BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Drug testing Welfare applicants in the U.S. is wrong.

http://www.forbes.com... Article from forbes.com Faux tough guys Scott Walker and Rick Scott bluster with bravado about being tough on crime and on drugs. Who benefits from drug testing, besides them and their cronies? Walker, who can"t decide his position on evolution, comes down strongly against the science on the issue of drug testing, having just proposed it as a condition for receiving public benefits, such as food stamps, and even unemployment benefits. Walker, and Rick Scott before him, have been vociferous in their claims that such testing will save the country vast sums, as well as make us all safer. They are, after all, tough on crime. Scott, for example, claimed that drug abuse was "much higher"R88; in welfare recipients. In fact, the rate was 2%, compared to 9.4% in the general population. In a story about this, 02/02/12, The Daily Show"s Aasif Mandvi challenged Fl. Rep. Scott Plakin, who insisted citizens should "be happy" for the opportunity to be tested, to undergo drug testing himself, since his salary is entirely at the expense of taxpayers. Mandvi then does the same to Gov. Scott. Shockingly, both declined. The priceless video is here. Mitt Romney, too, has come out for mandatory testingR88;: "Well my own view is, it"s a great idea. People who are receiving welfare benefits, government benefits, we should make sure they"re not using those benefits to pay for drugs. I think it"s an excellent idea. This is the end of the article. I have my own opinion now. If Welfare applicants are forced to be drug tested, every elected official should be required to drug test seeing that they recieve more tax paying benefits than any other people in the United States. Also, if they put a law in place, they should be held to the same standard. All of our last three Presidents have openly admitted to past drug use. What on Earth should convince us that they have a clean, golden stream now? We were once told that drug testing was needed to insure that skilled laborers were not impaired, seeing their jobs had more responsibilities, thus justifying the test as a neccessity in the workplace. Our government officials decide the fates of over 300,000,000 people. How is their possible impairment not held to the same microscope? These officials can declare war, launch nucleur weapons, and hurt or help the country with every decision they make. So I pose this question, why are Welfare applicants drug tested, but CNA's in many nursing homes are not? Teachers are not. Workers on Wallstreet are not. The President of the United States is not. Does this rule simply target the poor and fuel political images?
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

I will enjoy this delightful debate subject. Yes, while candidates need to have insight on what their stance is on other 'real' candidates as you mentioned, the two parties are associated as such; democratic party to liberalism(usually) and republican to conservative(usually). Although the candidates should all have a level playing field and be able to acknowledge ideas and propositions from other parties, the two parties could have conflicting beliefs which would interfere with the hard facts of the debate and mingle with political stances. On your second argument, I do agree with you on the point that 'better', more viewed candidates should have more focus as they have more potential to become president, but we have to look at and realize the main goal that the U.S. is trying to achieve: to find a president worthy enough to aid the country and progress it as best as they can. And although a lot of viewers and support potentially means that you've worked harder and deserve more attention, it doesn't mean that you have the fullest potential to aid the country the best. All candidates should have equal debate time seeing as they all might have ideas that are the best for America.
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

We've seen 2 debates featuring all the candidates of the GOP (4 if you count the happy hour debates) and most recently we saw the 1st debate featuring all the Democratic candidates, but we have not nor will not see any debates featuring candidates from BOTH parties until well after the nomination for both parties has been clinched...I will argue that that should be changed. Imagine if in addition to seeing debates among candidates from just one party, we also get to see debates featuring candidates between both parties.... Imagine if we could see Jeb go up against Hillary, or Trump against Bernie, or only the top polling candidates of each side go up against each other. I believe that these kinds of debates should be allowed, where candidates from the opposing parties can go up against each other even before either party has nominated a candidate. 24 hours between rounds, 3000 characters, 3 roundsArguments:1) It would better demonstrate how candidates will do against their 'real' opponents. Anyone who watched the Democratic debate saw that all the candidates seemed to remember that they are part of the same team (Democrats). A lot of people wanted to see Bernie really tear into Clinton, or see Clinton hold her own against an onslaught of tough questions, but neither of these things happened, and its arguable that it might not happen in later debates either since no one realy wants to hurt the overall chances for their own party to win the race.By allowing there to be debates featuring candidates from both sides though, we could better see how each candidate behaves and is tested. Hillary will receive far more heat from GOP candidates than from Dem candidates, and Bernie will be far more likely to try to tear a GOP candidate a new a**hole than he would someone from his own party. Allowing debates between both parties would better indicate to the viewers how good of a debater a candidate truly is before the primaries end.2) Focuses on the best polling candidatesCNN and Fox have, so far, judged admittance into their debates based on how well each candidate is polling.... Debates featured between candidates from both sides of the political spectrum though could allow Fox and CNN to implement different standards to better limit the debate to candidates who are polling well. Rather than have podiums be occupied by nobodies like Huckabee, Santorum, Webb, Or Chafee, debates between both parties early in the primaries could revolve around who is polling in the top 2 or 3 spots for each party, which greatly reduces the number of candidates featured in a debate to just those who are actually polling well. The top 3 candidates for each side right now are Fiorina, Carson, and Trump for the GOP, and Clinton, Sanders, and Biden from the Dem side. Since Biden isnt running, this would set up a debate featuring Carson, Fiorina, Clinton, Trump, and Sanders. Doesn't that sound far more interesting to watch than debates limited to candidates from the same party?
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

First of all, I would like to point out that you attacked the only point I gave without any support... I mean, whatever floats your boat. Presidential debates between candidates from both parties AFTER the sides nominate a candidate are remarkably different from average debates between opposite parties. Yes, while both include a republican and democratic point of view, one has a candidate that the other candidates in the same party trust their opinions and beliefs in, and the other could hold a wide variety of perspectives and ideas. The debate that takes place with nominees from both parties is meant to have two candidates with perhaps their own ideas, but also the other running members' ideas infused into their debate strategy. This debates eliminates the need of the other, smaller debates between parties because, yes, the nominees will focus on their ideas, but will also be influenced by their competitors within their party. In your second point, while yes, "polls change over time," your entire argument is based off of chance. Can we be sure that less popular candidates will take the spots of the higher polling candidates after one debate? Sure, we could definitely procure a handful of examples, but this is just assuming candidates doing worse will suddenly shape up and candidates doing better will lose their cool. You also mention that "lesser polling candidates still are able to prove themselves and overtake better polling candidates in debates limited to one political party." While this is true, debates between parties have a much higher chance of receiving more views on the popular news channels. Although they will also show single party debates, they would most likely be ignored in comparison to the shows featuring higher polling candidates from both parties. This would be giving already higher polling candidates yet another advantage if inter-party debates are allowed, further handicapping the candidates not doing as well. Presidential debates should be limited to a single party. Not only would debates between the parties featuring higher polling candidates put lower polling candidates at a serious disadvantage, but beliefs and ideals kept within parties would be intertwined with political stature, consequently confusing voters and giving false statements. Debates should stay as they are; although debates between parties would certainly be interesting and help news channel views, America should focus on true goals for the presidential election. Clearly, debates should be kept within houses, and maintain the orderly fashion we have always put into action. P.S. "For the reasons in the debate" is a pretty sucky way to wrap things up.
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

1) Factual accuracy in debates "Even if something happens and is regularly acknowledged does not mean that it is allowed. "Except in this case it is allowed. .. . There are not fact-checkers on the stage to validify every claim that a candidate makes in a debate, meaning that in any debate, whether it be presidential debates, primary debates, or the hybrid debates I am proposing in this debate right here, factual inaccuracy is a byproduct of the debates. .. . It is for that reason that it cannot be used as a reason to not allow debates between both parties from occurring before the nomination ends, since that would be selectively punishing these proposed debates when other debates where factual inaccuracies take place are allowed to continue. "However, a smarter candidate try not to lean towards certain religions or beliefs so they can attract a wider variety of potential voters"Thats completely irrelevant to the debate though. If presidential debates between candidates from both parties are allowed to take place, than debates between candidates of both parties prior to either side nominating a candidate should be allowed as well. 2) Negatively affects lesser polling candidates"Granting candidates with more supporters and sponsors more public attention would make the playing field everything but level. "It would favor those polling well initially sure, but polls change over time. Scott Walker and Jeb Bush were polling #1 and 2 in the GOP at one point and now Walker is out of the race completely, due mostly to his terrible debate performance, while Bush is lagging in 5th place. When leading candidates do bad in debates, and there always are a few, then they drop in the polls and someone else is usually there to fill in the spot. Not only that, lesser polling candidates still are able to prove themselves and overtake better polling candidates in debates limited to one political party, as I stated before. ConclusionDebates between both political parties while the primaries are still going on will allow voters to get a better idea of just how well their preferred candidate would do in a future presidential debate if they win the nomination, and let them adjust their vote accordingly if they like a different candidate better. Debates between the top candidates of both parties would focus on the top polling candidates on both sides of the race, while lesser polling candidates will still have more than enough opportunity to make up ground on better polling candidates in debates limited to one party.
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

In response to your first point: Even if something happens and is regularly acknowledged does not mean that it is allowed. More importantly, I realize that you point out that once two candidates are nominated from each party, mixed beliefs are in risk to mingle in with political views and other ideas. However, a smarter candidate try not to lean towards certain religions or beliefs so they can attract a wider variety of potential voters. The debates between the two specific parties would allow candidates to express their actual beliefs, more or less, in a less serious (than two nominees being elected to debate each other) environment but also market themselves how they feel like. Clearly, you did not receive the message I was trying to deliver. Every candidate has right to equal debate time, and to allow only certain candidates, most likely with the most money if they are doing well, have a superior debate between the parties. I do agree that a such debate would be interesting, but granting candidates with more supporters and sponsors more public attention would make the playing field everything but level. Why shouldn't lower ranking candidates also be gifted the privilege of demonstrating their prowess with other candidates from an opposite party?
Some debates during the Primaries should feature candidates between both parties

Man this is the second time in a row now one of my debates switched from 24 hours between rounds to 72 hours between rounds....Whatever. 1) Factual accuracy in debates between both parties"The two parties could have conflicting beliefs which would interfere with the hard facts of the debate and mingle with political stances."That already happens with debates between candidates who already won the nomination though... Debates between both parties once each side has nominated a candidate risks the distortion of facts over political stances just as much as debates between candidates of different parties prior to either party nominating a candidate. Therefore it's irrelevant that a debate between candidates from 2 parties might distort facts since presidential debates between candidates who already won the nomination are allowed to happen, even though in those debates facts can be distorted to. In fact, even in primary debates limited to one party there are still a distortion of facts due to conflicting beliefs and differing political stances. This means that since all kinds of debates that already exist and are allowed to exist are suseptible to political stances distorting facts, that we shouldnt therefore ban a different kind of debate from taking place for the same reason.2) Negatively affects lesser polling candidates"All candidates should have equal debate time seeing as they all might have ideas that are the best for America."All candidates are given equal time in primary debates limited to a single party already. I am arguing that IN ADDITION to those debates limited to a single party during the primaries that there should ALSO be debates between candidates from both parties while the primaries are still going on. Other candidates not polling as well as top candidates will still have the opportunity to have their voice heard in different debates that feature only candidates from one party. Debates between top candidates from both parties meanwhile would allow viewers to see how well candidates do in debate against the opposing party, rather than just against their own party in smaller debates featuring less liked candidates
The fine-tuning argument for God's existence is a failure

(First attempt at the website. Prior apologies for blunders and breaches of nettiquette) I think the fine tuning argument - in whatever form - is a failure. The "fine tuning argument" is any argument that deploys premises related to the particular initial conditions/constants/laws of the universe as evidence that God exists. I particularly have in mind Robin Collin's argument in the Blackwell companion to natural theology, but similar arguments by Leslie, Craig, etc. also count. An argument is a failure iff, after considering the argument, it would not be reasonable to raise one's credence in the conclusion of that argument. In other words, the argument does nothing to make what it is arguing for more probable or plausible. Either a) Use your first reply to accept, then watch me make a fool of myself as I go on the philosophical equivalent of a drive-by, or b) perhaps a better idea, present the fine-tuning argument your find most persuasive, as a springboard for arguing about whether any such argument can be persuasive (if you do b, please leave your last reply blank, as I am too much of a luddite to work out how to jiggle the round system to give equal rounds with the challenger 'going first'). Any references can be included in the comments and not in the body of the main post. If you want to challenge and want any other conduct issues cleared up, feel free to use comments or email. Ditto if I have made further mistakes. Enjoy life, Thrasymachus P.S. Thanks to prior commentators for correcting me earlier.
The US should reform its Corporate Tax

You provide no sources to prove that small businesses would be hindered by bigger businesses. Probably because it is not economically probable as entrepreneurs are always rising up to the occasion and becoming successful people. If anything, the expansion of large businesses means more competition between themselves, more expansion which means more jobs, and more production which means higher profits for them which in turn leads to higher corporate tax revenue as illustrated by the Laffer curve. Big business never goes unrivaled. There is always competition in a vast and large marketplace. Subsidies are not good because that is crony capitalism. Also, remember that WE want businesses here for our own county and for our own economy. We want to eliminate deductions and put in a lower rate because businesses want higher profits, not lower ones. By creating business friendly environment in the USA we fix that problem. I have already sourced how it would be good for the government and the economy, so I have the facts out there. You still need to prove your points or else your case risks falling apart.
The US should reform its Corporate Tax

If the USA corporate taxes were reformed not only would competition be hindered but severely hurt as the bigger companies would be more empowered and would have more money to invest and that would hinder small companies who would be crushed by this new weight that would be the lowered tax rates of the bigger companies and thus smaller companies would be hindered by these new huge assets. The bigger companies would have much more investment power and the smaller companies would have a little bit more, but these rates would be unrivaled by those of the bigger companies. Moreover it would be quite unlikely for foreign companies to go to the US, for still a 20% corporate tax rate, although slightly lower than the EU average (21.34) would not be very attractive since that would require that the companies from the EU, whom I guess might be some potential targets of the movement move their legal residences to the US and that would exclude them from the EU subsidies. It would be very unlikely for target companies to be from the third world since the tax rates there are already pretty low or at the very least the tax codes are full of loopholes.
The US should reform its Corporate Tax

Really? You can't read the rules of the debate? (sigh)Well, here's my case.Laffer CurveDuring the late 1970s, economist Arthur Laffer gave his name to the Laffer curve. The concept has existed before. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon came up with the the hypothesis of scientific taxation that lower rates generates higher revenues for the federal government. When the rate is higher, economic expansion and production is discouraged. In this case we are talking about the wealth of businesses who will grow less with a higher rate because they have to move more capital to taxation. When the tax rate is small, more capital is used on the business itself. The business grows and there is more corporate profits. More profits means more revenue for the corporation and that means more revenue for the federal government through a lower tax rate. Companies Move OverseasPfizer, the largest drug maker in the US, recently announced that it is moving its legal address to the UK because of the lower corporate tax rate. It is likely other businesses will the follow. The UK corporate tax rate is set to approach 20% by 2015. The current US corporate tax rate is 35% and that is a 15% difference for their profits. The US needs to lower its corporate tax rate in order to keep more businesses and gain more for the United States. As simple 10% cut from 35% to 25% puts on level with other nations. This will increase the competition of the American economy. At the same time, eliminating loopholes allows us to get more revenue from them.Sources1. Laffer, Arthur. "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future." The Heritage Foundation.2. Giobanetti, Tom. "As Capital Flees, England is Texas, and the U.S. is California." RealClearMarkets.
The US should reform its Corporate Tax

All of the following arguments are made supposing thet the US in question is the United States of America The United States of America should absolutely not reform its corporate tax rate beacause the current tax rate provides 9% of all of the total USA gouvernment revenue. The proposed tax reform would obviously lower that, for lowering it would not alter the ammount of companies that have reside in the USA or have their assets there or very little so, for the USA coprorate taxes could not rival those of other countries and dependencies such as the British Virgin Islands or Panama beacause lowering the corporate tax to that level would cripple the economy given that the American economy is much larger than that of those places. Lowering the corporate tax to lower rates would not work for these countries would still have the advantage and very few more companies would put their seats there and at the very most this would maintain USA corporate tax revenue the same as it is now. Regarding loopholes, the law should not be corrected beacause that would require changing the whole US tax code. These reforms would take years to pass beacause said text is a very extensive one and it would cause massive political problems in the USA for this would be subject to much disagreement for the two parties and by that time companies will have found loopholes in the new texts and they would have to start over.
Corporal Punishment of Children Should be Illegal

===Definition===Corporal Punishment: Physical punishment, as spanking, inflicted on a child by an adult in authority.I propose that corporal punishment is tantamount to abuse and fosters a violent, unhealthy atmosphere for a child to grow up in. Furthermore, I find that corporal punishment not only has negative psychological, emotional and physical effects on the child, but is detrimental to the mental health of the punisher as well. As a result, I believe that corporal punishment should be made illegal. ===Rules===1. New arguments brought in at the final round will not count.2. R1 is for acceptance and R2 is for argumentation. 3. Claims of personal experience (ie. I was spanked and it made me more loving and compassionate) without the corroboration of reviewable sources will not count as valid examples.