" in round 5. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7-point loss.4. Forfeitting is an automatic loss.5. By accepting this debate, you agree to these rules. Let the debate begin.
Hockey has created in Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

<"I meant to say hockey WAS created in dartmouth ns."> Well, its history is too dubious for his claim to hold up. An excerpt from www.historyofhockey.net/history_of_hockey.html, which proves my point: "Basically known as the "ball and stick" game, it was played since ancient times in places diverse as Rome, Scotland, Egypt and South America. The game was referred to in different names but the basic idea of playing the game was the same. The most apt used term was "Hockie" by the Irish."
Hockey has created in Dartmouth, NS, Canada.

My opponent clearly means ice hockey. Create: to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. (1) According to sources which I'll have to cite in the comment section, the province of Nova Scotia came about in the mid-1700's; hockey came about in Nova Scotia in the 1800s; therefore, hockey couldn't have "created" Nova Scotia, because the province had to have came about in order for hockey to be played there.
Costco is a better supermarket then Superstore

Argument #4: Time conservation At Costco you buy things in bulk. At Superstore you do not. Because you can get everything you need and a large amount of these things you do not have to spend as much of your week shopping because you don't run out of that stuff as quickly. Do you want to spend two hours a week shopping for groceries? No! This was my final argument and I hope you will post something for me to refute Thanks DDD
Costco is a better supermarket then Superstore

Argument #3: Staples of life Ah, the staples of life, cleaning supplies, flour, salt, corn, sugar to name a few. These are our basic items, dietary and -non-dietary. Now, before you start typing "Superstore has staples of life as well!" The staples of life at Costco are cheaper and are sold in bulk. Now, people often say that the bulk of the amount of stuff you buy at Costco is it's downfall, but the staples of life don't really go bad. Will those paper towels become moldy? How about that 3lb's of flour? This is why the staples of life are much better at Costco then at Superstore. Ready for your arguments. DDD
Costco is a better supermarket then Superstore

Let's start! Argument #1: Better store brand Kirkland Signature is the store brand of Costco. Look at all of those reviews. In fact I am not going to use an example yet but my own. I have used both Kirkland and President's Choice toilet paper and paper towels and the Kirkland type is much better. The food from Kirkland is on another level. http://www.goodguide.com... I would rather have not only cheaper but cheaper and higher-quality! Argument #2: The cost The store is called Costco for a reason! A $124.45 Shopping list at Superstore becomes a $98.76 trip at Costco! At Costco you save $25.68 which is 20.64% Now, because Costco is meant for shopping trips in bulk, meaning you can get more food and supplies with less money! This also ties in to my first point with the Kirkland brand. Kirkland is cheaper AND better then President's choice. i don't think I need to continue. I await your response DDD
Some of the weirdest, strangest, vile, wonderful, original, mega-talented music of all time

You know you punk a$$ kid you can lie all you want. Lying gets you nowhere in life. It certainly gets you nowhere in my book which is why I will NOT debate you on religion. You did NOT listen to the bands and artists that are listed because 5 of them are NOT rock to begin with you pathetic maggot. And one of them is rock and is impossible to NOT like. Regardless, this is NOT about what you like because its "Some of the weirdest, strangest, vile, wonderful, original, mega-talented music of all time" as the headline title fully states. I also stated in RD1 "Now I give you fair warning... they are NOT for everybody." Now what part of that don't you understand? So you screwed up my debate for someone to come on in here with some bold ideas and good bands and artists that I have hopefully not heard. Sheesh. So once again GET LOST. Bye.
Some of the weirdest, strangest, vile, wonderful, original, mega-talented music of all time

For one thing, I'm 14. But that wasn't my point, I was just pointing out that this isn't a debate. This is your opinion on music, I can respect that, but it isn't something anyone can debate. You'd be discussing with subjective thoughts, hence why it'd be better put as a forum. But I do understand what you were trying to do. Some music I enjoy The Original Jurassic Park Soundtrack - Mainly that of the Jurassic Park theme South Park Music "I'm sailing away" - Eric Cartman edition "I'm a Jew on Christmas" - Kyle "Heat of the moment" - Eric Cartman edition "Chocolate Salty Balls" - Chef Classical music in general - Mozart, Beethoven, all the classics. Not a fan of Rock but I can definitely see why you might enjoy it!
Some of the weirdest, strangest, vile, wonderful, original, mega-talented music of all time

Figures that a 17 year old punk kid like you would ruin a possible very good debate where someone could possibly offer some good music to the growing list that has been created in RD1. Opinion, forums or polls are far too small to convey any type of ideals when it comes to this broad of a scope. You have no fricken idea as to who at least 99% of the bands and artists are that have been listed and you know it. Get lost.
Abortion is Wrong

I will first state my points then refute Pro's points in the next round. Other points will be covered in my rebuttal. The greatest thing that separates a foetus from almost everything human-related in this argument is that they don't possess consciousness and thus do not possess the sentience or sapience that a baby possesses. Foetuses cannot think, feel or perceive and are not aware of anything. Up until a certain amount of weeks, foetuses are just a bunch of undifferentiated cells. If anything adverse happened to it in this time, it wouldn't endure any suffering or any pain. At all. In that respect, removing a group of cells from a woman's body can barely be called "murder". Second, to say that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion for any reason whatsoever is a clear restriction of her free will. She shouldn't feel pressured by anyone else in what decision she makes. The foetus is inside her body and she should have final say on what happens to it. Whether a person's decisions or actions result in a positive or negative consequences should not subtract from the fact that, like opinions, every person is entitled to make their own decisions and actions. This is especially true in the case of abortion, where a wrong or forced decision could be disastrous to the woman (and potentially the child, if kept). If the choice to abort does not clash with her morals then she should be well within her rights to go through with it. After all, morality is subjective and differs from person to person. Finally abortion should be allowed if it prevents the child that would be born from experiencing unnecessary suffering that would only lead to an early unpreventable death. With the level of medical and biological understanding as well as our level of technology, doctors now have the capabilities to determine congenital disorders that a foetus may possess. With this knowledge you can mercifully abort the foetus, before it is born and forced to suffer before dying. Why let a child fruitlessly endure reality, where all it felt was pain, if it is only going to die moments later?
public nudity a misdemeanor.

Although nearly incomprehensible, Pro's stance in this debate is that public nudity should not be considered a misdemeanor, because it's infringing upon people's freedoms. I negate. Nudists in this country are part of a minority. As such, their rights are still protected. To compromise with this minority, designated areas where people could walk around nude at their own discretion have been enacted. This protects the freedom of the nudists and the freedom of the majority as well, who claim that they should be free to walk around in public without having to see what has come to be considered a social absurdity. Anyone can write a bill, and have it reviewed by various levels of community, local and even state an federal government (if it reaches that level). Today, the laws of the majority (non-nudists) have prevailed, but those who advocate for no-clothes could just as easily try to have legislation enacted. It's no coincidence that these current laws and norms exist as they are; they are the result of a perceived biological and societal necessity. I'd like to see what Pro says about my presented points before continuing :)
Since Christians are monotheists, and Mormons are henotheists, they're not Christians

My opponents resolve is illogical and fallacious. First to say that Christians are monotheistic is a misnomer. The definition as provided by my opponent as to what makes one a monotheist is as follows "the doctrine or belief that there is only one God." As opposed to being a henotheist. Which was defined as follows, "Henotheism (Greek ^9;O91;`2; _2;^9;a2;`2; heis theos "one god") is the belief in and worship of a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped. I will prove that Christians are Henotheists. I will for my sources be quoting from the Bible, as it is the main authority in Christianity. Consider, Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" Notice that it does not say and I God will make man in my image, and after my likeness. Emphasis on the words us and ours implying plural. Exodus 20:3 "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Notice that it does not read I am the only God and worship me, emphasis on "other gods." John 10:34 "3 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?" There you have it out of the mouth of Jesus Christ himself saying gods, as in plural. The definition of Christianity that my opponent provided includes the definition: "religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament. (Wikipedia.org)" If a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ makes one a Christian" and Jesus Christ just stated as clear as possible that there are Gods, not God. Then being a Christian is to be henotheistic. This of course makes the definition provided by Wikipedia suspect and illogical. My opponent"s resolve might as well read "Since Christians are Henotheists, they are not Christians" This of course would not make sense. If being a henotheist does not exclude one from being a Christian then saying that Mormons are henotheist and therefore not Christian, is not a valid statement. All references from the Bible are from the (KJV)