BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare should exist!

pep talks and reduction can be screamed at peeps as much as you want but it wont do anything expect raise the stock prices of pain pills and no, not everyone benefits from welfare, my stepmother worked 16 years at a mortgage company it nosed dived because the government made sure they couldn't have rational thought(anti discrimination laws)it made them lend irresponsibly killing the market leading to the foreclosure disaster right now. she wanted to get welfare that she'd payed into for 16 years but no they decided that we owned a house, two cars, and had $30000 in me and my 3 brothers college fund all together so they didn't help us, finally after three more months my step mom took the state to court we where about to finally get help when we won the case when my mom worked at a bank for one day, the manager tried to seduce her first day so she quit. due to that one day of work she has never received welfare. she has been out of work for 8 months, this all comes to my point welfare is a good thing but it should help people that are either migrating or have worked hard for years. all politicians agree we should try to expand our middle class because all great civilizations greeks, romans ,britians all had giant middle classes. when politicians decide to give out welfare like a parents with no back bone quieting children with money and give the rich(politicians) tax breaks it kills the middle class. welfare is killing america and capitalism.
Welfare should exist!

Let me begin by stating the definition of Welfare. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need. - www.answers.com That being said, why should we refuse to help the very people who come to America for freedom and a good lifestyle. They vote for president too, so why should be left in the dirt while we stay rich and happy. If you remember a certain document that states this? I present the declaration of independence! "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - http://www.ushistory.org... Now i let my opponent take the floor.
Libertarians have stronger principle than conservatives

I will begin by countering my opponents statements. "Initially this is the approach taken by the U.S. in it's founding as it was seen as preferable to any governmental power at all. This was a considerable failure. [1] This failure was attributed to a lack of governmental control, however that does not justify the liberal idea of a nanny state in any fashion." My opponent is referring to the articles of confederation here. What he doesn't seem to understand is that the problem here wasn't lack of government control on the individual. It was lack of control over the states and their autonomy. This system was replaced by Federalism with the US Constitution. All this did was give the Federal government more control over the States and set a precedent for what the government could/couldn't do to its citizens (The Bill of Rights). If anything the change in systems helped improve the rights of the individual because they could be better protected from State laws if the Feds choose to pursue a state violation of the bill of rights. [3] In short the libertarian approach to government is not what the articles of confederation was. Even if it was its irrelevant to the argument which is a discussions of the principles of each philosophy. Its not about who is right but who has stronger principles. "Men of Conservative Values such as Reagan are far more electable than Libertarians" This isn't the debate we are having. "conservative values that this country yearns to return to, not the more Libertarian Values that the country seems to be wary of" I wouldn't describe the country as being "wary" of many Libertarian values. The war on drugs is losing its favorableness among Americans [1]. Gay marriage is being legalized in a majority of the states. People are wary of the national debt [2] and many believe our military is too big. Again, this isn't what the debate is about. My opponent unfortunately has not given me any real arguments to rebuttal on the subject of this debate. By citing examples of conservatives contradicting their principles in numerous ways and by providing the function of government in the eyes of the libertarian, I have demonstrated that libertarians have stronger principles than conservatives. In conclusion: Libertarians are not willing to compromise stated principles the way conservatives do for the sake of government functionality or personal preference. Thank you for the debate. Sources: [1] - http://www.drugpolicy.org... [2] - http://www.gallup.com... [3] - http://billofrightsinstitute.org...
Libertarians have stronger principle than conservatives

Most of us are familiar with today's Conservatives and Libertarians. At the core of each philosophy is the principle of limited government. This entails a fiscally responsible government and an opposition to a totalitarian form of government. There are numerous forms of the conservative all stemming from a common background belief. Conservatives stress the importance of the family, the need for strong national defense, limited government and free enterprise. [1] Libertarians are focused more on the autonomy of the individual stressing individual rights, rule of law, limited government, and peace. [2] We can now analyze how well conservatives reflect their principles compared to libertarians. The most clear contradiction made by conservatives in regard to principle is the belief in limited government. While being a central part conservatism it is impossible to uphold considering their other principle beliefs. Conservatives want to preserve the morality of its citizenry to protect the family. The only way to do so is through regulations which require enforcement. Enforcement means a bigger government. Every law from prohibiting drug use, prostitution, gambling, or sexuality. All of them force government to grow and break down one of conservatism's core principles. Conservatism's second flaw in principle is the belief in a strong national defense. Obviously the desire for a strong national defense and American exceptionalism leads to a big budget military and big central government. [5] Usually this belief also entails strong border security and tough immigration policy. This contradicts their belief in free enterprise. Immigration and open borders are beneficial to a free enterprise system. It allows for more investment, trade, and growth in the private sector. Not only does it contradict the principle of promoting free enterprise but once again is a tool for growing the size of government. [3] [4] Ultimately anyone can label themselves a conservative and, depending on what their personal beliefs are, can completely defy what few principles are attached to that title. Libertarians are consistent and concise. A Libertarian believes that you have the right to your life and what you do with it so long as you do not cause harm to others. The government exists to protect life, liberty, and property. These are its only natural functions. In this respect no function contradicts another. The government cannot violate your liberty unless you violate someone Else's liberty. The government can not interfere in the free market. It cannot block people from entering the country peacefully with arbitrary rules. It cannot choose winners and losers. It can only punish fraud and enforce contracts. Sources: [1] - . http://usconservatives.about.com...[2] - . http://www.cato.org...[3] - . http://www.conservativeusa.org... [4] - . http://www.cato.org... [5] - . http://reason.com...
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

First I will address my opponents argument My opponent fails to recognize the resolution in its stance of abolishing HANDGUNS, not arms altogether. He continues to use the second amendment as a mantra despite the fact, which he has failed to disprove, that larger weapons than handguns are needed to "ensure a free state" and that this debate has nothing to do with those larger weapons. We are here to debate handgun ownership not gun ownership altogether. Now i will address my argument My opponent still has not addressed any of my contentions specifically or provided any counter evidence. I urge a vote in the Affirmation because my opponent keeps using a broad statement to excuse the massive amount of lives lost to handguns. I have proved that handguns result in the loss of lives due to murder and suicide. I have pointed out specifically handguns are a cause of increased levels of aggression and increased rates of suicide, while my opponent lacks any evidence whatsoever to support his claims. I have specifically focused on handguns, unlike my opponent, as is required by the resolution. Handguns, i have proved, do far more harm than good.
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I'm going to have to ask my opponent to use paragraphs and line spacing. Right now there is no line breaks. Making it more difficult for me to read. Our forefathers fought in a war. Vietnam or was it Korea. Anyways bear arms helped them win. When Thomas Jefferson crossed the Nile river he knew that the larger threat was dictatorships like the pharaohs of Egypt. Remember the creed "representation without taxation." Do I really need to show what happens when a polio state occurs? The whisk out weights thou consequences. We need to see the small picture.
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

First i will address my opponents argument. You use the constitution as your sole example for your con stance on this topic, but the amendment you used was written hundreds of years ago by people who couldn't even imagine weapons with modern day efficiency. The constitution can become outdated,which is the whole reason we have the amendment system set up. I have proved the current unrestricted amendment does more harm than good. And if we were to apply my opponents logic to a few other texts in the constitution African Americans would still be three fifths of a person and women couldn't vote. We have to change the law as our society advances. Besides that the resolution simply proposes a ban on handguns not guns altogether. The weapons we would need to "ensure a free state" are not infringed upon by the resolution. Now for my argument. My opponent has offered no counter argument, claim, or evidence (besides that bear picture) to negate my contentions, therefore all my arguments still stand. A. Injuries to children from firearms is largely a problem of the proliferation of handguns and the acceptance of handgun violence in our culture B. Handgun ownership proves to be associated with a culture of gun violence C. The Weapons Effect: the presence of handguns causes an increase of aggression.
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

I'm not sure exactly why you have the resolved: in the title. Hand guns are very useful everyone. People can use them to defend their selves against both humans and animals. Our forefathers wanted the right to bear arms as the 2nd amendment to protect against totalitarian governments. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As you can see bears' arms are important to Americans. http://constitution.findlaw.com... http://www.mrwallpaper.com...
3b. Border Fence

Yes, the first argument is twisting the resolution. That's called a prison wall. It is neither a fence in the traditional sense or a border. The term border fence is specific enough to warrant the exclusion of such definitions. People illegally enter the country anyway. A massive super-expensive fence isn't going to do squat. As much as we love the Great Wall of China everybody agrees that it's a pretty massive failure, there's just too much border to guard. In the age of explosives and technology it gets worse. People will just blow the fence up. Seriously, you could walk up to it with some dynamite or any of a variety of explosives and blow it up. You wouldn't even need to care about going through before during or after. Blow a few holes in it and you'll have easy passage for a few months before our government gets around to doing squat about it. Ineffective certainly but it's probably pretty cheap, right? How does 49 billion dollars sound? http://www.sfgate.com... Not that nice eh? --- I agree that we need to control immigration but I don't agree that an ineffective waste of massive amounts of cash is the right way to go about this. I could fix the illegal immigration for a few million dollars. Rat out any business that hires illegal immigrant labor and you get $5,000, a temporary work visa, and accelerated approval for you and your family to immigrate to the United States. We'd pay out a few million dollars and nobody would ever hire illegal immigrants again. Problem solved. No economic encouragement to break our laws and they won't break our laws. We don't need to spend 49 billion dollars (that's more than 150 dollars from every man, woman, and child in the United States (including the 11 million here illegally)) There's a right way to go about securing the borders and a wrong way. Where there's a will there's a way. We need to get rid of the reasons people come here rather than dealing with the problem superficially and suggesting that a big fence will stop people when it can't and doesn't work. We don't really want to solve the problem. The solution is downright trivial and the reason for the political support for the Border Fence is not because people think it will work, but because they know it will fail while allowing them to appear strong on the issue. Punish the businesses exploiting workers and denying opportunities of American jobs for American workers. Just because there's a problem doesn't mean we need to instantly defer to a really bad, ineffective, and expensive "non-solution"... however this is government we're talking about and that's how government tends to operate. Market forces and human nature could fix this problem in short order, if anybody had the political will to enforce.
3b. Border Fence

Some of you may be wondering, what exactly do I mean by a border fence? Some of you may think you already know. I will define border fence: Border Fence: The fence around the border of any prison. I am in favor of continuing to use the idea of a border fence. First, it keeps criminals in. This goal also requires other things, such as guards, else the prisoners would escape, but having a border fence certainly limits escapees. Second, it works to separate the prison from the outside world. It works not only as a real separator; it is also a symbol of the separation between prison life and life outside prison. The fence costs very little, and it makes the job of guards much easier. It may even make their jobs so much easier that fewer guards are needed to keep watch, saving money in the long run. I see the above as pretty solid, so I will now give a brief outline of what many of you may have originally expected this debate to be about - a fence between the border of the US and Mexico. This is only for those who will not accept my 'twisting' of the resolution. It is a fact that without such a fence, people illegally enter the country. This could be limited by the use of guards, but much like the prison scenario, a fence would reduce the number of guards needed. Funds could come from both taxpayer money [since it is law enforcement], as well as from groups who would donate money and time, such as this one: http://www.borderfenceproject.com... A fence keeps citizens in their own country, unless they have clearance to cross the border legally. This is imperative. To not uphold this is to say that we do not care - to say that we are willing to let illegal aliens take advantage of us. Like all laws, immigration laws must be upheld. There is a proper process immigrants must go through to come to America. We can obviously make whatever necessary changes to this process, but we still have to have a process for tax purposes at the very least. To uphold this process and the fair system we have set up, it is advisable to have a border between the US and Mexico.
You can't wage a war on a word

I wont post anything in this round to keep it fair. This is because I was able to rebut Pro's R2 in my R2, while he had to wait until the next round to rebut mine, this would've given me an unfair advantage, so not posting in this round keeps it fair. To be clear; I am not forfeiting or conceding, I am merely keeping it fair. This has been a great debate and I hope that Pro will stay on DDO for a long time so we can keep in touch. Thank you!
You can't wage a war on a word

To be suspect, implies that you are forced to go to court to represent your "innocence". If you are innocent, why must you be dragged through the court system? I go to the example of checkpoints. You must go through a dwi checkpoint, speak to a cop, and have him take a glance into your private property. He does this even with no suspicion. I can't argue the definition my opponent came forth with. I aim to point out the irrational behavior that is caused by the use of broad blanket terms like " war on drugs". Let's now talk about the pharmaceutical companies as this may have confused my opponent. Big pharma is a term used for major pharmaceutical companies. This has nothing to do with "sinister" motives. Inside the united States there are pharmaceutical drug companies that make DRUGS. Con goes on to say the following, " just so we are clear, when we are talking about a 'war on drugs' we mean drugs as in heroin, marijuana, etc. Not Tylenol and Asprin". What con has just stated lays out EXACTLY why I have this debate! There is no DEFINED enemy! (Those exact words were in my opening argument). Again, a war on drugs is a blanket statement that is to broad. A perfect example would be marijuana. Today state governments are arbitrarily saying lets not go after people who smoke weed. Cocain at one point was uesd for medical reasons. Today its illegal. Next year who knows. The enemy is arbitrary. Con says the war on poverty is to eliminate poverty. So if some people are not driven by money do they go to jail? Of course not. In reality how do you have a war on poverty? Abolish poor paying jobs? It's irrational plain and simple. The introduction of welfare just make people with money poorer and people with less richer. It's a zero sum game. Terrorism is used by all parties in a war. When people are scared when a u. s. bomb goes off in Iraq, or an Iraqi IED goes off in the u. s. it is terrorism. Therefore, by definition if the u. s. is at war with terrorism it must be at war with itself. . Which since that is irrational, the "war on terrorism", by default, is irrational as well. There must be a DEFINED enemy. The point con made about having a war without violence is not relevant to this debate. Con brings up that we are defining war as an " effort". He says "not a traditional war with guns". The reality and undeniable truth is that if I sell cocaine, men with guns will come after me. There is nothing stupid about reality. However if I get a permit I can sell marijuana in Colorado with no issue at all today. Yet less than a year or two ago, men with guns would come after me. This is why we can't have a war on words and need DEFINED enemies when declaring wars. This debate was challenging and exciting to say the least!
You can't wage a war on a word

I’m glad that we will not be childish and proclaim that we are declaring wars on literal words, I am relieved that we are both not that obnoxious and stupid. Now that it is established that I will not be arguing that literal sense of ‘War on a Word’, but instead the meaning of a word. Words are ideas, they are concepts. I argue that we can declare war on a concept, that we can declare war on an idea. Pro’s arguments are basically just one main idea, yet he breaks it up into two different examples; the war on terror, and the war on drugs. Pro’s one main idea is that these aren’t really wars on terror or drugs, only a war on people. R1) War on DrugsPro gives an example of a person driving home from a baseball game and he is pulled over so the cop can check for drugs. Pro says that “you will be assumed as an enemy until proved innocent (when he does not see any drugs)” And that this is proof of how the War on Drugs is about people and not drugs. This is false, you are labeled a ‘suspect’ until proven guilty, in other words; you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Pro then brings up the ‘Big Pharma Conspiracy Theory’ . https://en.wikipedia.org...I fail to see how this has any relevance to my opponent’s case; it has nothing to do witht he topic of the debate; how we can’t declare war on words. Pro then says that not declaring war on people is ‘reckless’ and ‘endangers millions of people’. Pro also says that governments just go after whomever they want in war. This is completely false; the government uses a variety of methods to achieve their goal in a war, as far as in the Drug War they burn drug farms and educate children about the dangers of drugs and take away and punish people who use drugs. The goal in the War on Drugs is not to arrest every person who does drugs; it is to stop people from doing drugs. We are attacking the drugs not the people. R2) War on TerrorPro says that a government cannot declare war on terror because then it would have to declare war on itself because the government is a terrorist. Whether or not the government employs terror or not is another debate entirely, for now let’s focus on whether or not we can declare war on a concept. War on PovertyI would like to point out one thing in my response today. President Lyndon B. Johnson declared War on Poverty in his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. He declared war on the concept of poverty, he did not declare war on people in poverty. This is one example of how we can declare war on an idea, and this negates what Pro’s main idea was. In this war, the government is not targeting the people, they are targeting the concept.
You can't wage a war on a word

You can't wage a war on a word. Anytime politicians say they are waging a war on terror or drugs in all reality it is a war on people. By saying "we are waging a war on (insert word here)" it allows the government to open a giant closet of freedom and right stealing bills, acts, and proposals. In order to be at war, there must be a known enemy. For example we can be at war with Isis. However the government will say its a war on terrorism much more often than actually saying who an enemy is. Looking at this logically, drugs don't do anything. It's up to a person to use them. If they own their body they have every right to. It may not be good for them but that is not the argument at hand. As far as terrorism goes. The word terror is a concept. People that do harm to others in order to get a reaction are considered terrorists and the aggressed upon has the right to defend themselves. Regardless a war on words creates "ghost" wars, allowing the powers that be to continue stealing money to fight "ghosts" as there is no DEFINED enemy.
Mandarin Chinese should be taught alongside English because it is used just as much as English.

Ah but Mandarin Chinese has become international. http://www.bloomberg.com... Mandarin is actually not all that local as it has spread to countries beyond Asia as demonstrated here: http://mandarin.about.com... You said it yourself that Mandarin is spoken about as much as English, so why NOT learn it? I think you underestimate how prominent Mandarin Chinese really is. It is also not a terribly difficult language to learn. http://www.bu.edu...