BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government should only regulate and protect its people

"The U.S. is currently operating under a laissez-faire system which is coined free enterprise or market economy and I agree, it is not working well." The U.S. is actually operating under a mixed economic system right now, which is sort of like the pseudo-free market I am talking about. I am also using pseudo as a prefix where it means resembles or imitating, which is what it would do, except with partial government interference. State taxes can be lowered as well as the states will also just be there for regulation and protection. Regarding federal highways, they would be privatized and taken care of like other things. For example, in the US, there is a tax of 18.4 cents per gallon that goes to the construction of highways among other things. If the industry is privatized, this will help gas prices go down in return for paying a small toll to use highways. Also, privatization can open up more jobs to the people further helping the economy. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Government should only regulate and protect its people

First you advocated a free market with governmental intervention. Now you are advocating a pseudo-free market or regulated market. Who would regulate the market? The U.S. is currently operating under a laissez-faire system which is coined free enterprise or market economy and I agree, it is not working well. Based on the definition of pseudo, which means not genuine, what would a fake free market look like? Protecting citizens from foreign and domestic threats requires a military force. Would that then also require a CIA and FBI? I am assuming that you are speaking only of federal taxes being reduced and that state taxes would then take care of local police and fire. You stated building infrastructure would be privatized. I will also assume you are simply stating that infrastructure would be privatized. Infrastructure includes buildings, transportation and communication systems, water and power lines, schools, post offices and prisons. Who would take care of the federal highways? It would seem that if the government only spent money on the military and the market, whatever it may look like, it would need far less money. However, that leaves states to pick up some extra burden. So it would be acceptable to you to have federal taxes reduced and state taxes increased?
Government should only regulate and protect its people

By protecting its citizens, I mean from any threats both foreign and domestic and in any form. Yes, I am advocating for the privatization of building infrastructure. Yes, I understand that doing so would mean that there would be a payment of some sort to use these services. But I believe that these payments would be less than those that people pay currently for income taxes and whatnot. Yes, a free market economy is completely free from government intervention monopolies and such, but what is stopping monopolies when there is no government intervention? A laissez-faire system would not work with greed and corruption so there would have to be some sort of regulation. A pseudo-free market or regulated market would work the best.
Government should only regulate and protect its people

One must ask you to define what you mean by "protect its citizens". Do you propose the government protect them from outside influences? From terrorist threats? From their neighbors? Would government protection include protecting them from disease? Insurance is currently privatized. Are you then advocating that schools become privatized? What about road building and bridge building? By stating the government would regulate the free market, that contradicts the meaning of free market where there is no government intervention. A free market economy suggests that the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. I look forward to debating this with you.
Government should only regulate and protect its people

The government (US as example) has become weighed down with all its expected duties. Along with being rampant with corruption from cash flow, there is a big problem. My solution to this is that the government just have two functions: protect its citizens and regulate the free market so it can stay free. Everything else can be privatized like insurance and what not. The government would collect taxes at a lower rate because it would have fewer expenditures. Companies would strive to create the best product and monopolies could be broken up by the government. Where is the con here?
Government should only regulate and protect its people

All economies are mixed economies wherein the means of production is shared among the private and business sector (http://www.businessdictionary.com...). The laissez-faire portion shows itself in the deregulation of business (think phone companies) as well as the removal of trade barriers. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for the fiscal year 2014, 18% of federal taxes collected went to the military. That means your plan would reduce 82% of federal taxes and stop the federal funding of all other programs including social security, Medicaid/Medicare, schools, VA benefits, and more. The tax you spoke of for highways is a federal tax " one of those taxes your plan would eliminate. As that tax would be eliminated, gas prices would come down immediately. So the federal highways would become privatized and "taken care of like other things". In theory, the public would pay 18.4 cents per gallon less for gas. Yet now there would be a toll on federal (interstate) highways. State taxes would be lowered and states would only take care of police and, I assume, fire departments as they are only going to regulate state and local businesses and protect people. Schools and colleges would all be private rather than public. Hospitals and clinics would all be private. Stores and gas stations, again, privately owned. Roads would be privately owned with tolls on every road to pay for upkeep, repairs, and reconstruction. Your original argument stated government was "rampant with corruption from cash flow". By eliminating the above mentioned 82% of federal tax, it will certain not be rampant with corruption from cash flow any longer. However, it seems you shifted that corruption onto corporations who are the ones that actually are rampant with corruption, more so than the government. I do not see where this shift encourages "companies would strive to create the best product". They no longer have to pay taxes and have no regulations requiring them to treat people fairly or safely. There is no longer any government regulation except to prevent a monopoly, which is already illegal.
weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst iran

here are three reasons why i dont support the resloution Brookings.edu. testomony/2005/0908iran_byman.aspx 1. Iran has no nuclear weapons. The UN weapons inspectors could not find them or any sign of them in the country that is 4% smaller size than that of Alaska. However, what they did find were nuclear power plants that were using uranium and plutonium to produce electricity for the ever growing population. There are currently around 70 million people in Iran. And they are slowly dwindling there natural resources including oil. Iran has all rights to produce nuclear power. They signed the Non Nuclear Poleferation Treaty. And have followed it since 2003. Military.com/invade_iran/aspx 2.Persuing a war with iran would be bad for the united states. Other countries don't support us in iraq and they did have chemical weapons. The united states would be more secluded that it already is from the European Naions, (i/e, Germany, France, Sweden and that is to name a few) In wich nobody will be there to support us. Orilley.com/talkingpoints 3.The good news is that U.S. intelligence now believes Iran stopped trying to develop a nuclear weapon a few years ago. If that's true, it takes some of the urgency away from a confrontation with the Iranian mullahs. The bad news is that anti-American people will use the new intel to mock the USA and minimize the threat from radical Islam. Far-left people in America love the fact that U.S. intelligence has contradicted the president on Iran. And even though the president says he learned about the new intel only last week, Senator Joseph Biden immediately called the president a liar, claiming he 'misrepresented intelligence.' Because of the new intel, it will be more difficult to hold Iran and other nations for their murderous activities in the future. We can all be glad that new intel says Iran is pulling back. Hope is always a good thing, but so is being realistic. In all reality we cannot tell people what to do with their nuclear weapons. When we ourselves have not signed the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst iran

Okay, I will agree with you we have signed the NNPT but that leads me to ask the question of why are we violating articles 1 and 2 of the NNPT. here are what the articles state Article I Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices. Article II Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. At the time the treaty was being negotiated, NATO had in place secret nuclear weapons sharing agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT. These agreements were disclosed to a few of the states, including the Soviet Union, negotiating the treaty, but most of the states that signed the NPT in 1968 would not have known about these agreements and interpretations at that time [9]. As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements [10]. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political" [11].
weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst iran

Okay, you need to understand, that the US has signed into the NPT. If you read my post, I mentioned this. Simply google NPT and you'll see that the US is a signature. The other purpose of this is if the US would be justified, and you answered none of my attacks on your arguments. The US would be justified. On the issue of Iran's weapons, the concensus isn't out, and the issue isn't weapons, it's material. That's why I refuted your entire case it in my first response.
weather or not the us would be justified in persuing military action aginst iran

They are not a threat to the united states. If you look at my obsevartion 1 then you would see that the weapon inspectors still have not found any eviddence aginst Teran. They looked. Anyway, how can we tell other countries what to do when they have signed the NNPT (Non-Nuclear Poleferation Treaty). And we have not. This is unjustifed by the United States Government.This is not fair Teran
Death Penalty

The death penalty is the putting down of a person who has committed a capital punishment crime. This could include drug induced drive by shootings, genocide, murder in the course of a kidnapping, etc. Yes murder is bad and that is why capital punishment is in place, to punish those who commit the most destructive of crimes. Capital punishment in itself is also not murder as murder is the UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of one human being by another. Capital punishment can not be unlawful if it is a punishment for breaking the law itself.
Abortion is bad and should be largely illegal

It is my position as the Pro side that abortion is wrong and (except in a few cases i will detail later) should be illegal: this is true for several reasons, primary of which is that the lines drawn between who has the right to life and who doesn't are arbitrary. What makes a child in the womb not worthy of the right to life? Dependence on its mother? babies out of the womb are dependent as well. Does a person's size determine their right to life? if so, if lebron james more worthy of life than someone who is just five feet tall? The reason that arbitrary lines are so dangerous is that the actions they justify as ok to do can often go on for infinity. For example, if the right to life is contingent upon independence, then are the mentally retarded unworthy of the right to life? Are the elderly? What about people in a coma or vegetative state? Or even people who have diabetes and are dependent on insulin? Much of the logic that tries to justify abortion justifies far more. This is why we must hold to hard and fast lines, rather than arbitrary ones (i assume my opponent will want discuss this, so i await their response) The second reason why i believe that abortion is unjustifiable is that the underlying assumptions behind its defense are unproven and simply assumed. i cannot tell you how many times i have heard the word's "its a woman's right to choose." Well, the moment you say that, you have already assumed that the woman's "right to choose" overrides the developing baby's right to life, which is what the entire debate is about. Do women have that right? Is it a right at all? These are the questions that are asked in such a debate as this, and saying that it's a woman's right to choose is simply reiterating one's position, not actually engaging with the arguments. Finally, and this is subject to more of a scientific dispute, there is some evidence that abortions pose some risks to the mother. A study conducted by Dr. Priscilla Coleman (professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, holds a PhD from West Virginia University) and David Reardon (Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School) published a study of nearly 500,000 women experiencing their first pregnancy. It discovered that (depending on what stage of development the child was in) the mother has between 2 and 3 times the likelihood of dying if she gets an abortion. For these reasons (and some others i hope will come up in the course of the debate), this is my thesis: Abortion is bad and should be illegal. The only exceptions for the illegality of abortion ought to be in medical cases where both the unborn child and its mother would die were the mother attempt to give birth (there may be other valid exceptions i haven't thought of yet. Feel free to suggest them) In conclusion, i hope for a respectful and profitable debate
should all illegal immigrants get amnesty

Have you ever seen the movie The Purge? In this movie, the government gets rid of crime and poverty by basically killing all the poor people. Your main points in your last argument stated that by GETTING RID OF the illegal immigrants, violent crime would drop by 25%. Also, that because these immigrants are poor, they would just mooch off America's welfare system. What happened to "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door Give me your tired, your poor, your tired, poor." My opponent's fundamental arguments are no longer specific to illegal immigrants, they are just about poor people, of which illegal immigrants are a large proportion of. Even if these immigrants would harm the economy, it is America's responsibility to take care of the world's poor who seek her aid. America has, for years, built a reputation on the idea that we will take the world's huddled masses. I do not support a purge of America's poor in order to help the economy. I also believe in America's integrity, that this nation is able to uphold its principles, even when it costs us money. Therefore, I am strongly against any sort of mass deportation.
should all illegal immigrants get amnesty

I would like to begin this round by laying down one fact. First, there are between 7 and 20 million illegal immigrants in the United States. http://www.csmonitor.com.... Additionally, I would like to ask my opponent one question: if all these illegal immigrants came into the United States legally, would you turn any away, and would you be supportive of them? America was, of course, founded by immigrants, and is currently populated with the sons and daughters of immigrants, so I think most Americans should be supportive of immigration in principle. Because my opponent has not stated his opinion on this idea, I will assume that he or she is supportive of large-scale legal immigration unless he or she were to say otherwise in a response. This preface leads me to the following argument: Illegal immigrants are often portrayed as being leeches who suck away American jobs, and in most other scenarios, I would be against illegal immigrants. They don't pay taxes, and receive much of the benefits normal citizens do receive. However, I believe the current illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty for one reason: if you are poor, it is nearly impossible to immigrate legally, let alone become an American citizen. Many of America's immigrants in the past would not have been able to immigrate legally, because they would be too poor in the current system. To immigrate legally, you need all sorts of documentation, and while I believe these papers are a noble attempt to stop the people like drug dealers from getting in to America, most of these Latin American immigrants simply do not have the paperwork necessary. When you are living in total poverty under an oppressive government, it is difficult to keep track of things like birth certificates, if you even had them in the first place. http://www.alternet.org... Therefore, I believe that until the immigration process stops becoming a bureaucratic nightmare, all illegal immigrants should be granted amnesty. In addition, the United States should allow its immigration process to be more open, and allow immigration on a larger scale.
Rap Battle

If this is the Muppets you can call me Jim Henson, because I own your fuking azz[1] I just battled an outdated redneck, who thinks he is some hot sht Now he is left in cold blood, truth is all he ever wanted was to be a spik The fact is you rep hatred for other races That kind of mentality is old and out dated If I ever met you, Id's slap your azz back to 1957 Even God himself would deny you into heaven Your religion, your mentality, your logic is all bitter sweet The truth is your mom's probabbly a crack head that lost all of her teeth This entire battle was a mistake, you could even call it a professional noob snipe Now I have something in common with your mom, I should have just aborted you because you're a waste of a life [1] . http://muppet.wikia.com...
Electoral College

I had a lot more schoolwork than I anticipated. I would also like Pro to know I am not trying to argue that the Electoral College is undemocratic like many other people but instead that it's unrepresentative of the populace and should be replaced by something more representative. My opponent argues that without the electoral college there will be a tyranny of the majority that would completely dominate politics and deprive the rights of the minority. Yet, this would not be the case as if the president was in fact elected by a popular vote instead of the electoral college, he or she would still have to abide by the constitution and the bill of rights. The president would not be able to take away the rights of the minority and the minority would still be able to compete in a democratic election and convince people to join their side. After all, power constantly changes in a democracy and the minority party one election cycle could become the majority party the next. There is also the senate which has equal representatives from all the states which again helps curtail the power of the majority. I understand that the USA was never meant to be a pure democracy it was set up as a Constitutional Republic but the fact of the matter is that the government is still democratic. Representatives in Congress are chosen through a popular election and electoral votes go to whichever candidate won the popular votes in a state yet no one who supports the electoral college complains about them being unfair in how the majority's will overpowers the one of the minority Another point that my opponent makes is that without the Electoral College, only a few states and counties would control the presidential elections and in return American Politics. Yet, this is already the case under the Electoral College because of its winner takes all system and swing states. Because the majority of states vote reliably democrat or republican, Presidential candidates ignore them as gaining more support from those states would be pointless and instead focus on swing states. As I mentioned before, the swing states make up a small minority of the total population meaning that because of how the Electoral College is set up, a small minority of the US population is controlling the presidential elections. This should go without question be incredibly unfair and objectively worse than having a majority control politics.