BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Obama is/was a good president (economics)

Since this is the last round i will counter rebutt my opponent.1. The DeficitI know youve shown the hard numbers. The hard numbers arent the real indicator. The government always has to spend. Its how much they spend which is the problem. According to Politfact they have rated that the Presidents statement of "We have cut the defict by over half" to be a true statement (1). To say anything else is just untrue. My opponenets statements are biased in the fact that they are just looking at the hard numbers and not the percentages. So to conclude on the deficit, President Obama has cut deficit spending by over half.2. UnemploymentMy opponent again states his talking point about the lowest participation rate in US history. He doesnt even rebutt my point that we just had one of the worst recessions in US history (2). Because of the Wall Street crash and one of the worst recessions since the great depression it really isnt a surprise people are out of jobs. Again my opponent doesnt rebutt this, he ignores it3. Job CreationAGAIN my opponenet does not rebutt my point that private sector jobs have increase 6 times more than when Bush was in office. He also doesnt rebutt the fact that loss of government jobs isnt a big indicator of the economy and that growth in the private sector is more important than growth in the public sector to the economy (3).4. Oil ProductionWe are judging the state of America under Obama's reign. We again have seen more oil production than any of the recent presidents (Clinton and Bush) (4). Some projects such as the Keystone Pipeline could have created another BP oil spill crisis which could have taken billions or possibly TRILLIONS of dollars to clean up.5. The DebtMy opponent has not even talked about this extensivley last round so i will not either. However i will state that Obama has cut spending which has produced a smaller debt than a debt under a republican PresidentI will not address my opponents views on Facta or China because that was not the original 5 topics we agreed to discuss.And finally because my opponent seems to have taken a liking to post funny pictures of Obama i will too :D Sources:(1): http://www.politifact.com...(2): http://www.ifii.com...(3): http://www.economicshelp.org...(4): http://money.cnn.com...
President Obama is/was a good president (economics)

Thank you for the response Pro! Well, I don't want to beat a dead horse so I'll briefly rebuttal followed by my conclusion. 1) The DeficitI've clearly shown the hard numbers and despite the misleading (percentages), Obama clearly had triple the deficit the first year he was in office compared to Bush' last year in office. So, to say he in dropping the percentage is true, but it doesn't mention that he's the one who tripled it first year in office.2) UnemploymentI've covered the scam played by the BLS in calculating the unemployment rate. It's easy to see that having the lowest participation in decades drastically helps the unemployment numbers, therefore Obama can't brag about that either. 3) Job CreationAfter looking at overall net job growth, I've clearly pointed out how Obama has the worst record of every president since the great depression. 4) Oil ProductionLooking at the facts, we can see that Obama had NOTHING to do with the increase in oil production. If anything, he's further hindered the growth with the stopping of the keystone pipeline and other EPA crack downs. 5) The DebtDo I even need to prove anything here? This is public knowledge and fact that his policies have drastically increased the debt. Let me conclude with some policies of President Obama that has further put this economy in danger. Obama signed FACTA into law. If you don't know anything about FACTA, it makes us the ONLY country in the WORLD that tracks down U.S. citizens and taxes them even if they don't live or earn money in the U.S. This has encouraged 23 or more countries to ban the use of U.S. dollars and in fact some countries have made it a crime to use our dollars!!! This shows that we have a WEAK dollar, and nobody wants to deal with our dollars. That's the whole reason we sanction Russia, bomb Iraq, bomb Syria, try to bomb Iran, sanction North Korea, embargo Cuba, etc. They don't deal in U.S. dollar, which results in less demand, weakening our dollar. To top off the cake, China has been cashing in U.S. Treasury bonds and buying up gold at an alarming rate. This is NOT GOOD for us. Obama's deficit spending, raising debt, and erroneous legislation have further DOOMED our ECONOMY! Thanks for the debate Pro! It was fun. http://www.thenewamerican.com...http://www.heritage.org...http://money.cnn.com...http://www.bloomberg.com...;
President Obama is/was a good president (economics)

The DeficitAgain, my opponent is looking at straight numbers themselves. This can often mislead the public because the number is increasing. However the percent is not. Not to say my opponents graph is outright wrong its just looking at numbers and not the percent This graph is looking at things from a better viewpoint. As we see the percent of addition to the deficit is shrinking rapidly under Obama. Of course the deficit itself will increase but the percent is decreasing (1). My opponent is using larger numbers to mislead the voters. Just because the deficit is rising doesnt mean Obama is a bad economics president. We need to look at the actual facts and the facts are that Obama has been cutting spending and spending for smart reasons.2. Unemployment/Correlation is not CausationAccording to my opponent because Obama happens to be president during low labor participation rate. However his own graphs tells the story. Because Obama was even in office we had one of the worst recessions in American history. The amount of space the recession takes up on the graph is larger than any of the previous recessions not to metntion that after 2000 (George Bush) the civic labor participation was also drastically going down. My opponent is not taking the other factors that are decreasing the labor participation rate and is just blaming it all on Obama. Nothing about the Wall Street Crash and the Reccession. Its all Obama's fault to my opponentAccording to Fact Check. org unemployment has taken a drastic decrease to 5.6 percent (2).3. Job Creation My opponent and i are having different conclusions on job creation and this is why. Private Sector jobs, meaning not government jobs, increased six fold under Obama than under Bush (3). However public sector jobs plummeted but this isnt a factor on the economy. Whether the government loses jobs is irrevelant, its whether americans outside the government lose or gain jobs is what is important. Like my opponent states mulitple time the government should be small. Well under Obama it has. Its lost more jobs under Obama than Bush. However jobs that common joe people work have increase by the millions.4. Oil ProductionAgain my opponent looks at the government for economic indicators when thats not the case. USA is a capitalist nation. Looking at the losses or gains of the government is not going to give you anything unless that nation is a socialist nation. Of course President Obama has not given many leases. He is an enviornmentalist, however Oil production has gone up by a large amount resulting in one of the best economies america has ever seen.5. The DebtMy Opponent is, again, looking at the numbers instead of the percent increase. As ive explained about 3 times the amount of the debt has indeed increased. However federal spending has been flattened under Obama (4). If there was a republican president the amount of debt would increase AND the percent would increase I would like to thank my opponent for this debateSources:(1): . https://www.whitehouse.gov...(2): . http://www.factcheck.org...(3): . http://www.dailykos.com...(4): . http://www.dailykos.com...
President Obama is/was a good president (economics)

Thank you Con for your arguement. I do not want to get too off topic but the Clinton years saw a massive increase in jobs and a surplus of money. The Bush years tore all this down and left the mess for Obama to clean up. For more reference look at the Clinton deficit into Bush deficit graph from the previous round.1.DeficitMy opponent takes to blaming the Bureau of Labor instead of looking at the facts. At the end of the fiscal year of 2012 the deficit was 1.1 trillion. You may say thats a large number but Obama has actually cut 312 billion dollars from the deficit his first term and 200 billion dollars from 2012 (1).Not only this but Obama's spending is very small compared to the other presidents that came before him Compared to the 4 presidents that came before him President Obama has had the slowest spending in decades! (1)Unfortuantley my opponent still doesnt understand how the deficit functions. Once the deficit starts rising you cant stop it from rising. Even though the numbers are increasing the percentage of spending contributing to the deficit is shrinking.2. UnemploymentMy opponent asks a question. "Would you rather have 3 part time jobs than one full time job?". Well lets say thats true. Obama has created 15 million jobs so if even if what my opponent said was true 15 mil divided by 3 is 5 million. So my opponent concedes that at least 5 million new jobs were created for the economy. And this is true according to my opponeents own scenario! 5 million jobs created for the economy is a sign of a good presidency3. Job creationAgain my opponent uses assumption to justify his narrative. He did not refute the 15 million job created and his awkward refutation involved an assumption that almost all of Obama's new jobs were part time jobs for which he did not include a source.4. Oil productionMy opponent concedes that obama is taking credit for fracking since fracking has been in use in the USA for more than 60 years. Now under Obama oil production has boomed. Crude oil production has been up 72 percent and we have passed saudi arabia in oil production. (2)This is a symbol of an economic mastermind since oil production has been on a steady decrease with Bush and Clinton. As we can see after Obama took office the oil production of the US increased tremendously.5. National DebtMy opponent has come to insulting my understanding of the debt without any understanding himself. He of course resorts to using a simple minded narrative when it comes to the national debt. Just because the numbers are increasing does not mean the percent is increasing as well. As i stated, even with a graph, obama has cut federal spending. The amount of the debt increases because you cant simply cut all spending. However Obama has cut the percent and has used cautionary spending.I will show the graph again so that you will finally understand it Again back to you ConSources:(1):http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(2):http://money.cnn.com...
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

Certainly the government will have to intervene if and when groups oppose the regulation. An unfortunate side effect of this is that the criminal organizations will only become more determined. However, when the consumer is presented with either an illegal good or the same good but legal they will nine time out of ten choose the legal good. Over time the illegal prostitution groups will run out of business and have to shutdown or incur major losses. In an ideal world there would be no industry for prostitution, but since that is not possible we must make the best of the situation and try and regulate the industry.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

Due to the scandalous nature or prostitution, the people in the business may not want to be regulated. Many will believe the can make a better and more profitable business without the government interfering. Criminal organizations also would keep their prostitution rings active due to their large profit margins and little upkeep. They would not obey these regulations simply because they don't obey other regulations and would harshly decrease their profit. even though prostitutes would benefit from these regulations. Many, if not most, would oppose these regulations to protect their privacy, and to profit more. If a prostitute has a day job, regulations may ask them to announce their part time profession, exposing and harming their day time job.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

People, no matter their background, have built societies were prostitution plays some part. Anywhere you go you will find "working girls" with plenty of business. Certainly this practice is considered horrible and dirty by many, but we have not been able to stop it for the entirety of human history. Since we cannot stop the problem, and since we cannot ignore the problem, we must regulate the problem. When regulated brothels may be taxed, inspected, and/or shutdown if necessary. Under the current system of anarchy nothing can be done, but shutdown prostitution rings. And to currently shutdown a ring, police must work for months or years in order to properly take down such syndicates. Certainly most would prefer to live in a world where prostitution does not exist, but we do not live in that world and we cannot eliminate the problem. Therefore we must pick the best of two evils and regulate the industry.
Prostitution should be legal due to it being a victim-free crime.

I do not believe prostitution can be regulated, due to it's personal and broad problems and activities that need to be regulated. Not only this, but pimps prostitutes, and other people affected by this regulation, may try to avoid and work around the law. This may cause an illegal, expensive, harmful, yet more profitable form of prostitution. Like modern day moon shiners, people may do what is profitable, not what is legal or safe.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed (this is a debate round of nonsense)

It's a shame my opponent couldn't post last round. This was a fun debate and I'd have loved to see the response. That said, go ahead and extend my arguments... Which are: 1) The nursery rhyme only says that "Humpty Dumpty had a great fall". He fell... he wasn't pushed. 2) Accepting that Humpty was cool (my opponent's claim) then he'd be a great political icon, and the King wouldn't wish to kill him, he'd be a great ally. 3) Horses would be a great resource in transportation, much as an ambulance is today. 4) Humpty's death is better explained by a fall, coupled with the help of too many people (ALL the kings men... that's a lot. An entire village, actually). Too many people would clutter up the scene and Humpty's life would slowly slip away. The fact remains that Humpty DID fall, and there is no reason to suspect foul play or any motive to push the lovable Humpty Dumpty. Suicide is the cause of Humpty Dumpty's death, and thus I urge you to vote CON. Thanks for the debate, it was fun :) I hope everyone had fun reading/debating this.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed (this is a debate round of nonsense)

<> We're talking about the king here! Why should we assume that the king is evil? Certainly, there are more rational things to do than kill Mr. Dumpty. It's seems as if his amazing-ness would be great politics... < > True, horses don't have any fingers (or hands) but we have to look at the entire line. "All the king's horses and all the king's men..." Horses, while useless in and of themselves for putting Humpty back together, are extremely useful in getting from A to B. When you have someone in dire need (Humpty Dumpty), time is of the essence. Just like we use ambulances to escort people, they used the fastest thing they had: horses. Horses could also carry necessary instruments to aide in the healing process. Unfortunately, they were unsuccessful in their endeavor. < > Certainly the townspeople would miss poor Humpty Dumpty (assuming he's "freaking cool" as my opponent states). With all the king's men working to help Humpty Dumpty, even if their were some who disagreed with Mr. Dumpty, there were many more who loved him. And I already addressed the importance of the horses. Humpty Dumpty's accident is simply that, an accident. He accidentally fell, and then I would venture to guess that too many people tried to help and ended up wasting a lot of time... time that happened to be the last of Humpty Dumpty. Who's to blame? The world may never know, but we can safely say the king had no feelings of vengeance toward our good friend Humpty Dumpty.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed (this is a debate round of nonsense)

And I would first create my case. "Humpty Dumpty had a great fall" Ahh but was this just another cover up by the King to hide the fact that he despised Humpty Dumpty just because he was so freaking cool with his egg appearance and the King always wanted to be him. And "All the king's horses. ." Hello, this is proof right here that this was just another cover up by the king. .. because DUH! horses don't have any fingers (or actually hands for that matter) thus they could not help! "Couldn't put Humpty together again. " MmmHmmm! Yeah was it because they did not want to put him back together or couldn't. .. .since clearly this poem is messed up! Talking about some horses who have hands. And to attack my opponents arguments. .. he claims that Humpty Dumpty is simply a klutz. Oh really? If he's really such a klutz how could he survive P. E. in elementary and high school? Without a single crack? And do you really think that Humpty Dumpty really wanted to die. .. he had little egg children and a smokin hot bacon wife! And was loved by everyone in Breakfast town! Nuff said. . I now stand open for the neg! :D
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed (this is a debate round of nonsense)

I hope we can both make it interesting, and have a good time with it. That being said, let's get on to the refutations. .. All the proof you need is contained within the rhyme itself. "Humpty Dumpty had a great fall" You see, we are forced to conclude that falling is all that happened. We have no reason to believe that anyone wished harm upon poor Humpty, and that Mr. Dumpty is simply a klutz. .. while his fate is tragic, I'm afraid it has to remain a suicide. .. I'll extend more once I see my opponent's arguments, and I look forward to them.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed (this is a debate round of nonsense)

Ok well I did this topic during a SPAR debate and I really liked it. This is a complete nonsense debate that is made to be humorous and fun. A little break from the serious topics! :D I will start off as Aff/Pro ______________________________________________________________ Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men Couldn't put Humpty together again. _____________________________________________________________ and now for the neg..... :D
Students should not go out to eat lunch

Well maybe the school can change the lunch company but it will take a lot of time to do so.Often the complains of children are not paid heed to as the decisions of the school authority is final. But my main argument is that it will give independence to the students to go out of the school and have lunch.You did not argue about my other three points so I don't have to say anything in my defence but just that eating lunch outside the school won't cause much harm to the students . Just give them the independence on a limited scale. That is it. Thank you for the debate.I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.
Students should not go out to eat lunch

I welcome my pro to the debate and hope that it goes on well. To start with I do not agree with my opponent on the motion that students should not go out to eat lunch because- 1: It is like arguing that one should just not get out on the streets on the fear of being kidnapped. 2:If you allow the students to go out for lunch then only they will be independent responsible and courageous enough to face the world. 3:The school and parents should be strict enough as to not to allow the students to go to places like bars or smoke and do illegal things . Students should be given independence but on a limited scale so that they are guided about what is good and what is bad for them. 4:If students go outside to have lunch they have a wide variety of food to choose from . Not only do the meals at school taste unappetizing but some are also more expensive than something one can buy at a fast food restaurant. So this is my argument against my opponent .
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

In response to a challenge to refute Ayurveda's pseudo-scientific status, my opponent offers an anecdote. Anecdotes cannot be used to demonstrate the efficacy or inefficacy of a medical practice. The complexity of human biology and its interactions with drugs and treatment necessitates carefully controlled scientific experimentation and analysis in order to establish any accuracy in determining truth. This debate is entirely a debate of what the facts are. The fact is that Ayurveda is not demonstrably effective at the standard we require for medical practices. Ayurveda is a pseudo-science (1) with unreliable evidence for its efficacy (2). The fact is that modern medicine does not have "a lot" of side effects. My opponent would have us believe that symptomatic treatment via pharmaceuticals is the end-all, be-all of modern medicine. Modern medicine encompasses our entire understanding of the normative functioning of human anatomy and physiology. Certain drugs have side effects due to their complex interactions with cellular and tissue functions. Not all drugs have deleterious side effects. When it comes to proven efficacy, modern medicine is better hands down. (1) https://books.google.com... (2) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Which One is Better Ayurveda or Modern medicine

One thing you said is true... The treatment speed in case of modern medicine is fast, but it comes with a lot of side effects. Can you say if there's any modern medicine that has no side effects. For eg. I had a friend who suffered from asthma from his child hood. He went for the modern medicine practitioners. As per what they said he'll have itr cured by age 12. He took the medicines as prescribed. For years from his age 5 to 19. He had'nt got his problem cured. Some of the medicines he used were - Seroflo, Levolin etc (inhalers). It just cured his disease for some time, That is he get instant relief from his asthma when he take the inhaler, but it comes back every single time. After suffering from this for this much time he got suggestion about ayurveda and a hospital near kottayam, kerala, india (Mannalil Ayurveda hospital) ( http://mannalilayurvedahospital.com... ) . He took treatment there and in having a treatment for less than one year he have it cured. He never had any issue for the last few years. And the better part is that he dont have any side effects from taking those ayurvedic medicines. Unlike from that levolin and seroflo that has a hand full of side effects. So i think ayurveda is better for curing any sort of disease. It has ailment for each and every kind of disease and even for cancer they have cures. Ayurveda cures many other diseases which even modern medicine has failed to find any cure. So ayurveda is the best comparing to modern medicine. It has no side effects. As it is curing the disease from he root, there is no possible chance for the disease to come back and anything bad related to that. Soo Ayurveda is better.... I think the best.