BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Republicans better handle the economy than Democrats

I will now rebuild my case. "I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration." This is quite an ironic argument as Jimmy Carters economic presidency was marked by several conservative decisions. Namely, marking down the top capital gains tax from 98% to 28%. [1] In reality however the biggest cause of bad economics in the Carter administration was the 1979 energy crisis. This was caused due to reduced oil output in Iran from the Iranian revolution. While global oil supply only decreased by 4% there was a mass overreaction which caused the crisis. [2] "Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone." Then provide me some evidence! " I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video:" Democrats aren't socialists. [3] "Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office." All you show here is that Jimmy Carters presidency saw 2.8% growth rates. My opponent gives some statistics about good things that happened under president Reagan's presidency. The problem is that he can't actually show that these were a result of his policies. Here is another article that explains why cutting taxes does not create more jobs. [4] "History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats." Not true at all. Historically who is economically better isn't even a debate. [5] My opponent has failed to provide sources, and when confronted to prove that economic policies are good or bad (rather than just good or bad things occurring) he has failed. For these reasons I can see no other vote than con. 1. http://www.ctj.org... 2. http://www.heritage.org... 3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 4. http://people.stern.nyu.edu... 5. http://www.forbes.com...
Republicans better handle the economy than Democrats

I would like to start this round by stating my opponent's previous argument is completely flawed. My opponent blamed President Ronald Reagan for bad economics by telling only half of the story and using oversimplified facts to support his argument. I would like to set the record straight by stating that the Ronald Reagan administration inherited the worst American economy in the 20th Century since the Great Depression from the Carter administration. As my opponent pointed out the income tax rate for the wealthy during this time period was approximately 70%. If that's not a high tax rate my friends then I don't know what is. Regardless of who you are and how much wealth you have you shouldn't be punished or held down by the government with high tax rates. The Democrats would like you to believe that cutting taxes only benefits the wealthy and creates a massive inequality problem. That is false. Cutting taxes eases the strain placed on businesses and benefits everyone. I am aware that she was not an American politician however she makes this point clear that liberals do not see that tax cuts benefits everyone not just the wealthy in the following you tube video: http://www.youtube.com... I would like to further point out that unemployment rates under the Carter administration hovered around 7.5% and increased to nearly 10.5% in the first few months of the Reagan administration due to the final effects being felt by Carter economics. Reagan was able to shift the economy back in gear and the unemployment rate fell to 5.4% when he left the white house. According to USA today, "the rest of Reagan's presidency was characterized by tremendous economic success. Inflation declined to 3.71 percent in 1983 and averaged 4.4 percent for the eight-year period. GDP growth turned positive and averaged about 3.8 percent per year. Much of this success was attributed to Reagan's position on taxes and the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982." It is clear that Ronald Reagan did the complete opposite of what my opponent claims and achieved substantial success for the economy. Under the current Democratic president our economy is growing at 1.4%, half the rate it was when Reagan took office. Further statistics show that barely half of college graduates can't find work today. In the country that is supposed to be the "land of opportunity" our own college graduates can't find work? That, to me, is disgusting. History has mostly shown, with a few minor exceptions, that the majority of Republican administrations and governments have handled the economy better than democrats. They spend more conservatively and ensure that there is always economic growth and opportunity for all.
Republicans better handle the economy than Democrats

Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. First let's look at the Republican side. The Republican position on economics has been founded on the tactics of Ronald Reagan. These beliefs promote a flat/gradual tax, low government spending, minimal regulation of businesses and tightening the money supply in order to reduce inflation. Firstly Reagan couldn't uphold his promise to cut spending. During his terms he spent 22.4% of GDP. The average from 1971 to 2009 was 20.6%. The public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. Public debt went from 712 billion dollars to 2.052 trillion dollars over his term. [2] The extreme top income tax cuts (70% to 28%) have caused massive problems. Not only is the idea that this will cause more employment from now wealthier businessmen unsubstantiated, [3] but because CEO's are far more likely to take large sums of money with lower taxes employees get less and less money. This caused explosive income inequality. [4] Not only is this bad for individuals, but it is bad for the economy overall. Stagnating wages hurt the middle class, which causes them to buy less products, which causes companies to earn less, which causes lower profits, which causes layoffs, which causes more income inequality. [5] Clearly Republican economic strategies have failed. The Democratic side promotes progressive tax, welfare spending and business regulation. All of these things battle income inequality, which I have shown to be a cycling and massive problem. Clearly Democrats handle the economy better than Republicans. For anyone not convinced/in need for more information can just look at this website. [6] 1. http://www.econlib.org... 2. http://www.cbo.gov... 3. http://www.nytimes.com...; 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 5. http://robertreich.org... 6. http://www.dailykos.com...
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

You only make one point this time We need to police our borders. Now, you ignore a few key points 1. importance of our allies If we protect the borders of our allies, that is policing the world 2. better protection of our selves comes from policing If we police some parts of the world, we have a better chance of saving lives What you actually brought up, Means very little in this round. Yes we need to police out own borders. But the best defense is a good offense. The Cuban Missile Crisis, was an event of Russia sending weapons to Cuba. We were not at war with Cuba. The Cold War is more of a time period than a war. Vietnam and Korea were wars. We went to the UN security council and POLICED RUSSIA AND CUBA to stop trading weapons. Specifically CBM and IMBM (close range and intermediate range ballistic missiles). The IMBM had the range to reach our capital! We forced trade embargos, started policing AND stopped direct confrontation. In this instance, the best defense is a good offense. ***We better protect ourselves be policing the world. ***We better help our allies by policing the world.
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

In your second paragraph you say that "we're not debating war we're debating policing the world." However, in your first paragraph your talking about war. All your quotes are about war. First, I agree. War is inevitable. So what we're debating is how can the U.S. stay out of the most wars. What is the best way to prevent ourselves from being attacked? You point out that we got hit at Pearl Harbour but you don't give any solutions as to what we could have done to better protect ourselves. You point out that we got hit on 911. At this time the U.S. had long had a policy of policing the world. We have military bases all over the world. We had CIA operatives constantly looking for Bin Laden. The U.S. government was trying to control so many areas of the world. Guess what? We still got hit on September 11. This wasn't the first time we got hit either. The twin towers had been hit before. How bout the USS Cole? We got hit on September 11 because we didn't have control of our borders. These guys basically walked across our southern border took flying lessons and hijacked some planes. So what do we do about this? Well we definitely don't have control of our borders. (Really quickly though. I do think that we should hunt down Osama Bin Laden and terrorists where ever they may be. I think we should bomb the living crap out of them when we find them. However, I want it to be clear that killing terrorists is a response to an act of war they committed. It's not policing the world it's fighting a war somebody else started. I don't think that setting up a democracy in Iraq is part of this war. That's policing the world.) In fact some of the most experienced border agents we have are being paid huge salaries by the government to leave their post guarding the Mexican border with New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Texas and to go to Iraq to defend their border. Talk about making matters worse. Also the reason we haven't seen attacks over here is because terrorrists are just as happy to kill Americans in Iraq as they are to kill Americans here at home. If we don't drop this policy of trying to manipulate world events and focus on securing our borders and bringing our troops home to help defend our nation then when everything settles down in Iraq and our troops start leaving we will get hit again. Remember also that in the Cuban Missile Crisis we were in the Cold War. It wasn't a traditional war but it was a war nonetheless. While I do think that some of the actions taken in the Cold War were policing the world (Vietnam) I don't think that this was one of them. This was a country we were at war with (even if it wasn't a traditional war) putting missiles on our back door step.
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

You make three points 1. Eisenhower said preventive war is bad 2. Alliances are bad 3. Peaceful protection 1. "The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike at him as hard as you can and as often as you can, and keep moving on." Ulysses S. Grant "War is the only game in which it doesn't pay to have the home-court advantage." Dick Motta "I have never advocated war except as a means of peace." Ulysses S. Grant "We are going to have peace even if we have to fight for it." Dwight D. Eisenhower All these men, INCLUDING EISENHOWER, claim war is necessary. Now when war is begun, you can start it, or you can get hit by hit. We got hit in Pearl Harbor. We got hit in September 11. We hit first in the Cuban Missile Crisis. We made a PREEMPTIVE strike in Cuba and saved the lives of countless Americans. You ignore a key point, we aren't debating war, we are debating policing of the world. The CMC was not an act of war, but the placing of trade embargoes (world policing). Why is controlling the economy of countries to saves lives bad. Besides, a life is priceless. 2. George Washington made that quote when there were only around 4 countries in the world that mattered. France, Spain, England, and America. The first three were all violent towards each other off and on. In that case, making an alliance would lead directly to war. Today is a new day. We NEED ALLIANCES TO SURVIVE. Imagine if no one wanted to sell us oil? What if we fought off WWII all by ourselves? Washington was right in 1785, but not in 2008. We need our allies. What is wrong with having help? I never claimed we would make alliances and go to war because we are allied, but go to war, protect our allies to protect ourselves. 3. "You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time" Albert Einstein You claim that we can protect ourselves and prevent war. Einstein would disagree. And he makes sense. If you are preparing for war, you are instigating it. What if we are invaded from troops? We would have to kill them. We can't just shoot down missiles. War involves so much more than that. We could fund programs that will protect us. But you can not ignore that we can protect ourselves better if we never let other countries even get the missiles to fire at us. "Everyone's a pacifist between wars. It's like being a vegetarian between meals." Colman McCarthy
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

I disagree. In your hypothetical situations you propose that the U.S. should do two things. Use military force to stop weapons sells, and basically make decisions along the lines of we're allied with country A. Country A has gone to war. We should go to war. Ok, as to the first situation. President Eisenhower said "Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously who came and talked about such a thing." This was the man who commanded the allied forces in WW2. He knew war. Second scenario. George Washington warned us against entangling alliances. If one studies WW1 they will find that the reason it became a WORLD war was because of entangling alliances. Basically, two nations got into a war and their allies went straight to war with them. No questions asked. Now that I have rebutted your hypothetical situations with real life ones, let us pretend that your hypothetical situation about the countries selling weapons to each other was real. President Reagan started a program called Star Wars. It's purpose was to destroy enemy missiles headed toward the U.S. If we had kept programs like these, built more of them, and secured our borders then the threat your hypothetical country posed wouldn't be much of a threat at all.
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

The United States should police the world when it need to be policed This debate is solely focused on out national security So here are some reasons why policing the world directly and indirectly protects national security 1. Directly Let's imagine there are two countries called X and Y. X is neutral and builds weapons while Y is weak but hates the USA. Country Y sells weapons to Country X The USA can wait for X to attack, or take a preemptive strike and blockade the trade between X and Y. Example Cuban Missile Crisis 2. Indirectly Say the USA relies heavily on Israel's protection in the Middle East. Iran threatens to attack Israel. Iran has the whole Middle East on it's side. USA can step in and stop Iran or watch as our ally falls, and then we are defenseless and are soon attacked too. Example Gulf War (US placing of troops in Saudi Arabia)
The U.S. best hope for national security is to stop policing the world.

America's best hope for national security is not being involved in every area in the world it is to secure our borders. The United States involving themselves in other countries matters only gives these countries reason to hate us and sets this country up for disaster later. Osama Bin Laden would not have the power he does today if it were not for the fact that the U.S. sent him aid to fight the Soviets. Now he is our greatest and most dangerous enemy. Alot of people would say that the idea I have just put forth is one of isolationism and is what caused WW2. Isolationism is not what caused WW2. The Treaty of Versailles dictating how Germany had to live and Britain's and France's military weakness caused WW2. I am all for constantly building up the military for national defense, but it should be used for defense, not for policing the world.
Religion shouldn't be forced on young children

But religion isn't just going to church, it consists of so much, young children don't just blow it off like its nothing, children won't know what to believe, so they would take in the whole bible and the church and what their parents tell them to do as something they have to do, its interesting to them, so they may believe it, but children shouldn't decide on their whole lives by what their parents think is real or not real, or what they think it wrong or right, you should always do whats right of course, and always listen to your parents, but you shouldn't have to decide on what you will believe in and take up all your heart and soul to be part of, straight away, just because your parents do.
Religion shouldn't be forced on young children

Most people around the world are part of some religion, many are religious as a family, I believe that religion should not be decided on, or discussed (between child and parent) until they are at least 7 years old. I was born into a religious family, I wasn't aloud to believe in fairy's, santa clause, magic, ghosts (or any other kind after death like thing) and many other things that I child thinks are real, I was told that Jesus was real, my family told me to believe in him, to read the Bible, to pray and say sorry to the lord whenever I did something wrong and to never believe, be part or, read or see anything that would be "offensive" to the lord. I missed out on watching many childhood tv shows and games because the character was strange and "bought darkness from saitan to the house". My childhood was so different, I missed out on so many things! Children who are bought up in religions don't have any choice, they are forced to believe that not following the religion is wrong. If my family was still living with my grandma, I wouldn't be aloud to not go to a christian school, parties would be not aloud, I would have to go to church every sunday (don't I need time to sleep, do homework and catch up with my friends?), read the bible and pray every night, I wouldn't be aloud to say anything even remotely wrong like crap or damn, I wouldn't be aloud to wear short dresses, I couldn't watch cool movies that come out because they have swearing in them and the list goes on and on! (I am 13 years old so I still go to school and everything) So many children have to live like this, not knowing that in the future, they will realize just how ruined their childhood was. I believe in ghosts, I find forensic science interesting, I swear when I am angry, I want to be in relationships, I listen to normal music, I watch normal movies, so many people my age miss out on doing normal teenage things. Children should only be given the OPTION of religion when they can make a decision they can stick by, for me that is around 7 or 8 years old.
most tasty food and most healthy

well if you say ice cream I think it is all a thing of possibility. but what I think is the best and most health is frozen waffles here are the facts Great taste and texture, due partly to "good" fats. Canola oil and flax meal add monounsaturated and some omega-3 fatty acids -- a welcome trade off from the mostly dry low-fat waffles out there. Total fat is 8 g (1 g saturated), fiber 5 g and protein 4 g. Sodium on the high side at 330 mg. Follow suggestions to thaw slightly before toasting and not to over-toast (prevents hard texture). also grew up on Debbie Cakes, sodas, chocolate candy bars, and cotton candy. There were very few fruits and vegetables that I liked, but boy how taste buds can change when given properly prepared foods! I'm learning how GOOD fruits and veggies can taste. I've been learning a lot over the last few months about our health, our health care system, the foods we eat, and food manufacturers. This documents some of what I've learned and what I'm doing about the new found knowledge. so I ate frozen pancakes with fruits in it. My family likes waffles better than pancakes. I wish I was a homemaker who made batches of healthy whole wheat waffles to keep on hand in the freezer, but frankly, I'm not. I have yet to invest in a waffle iron, and I confess - I bought a box of Eggo waffles last time they were on sale. I know, it's far from "natural." But it's what my family likes, and right now I'm at the stage of just trying to get more produce in them rather than becoming the enemy by depriving them. However, there are better options than Smucker's Chocolate Chip Snack'n Waffles with 15 grams of sugar per waffle which sort of cancels out the benefits of the whole wheat that's included. If you're partial to Eggo's low sale price, at least go with the whole grain variety. Since I have a wheat allergy, I prefer Van's wheat-free waffles. If you're looking for brands with wheat and natural ingredients, check out Kashi, Van's, and Nature's Path (though I haven't tried any of them)
most tasty food and most healthy

i AcCepT. i DoNt KnOw WhO tHinKs CorN iS hEaLtHy bEcaUz iT is NoT. Is tHiS a QuEsTioN Or DeBaTe? tHe pRo iS a mOroNic IdIot. vOtE cOn. iCe CrEaM iS tHe MoSt HeLtHy aNd TaStY fOoOd beCuz it LoWeRs YoUr blOdOD pReSSSuUre aNd hAs No suGar. iT iS aWesoMe lIkE hOw gOoGlE iS eVil anD wIll TaKe oVeR tHe WoRlD! sOrCes: www.tinyurl.com/debateDDO
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

The human dimension of God (i.e. Jesus) didn't exist on earth in the flesh before 0 A.D. Here's hoping you can accept this basic fact. Christians believe that His Laws are given new meaning with His life and mission. His mission, described by Him in the New Testament, wasn't about passive acceptance of His fate but about active criticism of old ways of thinking about the Law. He places emphasis on the interior struggle and individual morality. Christianity is based on forgiveness and compassion. So contrary to Pro, there is a new understanding of the Law manifest in the life of Jesus Christ. He instituted a new Covenant, membership to which is by faith, not by ancestry. It's contained in the New Testament. Jesus did not come down to tell us obey the old Law 'to the letter'. He taught His followers to follow his way of life while keeping the commandments. Thou shalt not kill.... Again, if love God and love your neighbour is the basis for our understanding of Law, then it follows from the essence of this, and the just conduct of Jesus/God on earth, that it is wrong to execute children for any reason.
King's Jesus command that man execute sodomites should be obeyed!

But you deny Jesus is God when you deny He is the Lawgiver per Scripture and say He did not exist prior to 0 AD. There is no new understanding of the Law, which is why Jesus said to follow it to the letter. Again, you ignore Matt 5:17-19. Yes, Jesus came to complete (i.e., fulfill) the Law, which is WHY it is valid and binding until heaven and earth pass. And the fact that Jesus quotes the OT Law shows you your error, but you are too blind to see it. It is like con thinks Jesus made a mistake when He commanded man to execute sodomites. He does remind me of the Pharisees in Mark 7:6:13, who Jesus said were hypocrites for claiming to follow God and yet denying His Law, including His Law that commanded man to execute kids who dishonor their parents.