BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

Fracking is a fairly new and efficient way to obtain natural gas and oil. Not only is it efficient, but it is also green, and more environmentally friendly than traditional drilling. Fracking is the process of drilling down into the earth before a high-pressure water mixture is directed at the rock to release the gas inside. 97% of this liquid is simply water and sand, few chemicals are actually used. Fracking gives the United States a chance at finally becoming independent in energy, we use this gas for everything, from powering your home to getting from one destination to the next. So wouldn't it make sense to strive to the goal of becoming independent in this thing we rely so much on? Rather than being dependent on the middle east for our energy needs. Not only that, but Fracking is actually more environmentally friendly than traditional drilling, Fracking happens at a mile or more underground, this is far below the water table, so it is not possible for your water to get contaminated based directly off of fracking. In fact the EPA has yet to find an area where fracking has contaminated the drinking water in the area. Fracking also requires a much smaller amount of drills, allowing for a smaller footprint on the earth, because less trees need to be removed in order to have a drill. Fracking has the ability to make America independent in energy, while simultaneously allowing for more efficiency, and a smaller footprint on the environment.
The U.S. Should Restrict Fracking

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world where energy, power, and fossil fuels can be obtained from thin air. Many may argue that solar panels and wind power will do the trick, but they simply wont. A solar panel requires many precious resources to be created, and the creation of such panels often result in a lot of toxic waste in order to complete the product, Not only this but largest issue with solar and wind power is simply that it can not meet the demands and it is very very costly. During the average day we see two main demands, one in the morning when people are preparing to go to work or school, and the second in the evening when they return home, cook dinner, and turn on the television. Solar and Wind power are simply unable to meet these demands. So how are you going to get the energy you need to make the nation run? how are you going to obtain the oil and gas required to get you to work? There is no cap on what you may think of "regulation" as this regulation could go so far as to make the effort it takes to get a drill down, up and running not worth it. Already in the U. S. A we see plenty of regulation, just to put up a well you would need boatloads of paperwork, and at least half a dozen licenses and permits. So back to my main point, how are you going to get the energy we need to operate our everyday lives? Are you going to continue relying on foreign soil in the middle east to provide us with the energy we need? or are we going to take a step forward and take the opportunity we have at becoming independent in energy. And I do believe that most scientists disagree with man made climate change, politicians are not scientists, and using global warming as a scare factor is not going to do anything but push a political agenda against an America with independent energy and a thriving economy. Since 2012 Arctic ice has increased by almost 50% in volume, global warming argues that these caps are melting, they are not. A recent achievement by NASA was a satellite that can measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and you may be surprised to know that the spike of CO2 are not coming from our cities like politicians would have us believe, but rather from the rainforest. Any increase in overall climate temp. is believed to be a natural shift amongst most scientists. The EPA has shown us multiple times that Fracking wont contaminate your water, and it has also concluded that it is not a risk for residents who are near the well.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

You know, I'm Pro, and you're Con. That means that you and I are arguing the wrong sides. Oh well, I assume that we should just stick with the old way. "Not all investment bankers are spivs, but many are. The way the markets and annual bonus systems are organised encourages traders to undertake deals that have the potential to make short-term profits but are not necissarilly (sic) beneficial to the long-term interests of their companies or, indeed, to the wider economy." We need investors. If they don't have money, that really sucks for us. I kind of want to go to college. "The money they have gambled and lost in unwise trades was savers', pensioners' and investors'. Now they want the taxpayer to throw good money after bad. If Congress refuses to hand over the cash, banks might go belly-up, but their business dealings would be taken up by more scrupulous and reputable financial institutions." Again, it's also foreign investors we could use. It's not all on us taxpayers. "In a sense this is both true and untrue. US Government Bonds, along with gold are, indeed, the safest investments in the world, especially since the credit crunch, which is why the USFG has a lot of liquidity. However, the cash received from sale of bonds has to be repaid, sooner or later, to the investor – they are not gifts to the US taxpayer from kind international benefactors!" You know how we have been doing this since the 1790s? We have been borrowing more money. Alexander Hamilton came up with this idea. That's why we have a $9 trillion debt. We don't have to get out of debt, we have so much credit, we're fine. So, later, more people will buy bonds, and we'll pay off that debt. "His final point was that the markets need capital to invest in order to make money. True. However, there is a lot of money out there – the problem is, nobody knows exactly who has got how much and so are reluctant to lend it to the markets in case the investment bank concerned sinks, taking their money with it." Yes, bailing them all out will increase confidence, which will bring up the economy. If we have confidence, which the bailout would provide, there will be even more investments." Vote for me.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

With thanks to my opponent for his continued interest in this debate, I should like to respond as follows: My opponent wrote: "The "spivs" you speak of are the guys who keep us out of the next Great Depression. If they don't have money, they won't invest, and the economy will bust, permanently. They need money so they can get our money back." Not all investment bankers are spivs, but many are. The way the markets and annual bonus systems are organised encourages traders to undertake deals that have the potential to make short-term profits but are not necissarilly beneficial to the long-term interests of their companies or, indeed, to the wider economy. A good example of this is short-selling, whereby a broker borrows shares he doesn't own and sells them later at a lower price, thus making a profit. It is, therefore, in his interest to talk the share price down and bankers often do this by spreading false rumours around the trading floors. This way, an unscrupulous trader (and in the world of de-regulated capitalism, ethical traders are, indeed, a rare commodity!) makes a profit from other peoples' misery. That's why the Fed have suspended the practice and why the FBI have been sent in to investigate a large number of suspected dodgy traders. The money they have gambled and lost in unwise trades was savers', pensioners' and investors'. Now they want the taxpayer to throw good money after bad. If Congress refuses to hand over the cash, banks might go belly-up, but their business dealings would be taken up by more scrupulous and reputable financial institutions. My opponent then continued: "The United States doesn't have that much spare capital. The only way they can get it is by borrowing. The United States is considered the world's safest investment (Marketplace, NPR). We can easily get that money." In a sense this is both true and untrue. US Government Bonds, along with gold are, indeed, the safest investments in the world, especially since the credit crunch, which is why the USFG has a lot of liquidity. However, the cash received from sale of bonds has to be repaid, sooner or later, to the investor – they are not gifts to the US taxpayer from kind international benefactors! My opponent then detailed how the majority of tax is paid for by more prosperous people, but I wouldn't call them "rich"; just "hardworking middle-class people". His final point was that the markets need capital to invest in order to make money. True. However, there is a lot of money out there – the problem is, nobody knows exactly who has got how much and so are reluctant to lend it to the markets in case the investment bank concerned sinks, taking their money with it. That's why the only place these financial institutions are likely to get their money is from the taxpayer. My point is that the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to invest their money in institutions that the market considers are bad risks.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

"However, my opponent does concede that the money lost through highly speculative and risky deals made on Wall Street wasn't just the bankers', but the American people's, and that they want their money back. I agree, if I were an American taxpayer, I would be hopping mad – I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on keeping a bunch of incompetent spivs in Manhattan in caviar and champagne." The "spivs" you speak of are the guys who keep us out of the next Great Depression. If they don't have money, they won't invest, and the economy will bust, permanently. They need money so they can get our money back. "My opponent then states that most of the money required to feather the investment bankers' beds will come from abroad. He is wrong in this assertion - the US Federal Government is stumping up an extra $700 billion using American taxpayers' cash, not foreign capital - the international community are not so generous as to donate that sort of money to the world's richest nation!" The United States doesn't have that much spare capital. The only way they can get it is by borrowing. The United States is considered the world's safest investment (Marketplace, NPR). We can easily get that money. "He then contradicts himself by asserting that "99% of that money is coming from the top 5% of America". Again, this is unsubstantiated and untrue. The richest 5% of Americans do not, in general, pay tax. As President George W. Bush said himself - "most rich people are able to avoid taxes" – it is decent, hardworking families that are picking up the tab for this one." Do you need me to substantiate it, here you go: "the top 0.1% of taxpayers by income pay 17.4% of federal income taxes (earning 9.1% of the income), the top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more pay 36.9% (earning 19%), the top 5% with gross income of $137,056 or more pay 57.1% (earning 33.4%)," Okay, so not 99%, my old data was misread, but this is a quote from Wikipedia. BTW, the bottom 50% pays only 3.3% It's the taxes of the rich that pay for this. "Damn right, America wants its money back. My point is that it should not dole out charity to loss-making financiers in the first place. If greedy, incompetent investment bankers go broke as a result of their own foolish mistakes, in a laissez-faire economy such as exists in the US, somebody more proficient will take over (as was the case last week when Barclays Capital bought Lehman Bros' investment banking business) – there is no need whatsoever for the American taxpayer give charity to failed stockbrokers." The market needs capital. We need to give it capital. You can't make money unless you spend money.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

With thanks to my opponent for taking up this debate, I should like to respond as follows: If my opponent's extrapolation of my profligate playboy scenario were to hold true, by bunging the poor little rich boy "trillions of dollars" the American taxpayer would be ripped of not only once (as they have been), but twice! However, my opponent does concede that the money lost through highly speculative and risky deals made on Wall Street wasn't just the bankers', but the American people's, and that they want their money back. I agree, if I were an American taxpayer, I would be hopping mad – I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on keeping a bunch of incompetent spivs in Manhattan in caviar and champagne. My opponent then states that most of the money required to feather the investment bankers' beds will come from abroad. He is wrong in this assertion - the US Federal Government is stumping up an extra $700 billion using American taxpayers' cash, not foreign capital - the international community are not so generous as to donate that sort of money to the world's richest nation! http://edition.cnn.com... He then contradicts himself by asserting that "99% of that money is coming from the top 5% of America". Again, this is unsubstantiated and untrue. The richest 5% of Americans do not, in general, pay tax. As President George W. Bush said himself - "most rich people are able to avoid taxes" – it is decent, hardworking families that are picking up the tab for this one. http://www.joecasaletto.com... My oppoenent's final statement read as follows: "Social justice requires that the American people get their money back. I want to go to college, my parents want to retire. If their investments are lost by greedy bankers, is it fair to make me have to drop out of high school to work in Chilean guano mines? No. It's not. America wants its money back." Damn right, America wants its money back. My point is that it should not dole out charity to loss-making financiers in the first place. If greedy, incompetent investment bankers go broke as a result of their own foolish mistakes, in a laissez-faire economy such as exists in the US, somebody more proficient will take over (as was the case last week when Barclays Capital bought Lehman Bros' investment banking business) – there is no need whatsoever for the American taxpayer give charity to failed stockbrokers.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

The little rich boy spoken of by my opponent needs something else added to this debate. You see, the little rich boy, he wasn't just using his daddy's money, he borrowed trillions of dollars from the American people. If his gamble paid off, he and the rest of the American people would be very rich. Unfortunately it didn't. This not only caused him to lose his daddy's money, but America's money. So, if I were the clerk, I would pay him back in a hurry. Otherwise, the American people are going to get pissed. Bailing out the rich boys may seem unfair, but it is necessary, so that the regular guys whose money the rich boys gambled away can get their money back. Bailing out financial institutions is the best way to do this. "This is a metaphor, of course, for what has happened in the finance industry. A lot of very greedy, highly irresponsible investment bankers made incredible amounts of money chasing short-term profits (rather than investing in long-term gains), and now the chickens have come home to roost and the entire industry is in meltdown.' The money they lost wasn't just theirs. It was the American people's. America wants it's money back. "But wait. What's this? No, it can't be? The American government is riding to the financiers' rescue and are splashing out hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on shoring up failed investment bankers in their hour of need." The American people gain in the long run. Anyways, it is actually only 2 trillion dollars, most of which would come from overseas. We'll save in the long run. "The US Federal Government is, in effect, playing Robin Hood in reverse – taking from the poor and giving to the rich." 99% of that money is coming from the top 5% of America. The poor aren't really hurt. "This action is contrary to all norms of social justice. Failing financial institutions should be allowed to go to the wall – the taxpayer has no obligation whatsoever to cover greedy bankers' losses." Social justice requires that the American people get their money back. I want to go to college, my parents want to retire. If their investments are lost by greedy bankers, is it fair to make me have to drop out of high school to work in Chilean guano mines? No. It's not. America wants its money back.
The US Government should not allow failing financial institutions to go bust.

Pity the poor little rich boy. His father was away on business for the week and on Monday night he borrowed a big wad of his daddy's cash and took it down to the casino. On the roulette table he staked high value chips on obscure bets such as voisins du zero, finales en plein and tiers du cylindre. For nights on end, he was wildly successful, raking in the chips hand over fist. That week he lived an even more lavish lifestyle than he was used to, spending his winnings on the finest food and wine available to mankind and on entertaining high-class prostitutes in luxury hotels. However, come Thursday night his luck changed and he did his brains by placing all his chips on black and when the ball landed on red he lost every last cent of his daddy's money. Well, his father was due back on Friday night and our profligate playboy had only hours to replace all the cash that he had gambled and lost. But what could he do? There was no way to earn it – he hadn't done an honest day's work in life. No, the only answer was to go to the local social security office and ask them to bail him out. If you were the cashier at the social security office, would you give the troubled playboy a big pile of taxpayers' cash to save his bacon? I don't think so. This is a metaphor, of course, for what has happened in the finance industry. A lot of very greedy, highly irresponsible investment bankers made incredible amounts of money chasing short-term profits (rather than investing in long-term gains), and now the chickens have come home to roost and the entire industry is in meltdown. Well, that's capitalism for you. You take the rough with smooth. The winner takes all and let the devil take the hindmost. There's no room for losers in this society. But wait. What's this? No, it can't be? The American government is riding to the financiers' rescue and are splashing out hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars on shoring up failed investment bankers in their hour of need. That's not capitalism; it's socialism, except that the financial safety net is there just for the rich – ordinary hardworking families have to take their chances as per normal. The US Federal Government is, in effect, playing Robin Hood in reverse – taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This action is contrary to all norms of social justice. Failing financial institutions should be allowed to go to the wall – the taxpayer has no obligation whatsoever to cover greedy bankers' losses.
Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community

I do agree that in large quantities, stress can indeed seem overwhelming to children who do not necessarily have the coping mechanism and mental maturity to deal with such stress. It is important to note that however, children are not completely independent like adults and have others to turn to in event of too much stress such as teachers, peers, parents, or even the school counsellor. Children with disabilities are often given greater berth in standardised tests and they are often provided with extra time, extra resources, to help them cope with their disadvantages. Stress from standardised testing helps to push children to be the best they can be, creating an air of competitiveness in education which will ultimately provide incentive to children to excel academically. It is also vital to be aware that standardised testing does not always place an inherent focus on test scores. Some standardised tests are not always weighted or graded, and not all systems place emphasis on test scores purely. Holistic education is key to providing children with a healthy, well-rounded and quality education. I also understand that standardised testing only shows the progress of students at a certain point in time, which is why it is important in the application of standardised testing that students are testing at regular periods of time throughout their education career. For example, quarterly, bi-annually, termly, etc. This will help to reflect growth of students in terms of academic competence. Contrary to belief, such standardised testing can be tailored to show the maturity of students, mental, emotional development by incorporating questions require a more development or mature view point such as questions for opinion, debate, or discussion, which will help to depict the emotional growth of a student. I do agree also that governments should increase funding for standardised testing as this will prove to be ultimately beneficial in setting up new education policies, to drive the education sector to a whole new level. In summary, I believe standardised testing is an immensely invaluable tool and that it should be implemented regularly at regular interval time periods and throughout the education levels, to provide optimal results, and I think this will prove to be a catalyst in the growth of education.
Standardized testing is hurting our school population and community

While I do agree with you that stress is not always a bad thing and can lead to results. I must question the practice of putting 8 year old children under such stress or children with disabilities that do not know how to handle themselves when in stressful situations. While I believe many adults have coping mechanisms to handle stress, I do not believe that children have the tools to deal with a stressful situation that they may feel they can not escape. With the emphasis being placed on test scores, teachers do not have time or room in the curriculum to teach those coping skills. I also understand that there needs to be a way to assess students in order to show growth and areas of deficit, however I believe that there is an over reliance on standardized tests. A standardized test is a snapshot of how a student is achieving on a particular day at a particular time. It does not take into account a student's physical or emotional state at the time of testing. In addition, standardized tests do not reflect other areas of growth such as emotional growth. In addition, if the government is requiring this testing, they should be funding schools so that they have the resources needed to administer the tests. In summary, I believe there is an over emphasis on standardized testing and I think schools should use standardized tests as a piece of the puzzle rather than the end all be all way to assess students.