BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The New Deal was successful

NIRAMy opponent says unemployment did not increase by 17%, but I do ask my opponent to provide a source to prove this and until then I will deny that point as my evidense behind it actually has a source. We can see that FDR attempted to control the US economy and this law was unconstitutional as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Schechter Poultry Corp V. US case showing that the government had overstepped it's boundries into the lives of the average American. (http://www.oyez.org...) Keynesian Economics My opponent is once again incorrect. After World War 2 the US was once again on the verge of going back into the great depression as millions of Americans came back from the war and the factories had to lay off their workers to retool their factories.
The New Deal was successful

Since he did not refute, I assume that he agrees with me on those issues. Refutations NIRA These "codes of fair competition" actually was the government requiring businesses to fix prices and wages, during a period of runaway inflation. FDR wanted to make sure that companies would not simply lower wages or cut more workers as to ease the effects of the depression. You also point out that this act "did not allow capitalism to take its course. " Unfortunately, capitalism was allow to "take its course" 5 years before the act was passed and it ended up with the Great Depression. At some point, the government needs to regulate things like minimum wage, buying on margin, and child labor. Hoover tried to allow capitalism to "take its course" for 3 years after the Great Depression hit and he got almost no where. You also mention that this act increased prices. The fact is that farmers were overproducing food, leading to low prices, and very little income to farmers. These higher prices actually helped farmers make more money. Also, unemployment did not increase by 17%, the actual rate was 17%. I will concede to you that the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 was a failed policy of the New Deal Keynesian Economics This is a very fascinating topic and one that I would like to discuss in another debate, however the fact is that major deficit spending does spark economic growth. While the New Deal raised the national debt to an astonishing 40 billion, this can be agreed that it was beneficial to many Americans in decreasing the unemployment rate. However, this 40 billion can not even compare to the deficit that was left after World War II, a fantastic 258 billion. This massive deficit spending caused by the war did not plunge America in to poverty or depression, but gave it astonishing growth that was almost uninterrupted for 2 decades. If one sees the effect of the massive deficit spending during WWII, one can only imagine the effects of deficit spending a fraction of its scale. However, conservatives like yourself refuse to acknowledge massive deficit spending like the one during WWII as actual massive deficit spending. This is exactly what Keynesian economics advocates. Massive deficit spending to the economy. While I would love to debate this topic on a larger scale at another time, it is central to my argument that you do see Keynesian economics as beneficial in many ways.
The New Deal was successful

Contention 1: National Industry Recovery ActOne of the New Deal Programs was the National Industry Recovery Act. This act basically outlawed competition and encouraged "fair competition," this was a major form of Communism at the time. It made business only be able to do certain things and did not allow capitalism to take it's course. (http://www.ourdocuments.gov...) This caused unemployment to increase by 17% and this also rose wages which made it harder for business owners to create jobs and it caused prices to increase. (http://www.cato.org...) Finally, in 1935, a meat company in New York sued, because it lost a large portion of it's business to the NIRA and the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA. (http://www.oyez.org...) Contention 2: Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938The Agricultural Adjustment Act forced farmers to produce less. It paid farmers to do so, but what would occur is that farmers will grow what they could and then when it came time for harvesting a large portion of their crops were burned. The price was then transferred to the grain mills. The grain mills decided to counter this fee by raising prices on food, thus hurting those in poverty once more. (http://www.princeton.edu...) The poor farmers in the south that had been sharecropping for the longest time also suffered significantly from this bill as well. (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org...) Contention 3: Taxes and FDR's spendingDuring the New Deal taxes in the US tippled from $1.6 billion to $5.3 billion in 1940! Most of the taxes that were increased came on goods that ended up substantially hurting the Middle Class. (http://www.cato.org...) FDR also decided to accept Keynesian Economics which is where one continues to spend money for the people into debt and eventually you'll get your way out of the hole. (http://www.investopedia.com...) The US accepted this policy for the longest time causing the US deficit to climb substantially.
The New Deal was successful

Long Term Benefits of the New Deal Glass-Steagall Banking Act This banking act gave birth to the FDIC, which insured, at the time, individual deposits up to 5,000 dollars. This prevented memorable banking panics and runs where people tried to withdraw their money from the bank before it was basically gone (1). This act gave the banks more financial stability and insured that people with money in the bank would not simply loose it all if the bank failed. In fact, the FDIC was one of the main things that prevented the recession of 2009 from being worse than it actually was. This crucial legislation, though passed in 1932, prevented another Great Depression in that it gave banks and investors something to fall back on. (To see a graph on the numbers of bank failures see (3)) Roosevelt also took the nation off the gold standard, which once again gave financial stability and security to the United States for years to come. (For more information on why the gold standard failed see (2)) TVA This was an association that decided to go to one of the most impoverished areas of the United States and create a system of dams along the large Tennessee River. This association gave not only full employment to the people of the area but cheap electric power, lost cost housing, abundant cheap nitrates, restoration of eroded soil, reforestation, improved navigation and flood control just to name a few. This poverty cursed area was transformed into one of the most flourishing and fastest growing regions in the United States. (For more on the TVA see (4)) Fair Labor Standards Act This act set up standards for labor that we take for immense granted today. This act set up things such as a minimum wage (which was not regulated before), maximum hours, and labor by people under 16 was forbidden. Think how many of these things millions of Americans take for granted today. The fact that children aren't working in coal mines anymore is a result of this crucial piece of legislation. This act positively affects almost every worker in the public and private sector as currently The Fair Labor Standards Act benefits workers by regulating employment issues, such as federal minimum wage, overtime pay and employer record-keeping responsibilities. Employers must remain compliant with applicable employment laws to avoid possible civil or criminal violations. Think about how this New Deal policy made it possible for workers everywhere in America to work safely. (1) . http://www.thinkadvisor.com... (2) . http://www.econtrader.com... (3) . http://www.authentichistory.com... (4) . http://www.u-s-history.com...
SSM should be Legalized

Unfortunately my opponent has failed to post again. I would like to point out that I have refuted his points and provided my own reasons for banning SSM. Yes the goverment can deny rights to citizens. You do not see the goverment providing benefits to same sex couples who are not married. I would like for someone to tell me when the goverment got into the business of endorsing love? Can same-sex couples only be happy if they receive marital benefits? I am not a "gay-basher" or anything like that. My personal and religious opinions have been left out of the debate. I do not think homosexuals are bad people, but I don not see the proof on the PRO side for providing them with benefits.
SSM should be Legalized

I would first like to establish common ground by saying that I do not disagree that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children. I do not agree that it is a healthy household due to fact that the natural order has a mother and a father in a household. Obviously there are many households that are minus one of these figures even in straight couples. If you are going to quote statistics please provide a link. Same-sex parents are not really focused on the needs of children, but upon the needs of a small number of adults. No society would purposely deny a child a mother or father, yet that is what same-sex households do. The nature of the beast dictates that all same-sex households ALWAYS be without one of these important parental figures. My argument against gay marriage focuses mostly around the benefits that marriage provides, and why only traditional families should be entitled to said benefits. The first question I ask is why does the goverment bestow so many rights upon two people in the first place? What could the goverment possibly receive in return for promoting marriage. I argue that the goverment gives these benefits to traditional families based upon the fact that these families help to ensure the continued natural existence of the nation. This is somthing same-sex couples obvioosly cannot provide due to obvious reasons. The goverment is not in place to provide happiness. It does ensure that you have the "pursuit of happiness", but does NOT provide. Are you saying that same-sex couple cannot be happy without the benefits of the goverment? And please esatblish why the goverment should provide those benefits to a relationship that provides no real benefit for the goverment. Another problem that same-sex marriage has is support of the country. The majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage and think it should be left up to the states to decide. In the 2004 vote some states voted on whether SSM should be allowed or not. Even in Oregon, where the Gay and Lesbian lobby focused its efforts, it failed miseribly. Shouldn't what the majority wants matter in something so controversial? http://www.abcnews.go.com... I thank you for providing this debate and I'm sure we can complete it in a civil manner. This debate can bring the worst out of people from both sides of the spectrum and I wish to avoid that.
SSM should be Legalized

Arguments are made that GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered) people should not be aloud to raise children. First of all, this argument is null and void. Statistics have shown that children raised in GLBT families are just as well off and possibly better off then those raised in straight families. And no, children raised by GLBT parents aren't always GLBT. All respectable medical, psychological, and children based organizations have come out stating that children are all of the above (APA, AMA, ect). Secondly arguments are made that this opens the door for marrying your livestock or even multiple partners. The people who say anything about marrying livestock have certain issues, Two people marrying. And sadly, yes marriage has been redefined before. It now includes interracial couples. I can't even fight the argument that SSM would open the door for Polygamy because there is no basis, any first year law student could tell you that, it's illogical. Civil rights are unalienable to all people. A government cannot deny rights to any citizen. There are over a thousand benefits offered to Opposite Sex couples that are denied to Same Sex couples.
The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

As with most modern students of the Bible, Con is making the mistake that one of the components of the crime of murder is time. What these modern students of the Bible think is that today the crime of murder is wrong even if committed under the guise of religion. But in Joshua's time the Bible students think that the crime of murder committed under the guise of religion was justifiable homicide. The question is- Why do the Bible students think that time is a component of the crime of murder? Answer: It is because the Bible students have attended Sunday/Saturday school. If for instance, Con had never heard of the Bible then Con would accept the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. That Joshua is just like everyone else. That Joshua was and is subject to the LAW. And that we can convict Joshua for murder anytime we want to. Because Joshua is guilty and there is no statute of limitations that will get him off no matter what the Bible students think.
The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

Rebutal: Absurd? To connect the word 'Jew' to genetics is what is absurd there Con. Joshua was an Ephraimite. We are not talking about genetics we are talking about brother Joseph and brother Judah. By the first century after Christ the children of Joseph had been banished from Palestine for several hundred years. Actually the Ephraimites, whom the subject of this debate was one of, claimed a portion of the throne of all ancient Israel. Since the crown was meant for the tribe of Judah alone that made all of Ephraim suspect in the royal theater. The Ephraimites from a Jewish perspective were evil after they initiated the split in the kingdom. So yeah- We are going to transcend genetics. But not yet- Anyone who practices genocide must be declared evil, unless we are willing to say that the Nazi were not evil. SATAN Con, have you ever heard of the word Caesar? Just in case you have not- The word Caesar is a title. And when the word Caesar is used it must be defined in context if it is not prefaced by another word such as Julius. This is because there were many Caesars with Julius being just the first. Here is another one- Pharaoh While we don't actually know as much about the title Pharaoh as we do Caesar one thing is certain. The word Pharaoh is a title that must be defined in some way or else it can only mean the leader of Egypt in general. Here is another one- General The word General must be defined by adding something to it such as- U.S. Now the word General is becoming clearer. But it is still vague. When we tag General with U.S. do we mean the nation The United States of America or do we mean Ulysses S. Grant? That is going to be the end of the rebuttal. Argument 3: Defining the term LORD If someone In the court system of the United States goes on trial for the crime of serial killer and uses exclusively the defense that The LORD of the Old Testament told him/her to go out and kill then that defendant will be found guilty of murder. Here is why- I Chronicles 21:1 cross referenced with 2 Samuel 24:1 The word LORD is a title just like all those other titles in the rebuttal. So is the word God. There is a verse or two in the Bible that says "ye are gods". Anyone and anything can be a god. The word God/god is a title. Titles must be defined or they are just general. So when someone who extinguished the lives of all the children in the city of Jericho uses the word LORD that person has no right to the God of the Christians. That person is Joshua. Joshua has no right to enter the Church. It is evil to quote a mass murderer during Mass.
The Joshua statement, "...but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." is anti-Christian.

Analysis of Joshua's identity: 1 Joshua was not a Jew. Since Joshua was not Jewish he was at least one more step removed from Christianity. Therefore The words that Joshua used cannot mean the same thing that those words mean to Christians. Analysis of the meaning of Joshua's words: 1 Service Serving the LORD to Joshua meant exterminating every living being in the city of Jericho by butchering them. This fact can only mean one thing- When Joshua used the word "LORD" he did not mean the first person of the Holy Trinity. Or even the second person. Or even the third person. Therefore The word "LORD" as used by Joshua can only mean one thing. The word "LORD" as used by Joshua means- SATAN It has to be this way because it is illegal to butcher people just so that the butchers can have the property of the butchers' victims.
Spiders are the creepiest creatures on earth.

I will start with rebudle's 1. It really doesn't matter how many legs or eyes they have. It all depends on the general size of the spider. Which are usaly smaller than your finger nail. 2. I have seen exactaly 2 spiders so far this year. And they were both in my basement. And who gives a sit when you run into one. Stomp that shi. 3. Very few are poison releated. Even if they are most will at best give you a rash. And who cars if there poison related. Stomp that shi. 4. Most of them eat each other. Making the survival rate low. And who cares see a nest. Stomp that shi. 5. They may be then, but if there is light then you can easily see it. Plus the web traps other bugs that CAN be harmful to you like the misquotes that actually come after you. So there little helpers. But if your like me, swat that shi. 6. That's not scary. The scientificaly fascinating . They can't do it to us so who cares. Plus the only one who's scared is the one who's about to be liquified. So spider go ahead. Suck dat shi. 7. First of all not true. The FEMALE ( a.k.a the bith) eats the male. Which is probobly protein for the baby's ( I base that on common knowledge and a possibility) with the exemption of the spider you described Ok, the creepiest animal on earth is obviously the dinosaur that spires ink at yo face and eats you. Technically it's on earth ( as a fossil) But if you don't except that it would a chimpanzee. I know it's not common to see around your house. But when it does (which it will) your gonna get screwed. 1. You see a spider on the wall stomp it. But as it is most likely dark you think it's a spider on the wall then BAM. You just kicked a chimp in the face. It's not going to go APE shi on you and probably rip yyour face off. It's happend before 2. If you see a spider dangling in front of your face swat that shi. But if you realize it's a chimpanzee watching you in your sleep ( be honest, it's happend to all of us) you just bith slapped a chimp. He's gonna rip your face off, then rub his fences in your exposed flesh. With a creepy as smile on his face the entire time. And after all of that you better have insurance because all those skin transplants are gonna cost you like 10 thousand dollars......skin is expensive these days.
Spiders are the creepiest creatures on earth.

Note: this is a one round debate so plan accordingly.Definition of creepy: "causing an unpleasant feeling of fear or unease."I'll list my own logical reasons as to why spiders are the creepiest creature on earth.1) spiders have eight legs, over a dozen eyes, and hide in places that usually go unnoticed until they are almost touching you. 2) spiders are everywhere. There are some other nasty, creepy creatures on earth but at least they don't regularly come into contact with us like spiders do. By having regular contact with spiders it increases the creepiness factor.3) spiders can be poisonous. The black widow spider and brown recluse are among the most poisonous spiders in the world and they can be commonly found in houses in the western United States. The black widow has the potential to kill a young baby, sickly elderly person, or anyone with a deficient immune system.4) spider eggs that hatch are simply terrifying. Nearly hundreds of mini spiders emerge around the mothership spider and move twice as fast in seemingly random directions.5) spiders leave webs that are sometimes nearly invisible so you accidentally walk into them. When you walk through a spider web you immediately get the hebee jebees because you suspect a spider is probably crawling around on it.6) spiders sometimes spin their helpless prey up in a cocoon before turning their guts to liquid and eat them alive (or dead).7) sometimes spider species usually tear each other apart mating. This a very creepy practice."The male redback, while copulating, "somersaults" and twists his abdomen directly onto the fangs of his mate. Approximately 65% of males are consumed at this stage."en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider_cannibalismSo in conclusion:They look nasty, they are everywhere, they will most likely be hidden in areas around you, some are poisonous and have the potential to kill, baby spider eggs distill fear in anyone witnessing them because there's nearly hundreds and the move fast and in random directions, spiders leave webs that are sometimes almost invisible and people that walk through them get creeped out, spiders cocoon their prey before eating their guts out, and some spider species more likely than not kill each other right after reproducing.Yeah, spiders are the creepiest creature on earth for all these reasons combined.
What number system would be the best replacement for base 10.

Thank you for correcting your numerical error though this was not neededThere is a lower abundance of repeating decimals compared to using base 10 for simpler common fractions as I have shown e.g. thirds and sixths in dozenal appear much nicer and make a good replacement, 0.4 and 0.2 is better to work with than 0.333.... and 0.666... which we normally work with.True, the only fractions that are simpler in decimal are 1/5 and 1/10 and their higher numerations. However there are an infinite number of primes so it is impossible to avoid repeating decimals for any system. I should have made my point clearer, I was trying to say that we don't get the same horrible decimals as we do in base 10. Memorizing the times tables is easy in dozinal due to the patterns that can be seen, see video if you have not done so already. True, there are less numbers in an 8x8 square than a 12x 12 square: http://mathforum.org...However pupils learn up to their 12 times table in base 10 because that is a good amount of numbers to learn, and that was hard. If you learn the same amount of numbers in octal the table would have to be rectangular and I'm not sure if that would be easier or whether a square of 64 numbers would be sufficient. If it is important for computer programmers or people learning programmiong languages to count in octal then I'm sure they can learn to do this, however if there is a practical system that is easier to learn at a young age for the majority of people then in my opinion that would make a better replacement. Everyone has to do maths when they make transactions, pay bills, manage their finances etc, so any replacement system should benefit everyone including computer programmers which it will when they are not working.