BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
end the federal reserve

The order is: DA, CP, Case. DANuclear war is the biggest impact in this debate! The pro has conceded the entire impact analysis I made in the last speech, thus the DA outweighs and turns the case. The pro has completely dropped the internal link chain of the DA, and has it wrong. He claims the Federal Reserve has no relevance to nuclear war. He's right in that their is no direct link, but the Internal Link Chain doesn't use a direct link. It uses the failure of the Asia Pivot to ensure nuclear war. CP: Throughout this entire debate, the Counterplan goes uncontested. Thus the CP solves the entirety of the affirmative, PLUS the TPP DA. Case:The pro throughout this entire debate has not given an iota of evidence. Even if his arguments sound logical, I stress that the only arguments accepted in debates are backed-up arguments, which are not arguments of the pro. Next, the pro claims I said "gold standard would ruin our economic system". Neither I nor the pro has ever uttered the words "gold standard", and to say with confidence "gold standards" would fix our economy is unrwarrented since it's 2015, not 1912, something the pro dropped. Even if the explanation the pro offers looks good, it fails to explain a few things. First, the explanation doesn't explain how usage of "fake money" led to a spending bubble in the Great Depression (see my evidence). Second, the housing crash certainly isn't the only crash of the Great Recession, something the pro lacks to explain. So not only is the pro's case unwarrented and dead, it causes nuclear war, and can be solved w/o nuclear war by doing the plan via. the U. S. Mint.
end the federal reserve

I would like for my opponent to rebuttal in an organized fashion, such as numbering his debates please? Here is my opponents arguments: 1.Da, opponent argues that ending the Fed will start a nuclear war. My response: The Fed has nothing to do with nuclear war, my opponent fails to explain the correlation. Opponents argument: 2. Case, my opponent argues that the gold standard would ruin our economic system. My response: It will not, all the gold standard Wil do is decrease inflation, which will in a chain of events, heal our economy. Opponents argument: 3. My opponent says the crashes are not the Fed's fault. My response: A loose monetary policy will result in more loans, people loan money, since more money equals more available spending cash, and there is a lot of money in the system, profits soar, (the money isn't worth as much which is why relative to how many $ it seams like it but they are actually getting as much money as before) so stock value soars (it costs more, inflation due to all the money) so people buy into it thinking that it's cost will increase more later, and they can earn a profit from selling it, producing a bubble, the bubble pops, were in a depression. Housing crash: The Fed issues a lot of money, inflation, houses cost more and keep increasing, people buy into the bubble, it pops, were in a depression, every one with a kindergarten level education in economics knows this.
end the federal reserve

The order is: Counterplan, DA, then Case.CounterplanThe pro has conceded the entirety of the counterplan, thus the counterplan solves the entirety of the case. No new arguments in the last speech.DA The DA outweighs and turns the case. It outweighs on magnitude, since nuclear war causes the extinction of humanity (this was not contested). It outweighs on timeframe and probability, as those two were not contested. The only thing the pro does contest about the Disad is the Internal Link. It doesn't matter whether or not the Federal Reserve is an economic institution. For it to be repealed it must pass through congress. Extend my CNBC evidence which does a detailed analysis of what it would take to repeal the Federal Reserve, evidence the pro has not contested. That alone is sufficient to trigger the rest of the internal link chain (Repealing federal reserve --> no TPP --> no asia pivot --> massiv economic meltdown, --> nuclear war), which I remind the voters, the pro hasn't contested. CaseThe pro still does not provide any evidence that supports his claims. Vote con on evidence since at least I have provided evidence in my first speech.The pro begins by proposing an alternative, by embracing the 1912 system. Consider this: the old system functioned in a very different economic system. This system would very likely fall apart within minutes in modern-day economics. Lastly, the pro tries to attribute the Federal Reserve to a major economic crash. I can tell you for sure the Federal Reserve was not responsible. Let's start with the Great Depression. It was caused primarily by usage of money that didn't exist, creating a bubble that popped on Black Thursday. [1] The Great Recession of 2008 was caused primiarly by the fall of the Lehman Brothers Corporation [2]. None of these examples involved the Federal Reserve. All of the pro's claims are unwarrented, vote con. 1) http://www.ushistory.org...2) https://muddywatermacro.wustl.edu...
end the federal reserve

Article 1 Section 8 Sentence 5 of the constitution states: "Congress shall have the power; to coin money, regulate the value the rift, and of foreign coin, fix the standard weights and measures" My alternative is what we had in 1912, before the Fed, congress would issue United states notes of necessary, and the treasury would issue silver and gold certificates, this is easily verifiable, I would also like to add that from 1832 to 1872 the dollatlost 1/6 it's value, from 1940 to 1980 it lost 5/6 its value, the Fed multiplied inflation by 5, It is also easily verifiable that a very loose monetary policy, followed by an quick switch to a excessively strict monetary policy resuts in a crash. This is how the Fed did it. And if the Fed is an economic institution, how would it cause a nuclear war?
end the federal reserve

The order is: Case, then 2 offCaseFirst, there is no evidence any of the things the pro says happened/is happening/will happen. These are a bunch of claims which are unsupported by any detail. That's more than enough to vote neg.Second, the pro offers no alternative to the Federal Reserve, thus doesn't have the entirety of his plan planned out.TPP DAFirst, the Trans Pacific Partnership-- the most important trade deal for decades to come-- is on the chopping block in Congress. It will pass, but Obama's pressuring through the use of his barely-sufficient political capital is key. [1]Second, ending the federal reserve is not popular in congress, but Obama could do it, but it would require his usage of political capital. [2]Third, causes Asia Pivot to fail, causing large scale conflict and nuclear war. [3][4].CounterplanCounterplan: The United States Mint should substantially increase its lobbying of curtailment of the Federal Reserve.The net benefit is the TPP DA. The counterplan solves the TPP DA because it doesn't go through Congress, thus ensuring TPP will pass without political capital struggle.Sources:1) http://www.newrepublic.com...2) http://www.cnbc.com...'3) http://www.economist.com...4) (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 3-10, Lexis)
end the federal reserve

Reasons to end the federal reserve 1. The federal reserve violates article 1 section 8 sentence 5 of the constitution. 2. The federal reserve was the leading cause in both the great depression and the housing bubble. 3. The federal reserve is a privately owned central bank. 4. The federal reserve has made payments to person/persons unknown without the consent or even knowledge of the American people until just recently. 5. The federal reserve issues fiat while the constitution mandates a gold standard. 6. The federal reserve is given a unconstitutional unlimited power over the American economy. 7. The federal reserv has flooded the American economy with trillions of dollars without regards to the consequences to the American people. 8. The federal reserve is governed by a select few non elected officials. 9. The federal reserve act was not thoroughly read through by congress or president Wilson. 10. The federal reserve has robber the US treasury of its constitutional right to issue currency. 11. The federal reserve board of governors has implemented their power for their own personal interests without regard for the welfare of the people. 12. The federal reserve is privately owned, and unfit to govern the economy of any nation.
will the IT field's job opportunity increase in future

For a short while it might but I predict if we discuss the true FUTURE (as in forever more) that it will in fact decrease because ultimately the earth will end and thus no IT jobs whatsoever will exit (in the nature and context that we regard them in this planet) and even before that I'm sure the entire concept of IT will go down the drain with a new machine that links minds together using a sort of implanted Bluetooth phone that works in line with "glasses" that everyone wears (obviously people who need glasses will all be having laser surgery to save resource one day) and in these glasses is the computer screen that you maneuver through with eye movement through the world-wide motherf*cking web). There will be no increase in IT jobs as the only job required will be that of maintaining the glasses and/or the quality of satellites(but arguably this isn't IT related but purely mechanics related).IT job: Any job relating to one that requires full education in computer science as a pre-requisite.
Aliens are real

I anticipated an argument away from the usually accepted term "aliens" as extraterrestrial and a play on semantics that he meant foreigners. I am pleased to see Pro has not followed this line and I except that his primary debate is as he states it is with regards to aliens being extra terrestrial and not not human. I hope my opponent is not going to try a semantic argument, his arguments to this point have been about aliens in the sci fi meaning of the word, to change now would be to my mind to forfeit the debate. RebuttalThere is no proof provided by Pro of UFO's being of alien origin. A lack of an alternative explanation is not proof either. Burden of proof is still on Pro and he is yet to provide any.
Aliens are real

Aliens are real there is proof and real citing's on alien Definition 1.outsider: somebody who does not belong to or does not feel accepted by a group or society 2..extraterrestrial being: a being from another planet or another part of the universe, especially in works of science fiction Those are the two definitions There has been real citing's on alien http://arealiensreal.org... As showed in the link above aliens UFO has been spotted Scientist who took these pictures have seen the shape of the alien ship and the shape of the alien ship is a saucer. Aliens are real and these are the facts in my argument that prove aliens are real 1. The people in the sky are aliens and the word UFO is unidentified object that has been unknown by humans. There is a chance for that UFO to come from another planet and the definition of alien states that a object from another planet or a being from a another planet. And if humans do not know what the UFO is that shows it is a un identified object. Also anyone in the UFO is driving the ship and it has been proven humans did not drive the UFO so the person inside the UFO is a alien life form. 2. Aliens could be real. In the 1950's it was reported that an alien spacecraft crashed near Roswell, New Mexico. This, however, has never been substantiated by the government of the United States. 3. Living things on Earth is not the only type of life there is also life on other planets in our solar system 4. Alien life forms have been contacted and Scientist have had showed the shapes and sizes of what alien life forms look like. http://www.youtube.com... This is not my full argument but I will state it further on it is now my opponents turn
Real Democrats are superior to Occupy Democrats

Pro has offered no constructive points past Round 1 which got utterly demolished by me in this debate leaving him to grasp at straws in my case without ever coming up with a new valid point that would prove the resolution true. At best, Pro has proved real and occupy democrats to be equals but not at all explained why or how one is superior to the other. I conclude that Pro hasn't met his burden of proof and that absolutely nothing in his Round 3 conclusion was even worth addressing as it was only refuting refutations rather than actually maintaining anything he himself said or coming up with a new point (which is too late to do in the last round anyway).
Real Democrats are superior to Occupy Democrats

Real Democrats don't go around saying things that are completely unfactual, like how Denmark is the happiest country. No it ain't. A racist commentator in 2002 made nasty remarks about Senegalese players during a game against them. Denmark is one of the most openly racist countries in the world.http://articles.latimes.com...Real Dems have never said this nonsense.Not even supporters of the welfare state say this nonsense.For that reason real Democrats (voters and politicians alike) are superior.
The Bible clearly states that homsexuality is morally wrong

Thank you for your response. "Genesis 19:1-11 tells us a story about Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a story of an attempted homosexual rape at Lot's house by the "wicked" men of Sodom. The homosexual intentions of the men of Sodom is considered "WICKED," which is on Verse 7. Therefore, Lot tried to let them have sex with his own two daughters. They stated that raping Lot's daughters is actually considered LESSER of the two evils. This clearly shows how homosexuality is morally wrong, because it is deemed by God that homosexuality is worse than RAPING a woman." I don't carry that message from the text. I carry the message that rape, gay or straight, is wrong. The people who came to Sodom were in fact, angels who had come to Sodom to see if it should be destroyed. Sodom was a very rich community and people were afraid that travelers would steal their money. Laws were passed so that no one could help a traveler this time period, it was not unknown for men to rape their victims before killing them. Lot broke the law, so it is thought by many biblical scholars that Lot was sacrificing his daughters virginity for the life of these men. It said what the men were doing was wicked, because it was rape. (http://www.biblegateway.com...) "What is the difference between monogamous and polygamous relationships in the eyes of God and why are we differentiating them. First of all, we still don't know if the Bible is telling us if polygamous relationships are immoral or not. These are some quotes that support polygamous relationships. In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry. In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines. In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...." I know we are not debating on whether or not polygamous relationships are immoral or not, but I would just like to prove my point." I said polygamous as a response to the scripture you posted. Homosexuality was practiced then different than it is today. In Rome, men would have sex with boys as a sign of supremacy. That scripture was a condemnation of homosexuality the way it was practiced along time ago. Thank you.
The Bible clearly states that homsexuality is morally wrong

Sorry for such a late reply; I have been really busy lately. Genesis 19:1-11 tells us a story about Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a story of an attempted homosexual rape at Lot's house by the "wicked" men of Sodom. The homosexual intentions of the men of Sodom is considered "WICKED," which is on Verse 7. Therefore, Lot tried to let them have sex with his own two daughters. They stated that raping Lot's daughters is actually considered LESSER of the two evils. This clearly shows how homosexuality is morally wrong, because it is deemed by God that homosexuality is worse than RAPING a woman. "Homosexuality long ago was different than homosexuality today. No one could imagine the monogamous relationships homosexuals have now. What Paul saw were polygamous relationships with different men and women. Today, homosexuality is much different." What is the difference between monogamous and polygamous relationships in the eyes of God and why are we differentiating them. First of all, we still don't know if the Bible is telling us if polygamous relationships are immoral or not. These are some quotes that support polygamous relationships. In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry. In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines. In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...." I know we are not debating on whether or not polygamous relationships are immoral or not, but I would just like to prove my point. Thank you
The Bible clearly states that homsexuality is morally wrong

18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. " This text is an example of why the bible can not be taken literally. Lev. 16:23 "Then Aaron is to go into the Tent of Meeting and take off the linen garments he put on before he entered the Most Holy Place, and he is to leave them there. 24 He shall bathe himself with water in a holy place and put on his regular garments. Then he shall come out and sacrifice the burnt offering for himself and the burnt offering for the people, to make atonement for himself and for the people. 25 He shall also burn the fat of the sin offering on the altar. " From this we can deduce that wearing linen garments in a holy place is an abomination. This passage also sugests that people should sacrifice. The biblical definition of abomination is basically going against culture, which would be why there are so many (. http://home.earthlink.net...) "Lev. 20:13, If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" In the American Standard version of the Bible the quote is, "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " Which is just another abomination. It is also promises death if you work on the sabbath. Now if a doctor saves a life on the sabbath, is that bad? Do they really deserve to be killed? Who would kill them? And with this there is no punishment concerning slavery. "Cor. 6:9-10, Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. " Homosexuality long ago was different than homosexuality today. No one could imagine the monogamous relationships homosexuals have now. What Paul saw were polygamous relationships with different men and women. Today, homosexuality is much different. "Rom. 1:26-28, For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. " I think this argument is best summed up by a quote from a Philidelphia Inquirer forum J. Nelson: "Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship. " "These verses are evident that homosexuality is condemned. It goes against our creator, God. " I respectfully disagree. Thank You.
The Bible clearly states that homsexuality is morally wrong

I hope I don't offend anyone here who holds an entirely different perceptive on this issue. There are a couple of verses in the Bible that show homosexuality is wrong. It clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, but people continue to alter these meanings into something they think is appropriate. Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. "1 Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. " Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper. " These verses are evident that homosexuality is condemned. It goes against our creator, God.
Fire is NOT a living thing

Ug concede point to puny hairy man. According to "science", fire not alive. Ug not sure why "science" get to decide what life is. Perhaps Ug not ready for "science". Still, Ug say he who decide what alive and not alive very powerful, like shaman or witchdoctor. Sometimes Ug smoke too much peace pipe and think rocks mad at him. Is good to have shaman to say, "Ug, you dumb as rocks."
Fire is NOT a living thing

"Why only you decide what life is?" Science decides what the scientific definition of life is, and the official scientific definition is the one I provided. Keep in mind, this is a debate within a scientific structure, not a metaphysical debate. My opponent stated in the comments of this argument ,"I know fire isn't really alive, and I'm not really working within the parameters or context your set forth in your argument." Thus, my opponent has explicitly agreed that he accepts fire is not a living thing, moreover, he agrees that he is not cooperating with the structure set forth which means he is unable to prove me wrong within the context of this scientific debate, and he agrees with the point I made that fire is not alive. In conclusion, my opponent has agreed that he believes fire is not a living thing. He is an agreement that he cannot prove me otherwise because he admitted that he disagrees with his own point. Furthermore, my opponent did not provide in round two any counterarguments that he backed up with facts. I do not appreciate him not taking the debate seriously because it is a waste of mine, as well as the readers' time.