BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Welfare Should be Abolished

WELFARE COSTSYou put a figure at $600,000 dollars a head, but that figure is drawn from nowhere. Whilst I gave a percentage that 2.1% were taken above the poverty line, this does not account for a) all others that were helped andb) all other examples of welfare that the expenditure figure you have given includesSo the $600,000 dollars a head figure is nonsense. PRIVATE SPHERE DANGERYou want to take away government accountability for welfare and make it lie with individuals. We're talking about old people here, the handicapped too. People who rely on welfare and use the power of their vote to make a difference. Taking welfare into the private sphere is incredibly dangerous - accountability must be recognised as being a necessity. Also you then increasd your figure of spending per head to $620,000. Again I must repeat, this figure is nonsense. SOCIETYYou speak of society in a rather cut throat manner. While I ackowledge that the USA is one of the biggest givers (domestically, not internationally) in terms of charity, you cannot simply rely on this to keep functioning. You know as well as I do that when times are hard, charities suffer. During recession or other financial crisis, its often charities who suffer as people tighten the purse strings. You speak of a capitalism whereby the system in itself is inherently selfish, and the people must look after themselves and themselves be responsible for welfare. This is irresponsible. SUMMARYMy debate partner has successfully highlighted issues regarding the state of welfare in the United States. While he admits it is proven to reduce poverty, he slates it for being expensive, and suggests we abolish state welfare and look to remove it to the private sphere. He does not however provide a successful defence for privitising welfare, or the private sphere as a replacement. The issues he raises would be better dealt with through reform rather than abolishing for an alternative that he himself can give little detail of or account for. The arguments against welfare all too often become ideological, and he highlights this by slating the whole idea of welfare as being 'socialist'. Simply labelling something with a brand goes nowhere to provide serious critique. Finally, the figures my opponent cites at $600,000 dollars a head are simply untrue as I have shown above, and cannot be taken seriously. CONCLUDING REMARKWelfare is relied upon by a large number of very genuine people, including the old, handicapped and poor. Privitising it and thus taking away accountability from the government is incredibly risky, and is playing with peoples lives. I firmly believe and protest that the government represents us as a collective, and that even in a capitalist system we have a duty to our fellow man. While reform needs to be made to the current welfare system, it must be the government who is held reponsible for poverty & social mobility and not private organisations. I can come to no other conlusion than the abolishment of welfare would be unforseeable and unforgivable.
Welfare Should be Abolished

Using my opponent's source I agree that poverty in the U.S. has decreased 2.1% since welfare was instituted. However, what is the cost for this 2.1% decrease? The U.S. spends approximately $1 trillion per year on welfare programs. http://www.bookrags.com... However, as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is included I will use a conservative number of less than half or $400 billion per year. Now let's take a look at the poverty thresholds in the U.S.A. In order for a single person to be considered living in poverty he or she must earn $11,639 or below.(http://www.census.gov...) The U.S. Federal minimum wage level is set at $7.25 per hour. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Taking into account a 1 week unpaid vacation, a full time minimum wage worker will earn $14,790 per year. Even at a 15% combined federal and state income tax a single, full time minimum wage worker will be above the poverty threshold. The U.S. is spending over $400 billion annually to provide for people who cannot or refuse to obtain full time minimum wage employment is unacceptable. Additionally, the percentage of Americans on welfare has remained somewhat consistent. If welfare was such a tremendous success in uplifting people from poverty why has the percentage of Americans receiving aid remained somewhat consistent? It appears that welfare has done nothing more than to minimally decrease poverty levels at an astronomic cost while creating a sub society that is reliant on it. Outside of the U.S., many countries spend above 30% of their GDP on welfare. Giving from the haves to provide for the have not's is socially irresponsible. Regardless of we are not dealt the same hand in life how does welfare alleviate this and exactly how does society fail individuals? Is it the fault of society if someone fails to complete high school and cannot obtain employment because they don't have the qualifications for the position? Is it society's fault when someone who cannot afford to have children has 5? As I stated earlier, there are times when people need a helping hand. Private organizations are more than capable of handling the system. Prior to government getting into the services business there were many private organizations that provided for society. They were eliminated not because they were incapable but rather they were no longer needed as government took the reins. Additionally, the U.S. welfare system contracts with many private organizations. (http://aspe.hhs.gov...) Government is so adept at providing for their "poor" citizens that they outsource much of the work? It is not the responsibility of government to provide for their citizens. The welfare programs in the U.S. and abroad is nothing but socialism. As a "free" society we should not be taxed to death in order to provide for the less fortunate. U.S. citizens already donate over $300 billion per year to charity. (http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu...) Charities like Feeding America operate over 90,000 programs in the country already. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) To say that private organizations are incapable is simply not true.
Welfare Should be Abolished

I will argue that welfare should not be abolished (with specific reference to the United States), and that is in fact essential to a) reduce poverty and b) promote social mobility I will go on to argue that leaving social welfare to the private sphere would be irresponsible and not fitting of a 21st century developed state. OPENING STATEMENT I am proud to live in a country (UK) that has a welfare system. While I won't keep refering to the UK, as this debate is specifically about the United States, welfare is something that I very much expect the government to provide. It is a safety net that I know, that should something go wrong, the government will be there to help. None of us can say when we might have the misfortune to need it. It is one of the priviliges so many undeveloped countries do not enjoy. My argument is primarily going to focus on two points that I mentioned briefly above. 1) That welfare has been shown to reduce poverty levels and 2) That welfare promotes social mobility. POVERTY REDUCTION I would like my debate partner to consider that poverty levels in any country are very much an issue the government in question must deal with and not the private sphere. It is empirically proven that welfare reduces poverty levels: USA POVERTY LEVELS [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] 1970-1997 Before Welfare 17.2 % After Welfare 15.1 % This is not a massive decrease, but it is still notable. In other countries (e. g UK, Norway, Sweden, Germany) welfare reduces poverty levels by over 50%. Thus, the question we pose should not be about abolishing welfare in the USA but how to reform it and bring it up to the same standards set in other nations. Taking it from the government sphere however would be dangerous and risky. This is a key government issue, and not dealing with it as such would have one serious implication: taking away government accountability for poverty levels WELFARE PROMOTES SOCIAL MOBILITY We are not all dealt the same hand in life. Some are luckier than others. We do not all currently receive the same education, the same opportunities. Discrimination exists, it is a fact of society. Often the people we blame for 'taking advantage' of welfare have actually previously been failed by our society. I will concede that there are those out there who may indeed simply take advantage our of lazyness. But there are those who won't. Why should we punish many for the actions of a few? Welfare itself needs to be reformed and improved. More means testing needs to be implemented. But the idea of taking it out of the government sphere or altogether abolishing it is extreme and dangerous. I look forward to my debate partners thoughts on the issues I have raised.
Welfare Should be Abolished

It is my contention that all welfare programs in the United States should be abolished. Welfare creates a dependent sub society and creates an opportunity for unethical people to take advantage of the system. There are times when people need a helping hand but there is no reason why private organizations cannot step into the shoes of government. My opponent will argue that welfare does not create a dependent society and that private organizations are incapable of stepping into the shoes of government with regard to welfare.
President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far.

I would first like to point out that in this debate, we are not discussing whether or not the country has improved since George W. Bush. We are discussing whether or not Obama is a benefical factor in that improvement or a detrimental factor in that improvement. I apologize for this confusion. To clarify further, in order for the Con to win this debate, he must prove that the policies of Obama have helped to accelerate the improvement of the United States opposed to the Pro which has to prove that the policies of Obama has slowed down the improvement of America. This said, i will now refute the arguments of my opponent. In my opponent's first contention, he states that Obama has improved the foreign policy of the United States. His example of this would be the water boarding instances during the Bush administration. My opponent states that waterboarding, a supposed form of "torture";used on terrorist suspects was overall a bad thing for America and that Obama has improved America by banning the use of waterboarding. I do agree that waterboarding was detrimental to the image of America and that it could be interpreted as a war crime. I also agree that waterboarding may result in an increased amount of terrorism. However, I negate my opponents entire first contention by simply pointing out that waterboarding was banned during the end of the Bush Administration. According to ABC News, "waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director"; The article also states, "Officials told ABC News on Sept. 14, 2007, that the controversial interrogation technique, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex ration, had been banned by the CIA director (Michael Hayden) at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes." This proves that Obama actually had nothing to do with the matter. Therefore, his entire first contention doesn't even relate to the resolution. My opponent's second contention states the the economy has improved since the bush administration, and this is true however it is not because of Obama as i stated previously, my opponent must prove that Obama has influenced this improvement in a positive manner. However he has not shown any evidence to support his statement thus far. My opponent attacks my case by saying that I have not provided a warrant as to why national debt is a bad thing. Increasing the national debt is a bad thing because it will result in increased inflation as well as high interest rates. He also says that he hasn't increased the debt that much, but as i stated previously, it is estimated that by the end of his first term will have increased the national debt by 6.5 trillion dollars. Which is almost one trillion more dollars than the two terms of the Bush Adminisrtation combined. I apololgize, I had a lot more written however it was erased accidentally and I do not feel like re-writing it.
President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far.

This will be a Public Forum style debate. Round 1: state your main arguments. Round 2: Refute your opponents arguments as well as rebuilding your own. Resolved: President Obama has not benefited the United States during his presidency thus far. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution for these two main contentions. President Obama is driving us into deeper and deeper national debt. Obama has done nothing except proposing Obamacare which has so far only taken up time without benefiting the country. Contention 1: The timing of a presidency is crucial. It has to fit the specific needs of the country at the time in order to be successful. When Obama was elected president the country needed a president that was tight on spending in order to pull us out of debt as well as lowering taxes to help stimulate the economy. However, Obama has only dramatically increased national spending to an all time high which will eventually be severely detrimental to the United States. According to thenationaldebtcrisis.com, it is projected that the United States national debt will increase by 6.5 trillion dollars by the end of Obama's first term. That is almost a trillion dollars more than George w. Bush's two terms combined. The national debt was 10.6 when Barack Obama took office. Therefore, he will have increased the national debt by more than half of what it was by the end of his first term. Furthermore, this new Obama care program that he has put his entire presidency on is estimated to cost over 1 trillion dollars! How is putting the United States into deeper and deeper debt beneficial? Contention 2: During Obama's campaign, his slogan was "change." However, he has pretty much done the opposite of change. He has continued the reckless spending in Washington, and the only major aspect of change to the United States he has proposed is Obamacare which I stated in my first contention is not beneficial and even detrimental to the United States today.
Is Earth a sphere or disk

Thank you very much, I could not ask for a better opponent. I see that bibical text are irrelevant to you, but I thought I should put them in anyway for the audience. I want to convince people that the Earth is truely flat. Yes, the picture's you were trying to show is not working. 1) I looked into some of the videos you posted at the bottom of your debate. The "Hello Kitty in space" video was obviously fake, and I fail to understand why there was not any stars in any of the videos. It's interesting that the Grand Canyon video depicts a flat Earth. Also, there are countless videos and experiments depicting a flat Earth. Here is an experiment calculating that there is no curvature and that Earth is at an equal level. https://www.google.com... The answer to both of your questions is "Universal Acceleration", gravity", in the flat Earth model is an illusion. In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model, not at the speed of light.Universal acceleration is a theory of gravity in the Flat Earth Model. UA asserts that the Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 9.8m/s^2. This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity". The traditional theory of gravitation (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center, like your drawing. Here is a link explaining Universal acceleration in more detail. https://www.google.com... My lack of evidence to substantiate the claim that Earth is a sphere interest you? I am claiming Earth is a flat disk, not a sphere. 2) I thought circumnavigation was an important concept in this debate, but again, the reason I mentioned the moon landing, and bibical was for the audience and voters, and also to clear common misconceptions to the typical round Earther who are flabbergasted when they hear "Flat Earth". You dropped these branches and went on to the main topic, but you never explained why a flat disk Earth could not exist and why the Earth is in fact a sphere. 3) I would also like to add another point, ... It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it. This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe. There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind hills of water. 4) Thanks for the good luck, good luck to you as well. This is my first debate on this website, so I am still learning. I had to retype this...which was a bit fustrating, but anyways, good luck!
Is Earth a sphere or disk

Hello, thanks for debating with me. Ima against a spherical Earth,(oblate spheroid). I'm going to go over a few points to prove my argument that the Earth is flat, specifically a disk. 1) My first point is you could see the curvature with your naked eyes if the Earth was a sphere. It is a common misconception that the Earth is simply "to big" to notice any curvature in the horizon.Using the dimensions of the earth provided by NASA, there would be an 8 inch downward curve after the first mile, 32 inches after the second and 6 feet after the 3rd mile. After 20 miles the ground should curve 266 feet downwards. Go to a place where the horizon is visible from on top of a hill or building and you can easily see for 5-10 miles with your naked eye. You will notice that the horizon is perfectly flat and there is not any curvature to be seen. 2) Next, I would like to ask the pro who believes the Earth is an oblate spheroid, why does the water and oceans not leak and "pour out into space". The flat disk Earth is surrounded by an ice wall that is actually well known and studied. 95% is pure ice and 5% is rock. If the Earth was a ball and gravity was pulling it downward then the oceans should be a curved shape. 3) Circumnavigation can be easily explained considering the Earth is a flat disk. Also it is impossible to move in a straight line, thats why you cant draw abstraight line on a paper, and it is impossible to go straight without turning the steering wheel when driving. 4) Also NASA photos never show clear 100% evidence that the Earth is a ball but rather in a 2d shape. I believe the moon landings were hoax. There is actually evidence with this such as the "C rock" and a photo of an astronaut with a reflection of a cieling camera in on his helmet, also Niel Amrstrongs suit has a different shoe pattern than the footprints on the moon. Also why is there no stars in the moon landing photos? NASA has been proven and exposed via acts of coverups. Here are aome sources. http://www.spaceref.com... 5) Some people use GPS and sattelites as a primary evidence against flat Earthers. GPS can work using triangilation from cell phone towers. Have you ever seen an actual sattelite with your own naked eyes? I mean a sattelite that you know for a fact is an actual sattelite? Just because Google Earth or your cell phone says the Earth is a ball does not mean it is true. 6) If you consider the bible as a source then it actually explains the shape of the Earth better than NASA. Job 38:14 "As the light approaches, the earth takes shape like clay pressed beneath a seal; it is robed in brilliant colors." Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." 7) Footnote- This is convincing evidence, I hope this will be a great friendly debate, and also one more point...Is it a coincidence that the United Nations logo is the same as the flat Earth map? I think not lulz anyways thank you on to the debate! Here are some more sources... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...
Division I college football should adopt a plus one playoff system

Tradition changes all the time. The NFL only recently adopted a wild card playoff system and the MLB just this year added two more playoff teams to theirs. College basketball also added four more teams to their tournament so why should college football be held to a different standard when it comes to tradition. Yes the Mountain West and the WAC aren't BCS conferences, but honestly, they're almost as good if not just as good as the Big East and no one would ever argue that a dominant Big East team doesn't deserve a shot at a national championship. As I pointed out before there are also BCS teams that go undefeated and don't get a shot to play for first place. Last year, before the last week, Oregon and Alabama both only lost one game and they were both to LSU. So if Oregon would have won their final game, how does one decide if Oregon or Alabama should have played for the national championship? Things like this can't just be left up to a voting committee. Teams have worked too hard for old men in suits to split hairs to decide who goes to the national championship when clearly in many cases deserving teams don't get a chance. The bowl system is just a way for universities and big sponsors to make money and this flawed old way of doing things needs to change.
Division I college football should adopt a plus one playoff system

Another reason there should be a plus one system put into division I college football is the buzz it would create with fans and media. Everyone says that having more teams would take away from the meaningfulness of the regular season and the games wouldn't seem as exciting. But there are almost 120 division I college football teams. Would adding two more teams really make a difference in how big the games are. I feel it would even make them more exciting because there would be more teams in contention for a national championship at the end of the year. Games that included the 3-10 ranked teams would seem a lot more meaningful at the end of the year instead of all of them just playing for a bowl game. There would also be so much buzz around that semi-final game (which could count as a bowl game) and the proceeding national championship game.
Division I college football should adopt a plus one playoff system

Last year it did end up working out. The two best teams played for the national championship. But it hardly ever works out that way. There's almost always a case where a team that has a legitimate case for at least calling themselves the number two team doesn't get in. In 2005 there were five undefeated teams at the end of the season. Three of them (USC, Oklahoma, and Auburn) were from major conferences. USC beat Oklahoma in the national championship game and Auburn won their Sugar Bowl game leaving two undefeated major conference teams left at the end of the season. In 2008 and 2009 Boise State and Utah, respectively, finished undefeated seasons in their bowl games against powerhouse schools (Oklahoma and Alabama). Name one other sport where a team can go undefeated and still not get a chance to win the championship. I understand that there are always going to be teams that think they should get into the tournament that don't. But having four teams makes it exponentially more likely that those teams do not have legitimate arguments that they are one of the top one or two teams. In college basketball one of the best parts of the tournament are the cindarella teams that go far every year. Last year Butler was one shot away from winning the national championship game. Every team deserves a chance to win a championship and in order for people to say they're not the best team they should hve to at least get beat first.