BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Reaganomics worked

if you want to argue that we should have gone through reaganomics even if it meant us going into debt, in order to squash the communists etc, sure whatever. but that doesn't mean we should do, as your thesis seems to suggest, reaganomics in order to maximize our economic returns as a society. the reason youve not shown this is because all youve argued is the communist thing, and not how reaganmics are better than other alternatives, or that the debt is worth it in general if we dont have communist issues. if you cant show these things, and you havent even attempted ot argue it... it's highly misleading and basically wrong to think reaganomics "worked"
Reaganomics worked

The massive debt was only caused by the massive military build up Reagan wanted. And it payed off. The Soviet Union couldn't keep up and dropped out of the Cold War. Now, the debt drawn up was only because there was a deficit in Reagan's first years of office because it took a little while to convert the system over to Reaganomics. And don't forget that the Democrats were massive spenders and blocked many of Reagan's tax and spending cuts.
Reaganomics worked

then we just have to disagree what should constitute "works". there are better ways to stimulate the economy than blanket tax cuts, and there was actually a lot of harm done by reagan's tax cuts for example the massive debt. i already address how unemployment doesn't really follow from his tax cuts, any more than low unemployment follows with Clinton's higher taxes and historical figures and other countires that also show that to be true. like i said, no one disputes it doesn't cause a stimulant effect. but considering the bigger picture, that doesn't mean it "works".
Reaganomics worked

I believe Reaganomics works because since taxes were lowered it was easier for the businesses to create jobs. When you have more people RECEIVING money, then that's more people that the government can tax therefore leading to a higher tax revenue. Reaganomics simply lowers taxes meaning that you get to keep more of your money. When you have more money, you spend more on goods and services like that new TV or video game that just came out. When competitors realize that that TV or video game is making money then the market becomes more competitive. Reaganomics also lowered unemployment from 10.8 to 5.3 percent.
Reaganomics worked

no one disputes that cutting taxes can stimulate the economy, or that giving rich people tax cuts can cause some trickle down effect. but to really say it "worked", you have to assume it caused signficant growth and was for the well being of the country. reagan was the initiator of our seventeen trillion dollar debt, it rose of significantce, just as bad if not worst, in his presidency than any other recent president. so first off we have a debt we now have to pay for. secondly reaganomics should be considered the best approach, to say it "worked". maybe in the 80s when were a lot larger in expanding our country's infrastructue, it was more warranted. but even then, and especially now, the focus should not be on supply side, but demand side. when the middle class has more money, they buy more unique products, they are the engine of the economy. they can buy a boat, whereas a poor person would just add more output to common necessities like shirts. more economies are built with focus on the middle class. reaganomics usually assumes trickle down, but the most direct route is not via the rich,but via the middle class. also, if we are going to give tax cuts, we might as well give them to people who create jobs, or do something beneficial to society, like starting a business or doing something "green" or something else of value. giving blanket tax cuts is inefficent use of tax cuts, and all around then isn't the optimal method to use. again, no one says reaganomics doesn't have some stimulant effect, and is not totally worthless. but when we got bills to pay, and there are better ways to stimulate the economy, it can't really be said to "work". *as to the employment numbers they don't mean much of anything. unemployment shrunk wth higher tax brackets of clinton, and were higher with the historical higher taxes in the past. also other countries have higher taxes, and yet decent employment numbers.
Reaganomics worked

reagan lowered taxes, so we can't blame the debt on just the military. if he hadnt lowered them we wouldnt have such high debt. also to think it was all military spending is just a bit naive. i looked into it and could cite more, but it was more than just militay spending back then, we had big government back then too. which means it covered a wide range of issues. i dont know what you mean that new deal program spending was frozen. and you say the government was buying from the private sector, but that's actually keynes notions. you keep forgetting that the main point isn't keynes or not, its whether there are better alteranatives to blaneket tax cuts, and whether trickle down is worth it. youve not really touched this with much of anything.
Reaganomics worked

I don't think you understood my WWII statement. What I said, or at least what I meant, was that since the New Deal Programs were frozen the Market could get back to normal since all this BS spending was stopped. You have to remember that the US government was buying from the private sector. Unemployment under Clinton only shrank because of Reagan's policies that were still in place. As well, Clinton also had a Republican congress/senate so most of his policies weren't passed Congress. As well, Clinton lowered taxes too. The Taxpayer relief program(1997) reduced some Federal Taxes so it's unfair to say that Clinton just raised them. As well, the debt under Reagan only increased because of all the Military spending he ordered and in took a few years for the Market to switch over to Reaganomics because the government was receiving less money.
Reaganomics worked

so it looks like you're not trying to address that better alternatives "worked" or not, but wish to switch gears to unrelated topics like Keynes v none etc. plus you are going all over the place, talking about unions etc too. not sure why, will address the points but they are all off. if you accept that the economy improved significantly after the depression and WWII then i dont have to cite the obvious studies showing it. but in your attempt to debunk Keynes by saying it was caused by WWII, you are in fact backing up Keynes. WWII is the government spending money, even if it's not on social programs like the New Deal etc. just because it's war spending and more republican doesn't mean it's not government spending. it almost seems like you are basing your beliefs on party lines and reasoning yourself into silly situations. Keynes makes sense, if you put money in the economy during a depression, it will cause stuff to happen. when stuff happens, the economy improves. some say we didnt do enough with the bail out of Obama. we do know that the economy is improving significantly since then even if slow, and that we didnt fall into deep depression etc. perhaps we'd have been better to give tax cuts instead of spending, not claiming it's always best to spend money. but that doesn't mean Keynes doesnt have some merit to it, particularly if it's a program we should be morally focusing on anyway, or should have. we shouldnt think government spending is without base. if the government stopped pending money right now the market would crash, they are like a third or massive percentage of our economy. healthcare, social security, etc, massive people spend massive amounts etc. you just seem to take whatever rhetoric you can find and argue it with little in the way of substance, ike saying Clinton good years was caused by reagan. truth is it was probably mostly capital gains being lower, spending being lowered, and internet and productivity inherent fixes in our economy. nothing to do with the president. yet you want to say it was reagan. you are basically allowing yourself to think you can never be wrong, by allowing yourself to make any connetion that has any logic at all to it, and attributing anything good to Reagan. perhaps reagan caused unemployment to fall quicker. i wouldnt stress reagan's policies so much though, cause history other countires etc show that we can have low unemployment with higher taxes etc. it's not all connected as much as you think. again, to say reagonmics works, you have to justify it the way ive been saying but for the most part you are arguing off point topics, and at best maybe he helped unemployment fall faster. unions aren't always good or bad, reagan just recognized that. there's not much to argue about here. it's way off topic anyways. reaganomics has to do with tax cuts, and trickle down, remember.
Reaganomics worked

Well let's talk about Keynesian Economics. Keynes suggested that when an Economy crashed, it was the Government's job to get the market going again. Where as F.A. Hayek said that the government should allow the forces of Free-will and a Free-Market capitalist system sort out the problem. Keynesian Economics was proven wrong during the Great Depression and the 2008 Recession. The New Deal spent massive amount of money to make jobs. Nothing happened.In fact, some may argue it got worse. Many people say WWII ended the Great Depression but not directly. When WWII started, many New Deal programs were frozen so more money could go the Military. There was a big debate going on after the end of WWII to reboot the New Deal but Republicans said no. The 2008 Recession was when the Government pumped massive amounts of money into the Market. Unemployment has gone down very slightly. After every Economic Crash, there is always a massive boom a few years later. This recovery we're in now is painfully sluggish. Now,how do we know that when unemployment went down under Reagan that it was just the economy acting in a natural way? Because in 3-5 years, unemployment dropped from 10.8 percent to 5.3 percent. That is one of the biggest and fastest drops in US Economic history. Many people also attribute the booming 90's to Reagan as well. Since Reagan's policies killed the USSR economically, we didn't have to spend as much money on the Military. Reagan also knew how to get the most out of the worker too. You see, Reagan didn't think that the existence of Unions was a bad thing, he embraced them. Hell, he was a leader of one. But he saw that they gained too much power and that the Unions were starting to be the useless weight. Just like how dangerous working conditions used to exist in the working place. Reagan cut Union powers and regulations making the Market have risk but have protection from stupid gambling.
Resolved: The US should abandon the War on Terror.

This will be a team debate.Teams:Pro: ColeTrain, famousdebaterCon: fire_wings, everlastingmoment Rules:No trollingNo kritiksNo semanticsNo forfeitsMaintain a civil and decorous atmosphereCitations or foot/endnotes may be provided in the commentsNo new arguments in the final roundThe BoP is sharedFailure to comply to these stipulations or following round structure renders an automatic lossRound Structure:Round 1:Pro - RulesCon - AcceptanceRound 2:Pro - Opening ArgumentsCon - Opening ArgumentsRound 3:Pro - RebuttalsCon - RebuttalsRound 4:Pro - Defense & RebuttalsCon - Defense & RebuttalsGood luck! We look forward to an engaging discussion!
Who will win Super bowl XLVIII? PRO- Denver. CON- Seattle

Thank you for being so kind and forfeiting that round. Much respect -Them having a front seven or eight (it varies) leaves four defensive players. The Broncos are left with 2 receivers. Two receivers up against 3 or 4 defenders. Where are you doing this math? Lets say that they rush 8, there is 11 on the field. That leaves 4 people to guard the other receivers. 4 corners or 2 corners and 2 safeties. Now the Broncos do not have to keep everyone to block everyone. Peyton Manning would check down to a slant and bust right through the defense. However, the Broncos had the record of loudest stadium before the Seahawks. Two very loud teams. Actually it was the chiefs and seahawks that had the loudest teams this season The Seattle Defense is the best overall defense, and were ranked best pass defense. [Washington Times] But they are facing against the arguably the best quarterback of all time... with a great receiving core.
Who will win Super bowl XLVIII? PRO- Denver. CON- Seattle

-You are just focusing on one man. Are you forgetting the other formidable receivers in Wes Welker and Eric Decker? No I am not. If the Seahawks can apply pressure onto Manning, thats a win. The Seattle defense is excellent against the run. Them having a front seven or eight (it varies) leaves four defensive players. The Broncos are left with 2 receivers. Two receivers up against 3 or 4 defenders. -The Super Bowl is at a neutral stadium the crowd noise will not be deafening for either way. Even if 60% of Seahawks fans attend and only 40% broncos fans attend there will still be a 40% of the crowd quiet, much better than 98% of the crowd screaming. However, the Broncos had the record of loudest stadium before the Seahawks. Two very loud teams. -I do agree that Manning is a Superior Quarterback. However, if the Seahawks can cover Welker, Thomas, and Decker, apply pressure to Manning, that stops the Denver Offense. -The offensive line of the Broncos ahead of the Seahawks which is key to having a successful run game. In the conditions of the Super Bowl this will be key. I admit that Lynch is better than Moreno but the offensive live is the difference maker here. The Seattle Defense is the best overall defense, and were ranked best pass defense. [Washington Times] Thank you. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Who will win Super bowl XLVIII? PRO- Denver. CON- Seattle

-However, if the Seattle front eight is able to stop Thomas in his route or something, then the Broncos have lost one of their receivers. You are just focusing on one man. Are you forgetting the other formidable receivers in Wes Welker, Demarious Thomas, and Eric Decker? -The Broncos have an impressive Offensive line, but its really hard to block 8 Defensive linemen to protect a Quarterback/ running back. Rushing 8 people would be considered a blitz leaving 4 men to drop into coverage. Manning is one of the smartest quarterback ever and would easily pick the blitz up and check down to a slant or screen that would nullify the blitz. You do not have to block 8 guys all the time. Just get rid of the ball faster -Another key factor is the noise levels. The Seattle Seahawks hold the current noise record at 137.6 dbA. The Super Bowl is at a neutral stadium the crowd noise will not be deafening for either way. Even if 60% of Seahawks fans attend and only 40% broncos fans attend there will still be a 40% of the crowd quiet, much better than 98% of the crowd screaming. Now my case. Overall at his position Peyton Manning is far superior to Russell Wilson. if you cannot agree with that leave this debate. The NFL is a quarterback's league as far as i am concerned and will be for some time. Secondly I would put the offensive line of the Broncos ahead of the Seahawks which is key to having a successful run game. In the conditions of the Super Bowl this will be key. I admit that Lynch is better than Moreno but the offensive live is the difference maker here. The Broncos core of receivers far surpasses the core of the Seahawks, with the extra boost of Manning this core will be key in the Super Bowl. The defense of Seattle is very good but the Broncos defense is no pushover either. We will see if the cockiness of Seattle's secondary will have any effect on their morale if they find themselves overmatched against the legend: Peyton Manning
Who will win Super bowl XLVIII? PRO- Denver. CON- Seattle

Thank you. One of the Key factors is the Broncos Tight end. Julius Thomas. However, if the Seattle front eight is able to stop Thomas in his route or something, then the Broncos have lost one of their receivers. The Broncos have an impressive Offensive line, but its really hard to block 8 Defensive linemen to protect a Quarterback/ running back. Their other receivers will be hard to cover, but if the hawks can manage that, then they can win the Super Bowl. Another key factor is the noise levels. The Seattle Seahawks hold the current noise record at 137.6 dbA. They have the 12th man, and I believe that the fact that their team made it to the Big game will bring these levels to a big high. From Sports Illustrated 1/20/14, "Three things Seattle defenders probably said to each other as they huddled before hosting the Saints on Saturday: 1] remember your assignments. 2] don't miss tackles. 3] This place is about to get REALLY loud, so we'll talk again at halftime." The third major factor will be the weather. Considering the fact that this Super Bowl will not be played at a dome, the Temperature and precipitation will be one of the most important factors. If it is to snow, the Denver Broncos will have a small advantage for they live snow. If not, on the contrary. I will be able to be back later in the round I hope to discuss the weather factor, but for now, that is it. Thank you.
Spongebob Squarepants does drugs.

Sidlee, I thought about it and I figured it out. Mr. Krabs himself is not an addict, but instead, being the capitolist character that he is, is the supplier of the drugs. In what form? Krabby patties. That is right, the krusty Krab's is actually a large black market for drugs gisguised as a burger joint. Wanna know what the secret ingredient is? Cocaine. In fact, we will call them "crack patties" now. That is why the businness is so successfull. Plankton, who became addicted to the stuff is trying to figure out what drug he has become adicted to. Songebob and patrick are probably the ones who eat the stuff the most. Thanks to Mr. Krabs, the whole town is jsut a bunch of drugees. For proof, there was one episode when spongebob learns that squidward had never tried a Krabby patty. Spongebob then continuosly pesters him, trying to get him to try one. Squidward adamantly refuses. Finally giving in, squidward tries the tiniest crumb of the meat. He pretends not to like it, but has in reality become extremely addicted. He has dreams about Krabby patties all night and finally gets out of bed in the middle of the night. He breaks into the Krusty Krabs adn breaks into, and locks himself into the vault full of Krabby patties in the Krusty krabs. Spongebob, coming to work early, arns him through the iron door not to eat too many, but squidward ignores him,...and consequently explodes. He goes to the hospital. The dude in the ambulance says: "ahhh..I remember my first Krabby patty". Personal interpretation: Spongebob finally learns why his nieghbor is such a tense, stressed out person: He had never tried one of Mr. Krab's delicious Crack Patties (or "crackie patties", whichever you prefer). Trying to be helpful, he encourages him to try one. Squidward, giving in to peer pressure, tries one and becomes addicted. If one little crumb can make you so addicted, there is a high cocaine concentration. He breaks and enters, breaking the law, Krusty Krabs and eats all the Krabby patties like the thief and burglar and notorious criminal that he is. He explodes, as he deserves, for it was the will of god to make this horrible drugee, criminal to simultaneously combust. That is very innapropriate. This is not a good message to Kids. I think they should make it more appropriate. Here is my proposal: They are cancelled, but before that, they have one final episode. In this episode, the citizens of bikini bottom burn down the krusty krab, and also burn ptrick, squidward, and spongebob at the stake...Possibly while chanting "HARLAN IS OUR GOD!...HARLAN IS OUR GOD!...HARLAN IS OUR GOD!". This would be a much more appropriate message, it would teach Kids that: -People who do drugs are bad -If they do drugs, they will be burned to death -I, Harlan, am their god. -Harlan
Spongebob Squarepants does drugs.

Hello, I disagree or...agree...or soemthing...whatever...but I would like to join in on the speculation. Spongebob is indeed a junkee, if you want proof, I randomly typed "spongebob drugs" into a google image search, and look what I found: http://images-cdn01.associatedcontent.com... And there we have it, undisputable proof. He is obviously high most of the time, due to his incescant giggling. Sure, some will say: "it is just a kid's show. He is purposefully full of nonsense for the sake of comedy." These people are OBVIOUSLY part of this conspiracy in which the media encourages kids to do drugs. In fact, when his annoying laugh is played backwards, this is what it says: "smoke marijuana...smoke marijuana...smoke marijuana...smoke marijuana" No wonder I have that strange impulse after my younger siblings watch the show, I am reading, allowing my subconscious mind to pick up these dangerous messages! It is a complicated comspiracy involving Anti-American, nazi, commumist, terrorist, evil, iillegal immigrating, mad scientist, flag-burning, Islamic extremists who hate puppies! In the background of the show, there is always wierd pink or green flowers, just kinda hovering there. No doubt about it...they are definitely high. No doubt about it. And we must ask...are they really underwater...does he really live in a pineapple, or are these two, from the perspective of the constantly intoxicated spongebob. "whoa...look at all them jellyfish...Whoaaa..." Bot what we really must ask: Are you high? You have posted a debate about spongebob, a children's TV show. We really must wonder (don't take that seriously). 8?)
Spongebob Squarepants does drugs.

My brain cells tell me that yes, he and the pink guy sit under that rock (which the pink guy lovingly calls his home) and toke up. Actually, the two probably got a hold of some white pony, which explains why they're, more often than not, insanely hyper. The squid is actually the pothead, due to his frequent stage of mellow-ness. The plankton is on acid, for he constantly tries to steal a secret ingredient to a food that simply doesn't exist: Krabby Patties. Or DO krabby patties exist? Anyway, the point is that despite all this, my heart is shouting at me: "No no! The show is just about a talking sponge! It's harmless." So, I say no...there is no way on earth that Spongebob, Patrick, Mr. Krabs, and Plankton are drugheads. I also wish to admit to the readers of this...series of words...will not make a sophistocated debate topic whatsoever, because I just argued both sides, and every word I type is utter nonsense. This is all more of a...statement. Why did I waste my time with this? I don't know. I suppose the answer is that I love to philosophize. It's fun, and that's what we all need more of...fun and laughter. So hopefully you laughed at all of this...although probably not...and had a bit of fun reading it.
Spongebob Squarepants does drugs.

*EVRYONE, PLEASE DISREGARD ALL OF MY PREVIOS POSTS ON THIS DEBATE, AS NONE OF THEM REFLECT MY OPINIONS* It was just a joke. The world of spongebob is purely hypothetical. But then, all of the world as I know and see it is just signals received by the brain, which is isolated by the skull. But the hypothetical world of spongebob, for me, solely exists in my mind, and therefore may be warped at my will. I created a farcical situation that, amusingly enough, fit perfectly with the story plot. Did the writers purposely create this? Of course not. The people that know me know that I am a very peaceful parson, though I can have a dark sense of humor. Perhaps you missed the joke. The joke was that that episode I proposed would be extremely inappropriate, much more inappropriate than the real episode to which I described. It was just a joke, geez… PS. Please don't bother voting on this debate, everyone, I was not portraying my real opinion.