BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama is the best president (read details).

1) A) I find it odd that my opponent thinks that temporary jobs are useless, given that every job is temporary. If you build a house eventually that house will be built and the job is done with, if you harvest a crop when you are done that job is done with. Also CFC will result in millions in saving due to increased fuel economy. B) The facts still remain that C4C created over 40,000 jobs in America, increased GDP and will result in Consumers saving .7million a year because of increased fuel economy. How my opponent thinks those things are bad is beyond me. 2) A) First off some of the jobs created by Obama will be creased after 2011. For example increasing MPG standards will create 700,000 jobs up to 2030. B) Second my opponent is making the same logical fallacy that he made when he claimed that Bush was the cause of every job created in 2002-2007. You can't logical/honestly claim that ALL the jobs losses from 2009-2011 was Obama's fault, especially given the fact that for the first quarter of 2009 Obama's polices weren't even implemented yet. C) The Job loses that occurred from Jan 2009-Mar2010 occurred because of the popping of the housing bubble and the banking crisis. Now it is impossible for those two things to be Obama's fault considering they occurred while Bush was president. D) It is irrelevant how many jobs were lost from 2009-2011, because this debate isn't on how many jobs were lost/created during the presidency of Bush and Obama. The debate is on how many jobs were created due to policies implemented by both presidents 3) Also like I said in my last post that increases and decreases in the deficit does not mean increases or decreases in money saved. In order for a policy to save money it must show that the money spent results in more economic benefits then the money spent. For example money spent decreasing pollution results in lower health costs meaning money saved. 4) So to recap so far we have that Bush policies wasted 384billion, and created 0 jobs, and that Obama policies have/will save4.3 trillion dollars and create over 7 million jobs
Obama is the best president (read details).

1) C4C My opponent is missing basic logic. I didn't claim that C4C resulted in 988,000 lost jobs, but that all the temporary jobs left along with hundreds of thousands of other jobs. Voters should also realize that my opponent has not denied that all these jobs were TEMPORARY, like seasonal workers around winter solstice. Since they are not perminate, they don't mean crap. 2) Job creation While not every job is a result of Bush's individual policies, the whole picture can be shown as his responsibility and as such, his success. The best thing that any president can do, is simply get out of the way. While Bush was no libertarian, and didn't suscribe to laissez faire. He was a lot closer to it than Obama the Great is, and that is why we saw a much better economy under him than we do with Obama the Great. His tax cuts and derugulations are the key reasons for the success. And of course, as soon as the democrats took congress, they fuckked it all up. 3) Money saved Yes, it does involve the deficit. The very fact that the deficit is growing means that more money is being spent than saved. All the "predictions" that my opponent's blogs suggest mean jack shiit when the real numbers show that Obama the Great is spending more than he is saving. 4) Wars The money spent on the wars is far from wasted. Apart from creating tens of thousands of jobs, it is helping remove dictators from around the world. The entire Arab spring can be traced to the collapse of Saddam. Once the people of various nations found that dictators can fall and the people can survive without them, they rose up. Unless my opponent wants to argue that dictators are good, which wouldn't surprise me given his love for Obama the Great, then he really has nothing to stand on in this regard.
Obama is the best president (read details).

1)A) My opponent is making an odd argument. He claims that the ending of Cash for Clunkers result in the loss of every job that the economy lost the month after CFC ended. This means my opponent is saying that if C4C didn't end it would have resulted in the creation of 988,000 more jobs. B) However my opponent is using a logical fallacy, you can't contribute C4C to all the jobs lost or created in the economy. C) Even my opponent says that C4C saves money and created jobs, I'll accept his numbers instead of mine. 2)A) My opponent is making a huge logical fallacy. He is claiming that every job created under the Bush presidency was created due to Bush polices, meaning that according to him if we had maintained the polices that were under Clinton 0 job's would have been created from 2002-2006. This is despite the fact that under Clinton more jobs were created then under Bush B) I'd also like to point out that my opponent doesn't even list a single policy that Bush enacted that resulted in any job creation or any money saved. C) I'd also like to point out that increases and decreases in the deficit does not mean increases or decreases in money saved. In order for a policy to save money it must show that the money spent results in more economic benefits then the money spent. For example money spent decreasing pollution results in lower health costs meaning money saved. 3)A) The Libyan cost to the America government was less than 1 billion dollars. http://abcnews.go.com... B) Also I'd like to note that if we include Afghanistan war spending as waste we can only include the increase in costs under Obama and Bush. So that results is total Bush military spending in Afghanistan was 105 billion dollars, while total Obama spending is around 70 billion dollars. http://costofwar.com... When we include the Iraq war we find that when adding all the wars together Bush wasted 384billion more than Obama on the wars. My opponent so far has not given us any polices that Bush enacted that created any jobs or saved any money. Meaning at the moment we have 0 jobs created due to Bush polices, and we have 384 billion dollars wasted due to Bush polices. For Obama we have slightly over 7 million jobs created, and 4.3 trillion saved due to Obama policies
Obama is the best president (read details).

I'll take one of my opponent's examples and look at it individually, but the rest can be compared to reality to show that they are fake. 1) Cash 4 Clunkers. This program did not create "60,000 jobs" it created "40,200" jobs, and nearly all of these were TEMPORARY. That's because this created only a temporary boost in demand. When C4C ended, the demand left with it, and all the jobs that were needed for that temporary demand also left. That is why, during the 4 months of C4C, the US still lost 988,000 jobs. Voters should also see from the report that C4C resulted in the purshace of 394,000 cars, 210,000 of them were not made in the USA. So this "wonderful" project did more for foriegn workers than our own. http://www.cargroup.org... http://data.bls.gov... 2) all the rest. My opponent says that Obama the Great has created 7.36 million jobs and has saved $4.3 trillion dollars. Rather than digging through this political wet dream, lets just look at the facts. From January 2009 until January 2011, 3,225,000 jobs were LOST, not created. And from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, he increased the national debt by $3.5 trillion. Simple comparison. Bush from Dec 2002 until Dec 2006, we say 6,708,000 CREATED jobs, and only $2.27 trillion added to the national debt. So when it comes to the economy, Bush created jobs, Obama the Great destroyed jobs. When it comes to national debt, Obama the Great increased the debt 50% more in half the time. http://data.bls.gov... http://www.treasurydirect.gov... Now, if we want to go into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama the Great took us into a war in Libya and is continuing the war in Afghanistan, so you can't complain about one without complaining about the other. Sure, my opponent can point to a number of blogs that make junk up, but the numbers are crystal freaking clear. Obama the Great has done NOTHING good with the country and has been the WORST president since FDR.
Obama is the best president (read details).

if we're only including policies enacted by Obama when democrats held both houses, then we should be fair and treat all candidates the same way. So I'll go with Bush Jr, just to show that Obama is worse than the worst republican of the group. In congress, Republicans did not control both houses until November 25th 2002, when Jim Talent (R) took Jean Camahan's (D) seat and they held both houses until the 110th congress which was sworn in on January 3rd, 2007. So I will look at policies and numbers from December 2002 until December 2006. I'll let my opponent go first.
Obama is the best president (read details).

This debate will be about which president since Carter has enacted the best job creation, and economic polices. Job creation generally means number of jobs created (Example: Policy A resulted in the creation of 5 jobs). We will define economic generally as how much money is saved (Example: Policy B resulted in $5 not being spent wastefully). Polices the government enacted from 1997-1981 would be considered Carters policies. Policies the government enacted from 1981-1989 would be Reagan's 1989-1993 Bush 1. 1993-2000 Clinton 2000-2008 Bush and for Obama we will only included years were Democrats controlled the house and Senate 2009-2011. The burden of proof will rest on both debaters. I must provide support for Obama, while my opponent must provide support for another president. My opponent can use examples of Obama polices that hurt the economy, while I can use policies his predecessors enacted. My opponent can either make the first argument or allow me to make the first argument.
.999... is equal to 1

Thank you for taking the Debate. 1. I plan on enlightening the entire debate community not the mathematical community. The resolution says .999... is equal to one, which is wrong either way. The MATHEMATIC community accepts .999... equals one IF and only IF you use a 10 numeral/number system. The resolution does not say that does it now? No, It simply says .999... equals one, no IF, AND, or BUTS'. Any logical and knowledgeable man (must possess both qualities) understands that .999... simply can not equal one on ANY other numerical/number system. My opponent says "in Base 8, .888... equal 1" He doesn't just say .888... equals 1 but rather starts with "in base 8". Then for the resolution to be correct he must also include in "base 10" but this is not mentioned in the resolution. This is the first reason to vote CON. 2.Decimals are contingent on the numeral system. I hope we all understand this at this point. For example 1/3 = .333... on a 10 system but 1/3 = .30 on a 9 system. Now the 9 systems 1/3 = 1/3 of the 10 system but the .333...=.30 is invalid. 1=1 on any whole number system. 1/3=1/3 expressed in fraction but decimals fail to meet the bill. A decimal is an ATTEMPT to express a fraction but as we can see with the .333... it is incapable. Here is some confusion if you can't fathom 10 system invalid9 system 1/3=.333...1/3=.30 3*1/3=3*.333...3*1/3=3*.30 1=.999...1=.90 10 System versus 9 system in fraction works like a charm 1/3=1/3 3*1/3=3*1/3 1=1 So in summary the mathematics isn't saying that .999... is equal to one but rather the number systems decimal report of the fraction is invalid as some fractions can not be reported quantifiable via decimal equivalent. 3. My opponent attempts to disprove my claims with Archimedean property, however there is such a thing as non-Archimedian property such as p-adic numbers which support my rational of ending or begining at decimal point. 4.Am I wrong or is it true that no calculator with base 10 will express a .999... . This sort of disproves the final step of the 1/3 proof via calculator, because when you times .333... by 3 it simply equals 1 not .999..., on a calc. ? Why won't the calculator express this step?
America should not support the United Nations because it is unproductive

First off the UN has done some good however I argue that the bad has outweighed this. You talk extensively about their role after WWII. The reason there hasn't been a global war is because all of the major powers capable of waging one are democratic. Other than maybe Russia, who does hold a lot of democratic values now, no one major power has wanted to go to war. The reason for this is the democratic peace theory. Democracies are not willing to fight other democracies because they hold the same beliefs. Wars have occurred since WWII and the UN hasn't prevented those? Russia has numerous times rubbed America wrong post WWII during the cold war area leading to much conflict and animosity yet they are members of the security council on the UN? Also you talk about the league of nations. It failed because of congress refusing to join this ultimately denying one of Wilson strongest fourteen points. So, if America failed to support the UN it would fail as well. What I am saying is that America determines a ton about the UN and its actions. The UN has done nothing to prevent war after WWII. Sure they may put sanctions on nations but that doesn't stop wars from happening. They put many sanctions on Iraq in the first Gulf War, yet Saddam still massed his troops against Kuwait ignoring the UN because they pose no immediate threat. You wrote so much that I forget what your points were. But, lets look at the failures of the UN. Rwanda, Kosavo, Sudan, Somalia, Phillipines...this list goes on. What is the point of having this international organization if they are not going to effectively stop horrific things from happening. America actually does its own thing as well. The UN was against Iraq and America and Britain went in anyway. So if the UN is going to be successful it needs the big nations to cooperate and the record from the past says they don't. Sure America says that we are apart of the united nations but we still do what we want and we dictate much policy that runs through that organization. Ever since the food for oil debacle America has grown even more weary of the UN because of the corruption that lies within. I wish I could remember your points but I do not so I will just end with this and save some for later.
Test Cricket is the real test for the players and should be played more often.

Cricket is a dying game and 5 day games would send it into obscurity. The sport is not spreading, it is not growing, it is not crossing international, cultural or ethnic lines. This means less money for the players. Less popularity, less money for the clubs and athletes, less persons involved, lower quality product. Going back to 5 day games would put cricket in the history books. Who, besides children of plantation owners and British Lords, has the time to play a 5 day game? Not your average student, not your average person. Involvement in the sport would decrease because it's just not feasible for most people to do a 5 day game. Overtime you would lose any new athletes who did not have the social status and the copious amounts of time. Who is going to buy tickets to see a 5 day game? Who is going to watch? The other rich people with nothing to do for an entire work week? 5 day games also make a player susceptible to injury and harm. Permanent injury could result in stubborn players not wanting to take of injuries, or because they couldn't find a replacement who could take 5 days off work on short notice. Run on a sprained ankle all week guy can't compete for another month. Or maybe just limp for the rest of his life. The intensity of the game would dramatically decrease to a sloth's pace. Athletes want action, not attrition. Yes, only the entertainment portion in highlighted, that why people play sports! Action and entertainment! Otherwise, they'd play chess. The subtle nuances of a game, tactical, pragmatic and otherwise can be brought out with adjustments to the rules. Sports evolve over time as we learn, as the players and coaches learn; rules have been changed in every successful sport from boxing to football to equestrian. Change is necessary for the reasons of safety, athlete accessibility and growth of the sport.
Test Cricket is the real test for the players and should be played more often.

Test Cricket is the original form of Cricket which originated in England. It consists of players slogging it out for 5 long days. Each team gets to play two innnings and for unlimited overs provided they are not bowled out by the opponents. Here the skills of cricket are tested. The player has to keep himself physically and mentally fit for 5 long days and then he has to concentrate in his specific field and help his team to win the game.Its obviously not a piece of cake. The team spirit should last for 5 days and the game demands tactical and pragmatic thinking. In other forms of Cricket, it is only the entertainment part of the game which is fully highlighted and not the skills of cricket. The game is beautiful in its original form and it should not be tampered upon by unnecessarily hampering and lessing the duration of a match.
Abortion Is Bad

God has given us the gift of choice. Abortion is a choice. If a woman is raped and impregnated... why should she have to keep the baby? Every day she sees that child, she will be reminded of that incident. If a woman has medical issues, and if she gives birth she will die...you're saying she should have to die? Think of third world countries. People with seven kids and all of them are skeletons because the parents can't afford to feed them? It's bad to abort, when the child will end up dying from starvation or disease? It's bad to not end the life before they suffer? And every single child can not be adopted or sponsored...not every person can be forbidden to have sex. Will they abort anyways? Probably not, but it's an example. Think of a woman that gets pregnant. She can't even pay for her own food bills. How is she going to pay for a child? She won't be able to afford proper prenatal care...and not every person in that situation will have someone financially backing them that wants that baby. She won't be able to work during a certain time during her late pregnancy, so who will pay her bills then? So wouldn't it be better to abort the child?
Assault Rifles should not be outrightly banned.

Hello, here we have another classic gun control debate, specifically on the topic of banning assault rifles altogether (in the United States, but really it could be any country). I will be taking the position of NOT banning them. You will be taking the position OF banning them. Just so we are clear, for the purposes of this debate, an assault rifle is defined as: (noun) a semi-auto or full-auto military-style rifle that utilizes magazines that hold 10 rounds or more. Ex: AR-15 semi-auto rifle. I know, I know... some will say a true assault rifle can only be full-auto, but the media consistently refers to semi-autos as assault rifles, so that's what we are going with as well. Also, to be clear, "ban" means that it's absolutely illegal to buy or own one. First round is acceptance, and the next 3 rounds are for arguing. I hope we both have fun and also learn something new.
Assault Rifles should not be outrightly banned.

The main feature of assault rifles is that they are produced to attack masses of people in a short amount of time. One of the major reasons of not regulating guns in the United States is that people consider guns a method of self-protection. However, consider this, usually in a theft there will be one thief trespassing in your home. Do you need a weapon designed to kill a crowd or will a pistol be enough to defend your home? Although it is true that pistols kill more people than assault weapons do, it is also true that assault rifles are used more in mass shootings where large amounts of people are massacred. Their kill rate is far greater than a pistols. If I attached a big sword to my car, I could kill many more people with my car. Obviously, this is illegal, and assault rifles are illegal, too.
Assault Rifles should not be outrightly banned.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to bare arms. I think that is widely agreed upon. What is subject to debate is what kind of arms they are allowed to bare. Assault rifles are more powerful, yes. They are more deadly, yes. But what makes them deadly? A gun by itself is an inanimate object, just like a truck or a tennis racket. It's only when a human chooses to make these things deadly that they BECOME deadly. So I ask you, if you support banning assault weapons, are you also supportive of banning assault vehicles (vehicles that people use to hurt other people)? obviously that is nonsensical... there's no such thing as an assault vehicle, just a vehicle. The only way assault could be tagged on there would be because a human uses it that way. Assault weapons are also good for self defense. Do you absolutely need one to defend yourself? No, but I would rather prefer that then a bolt action rifle. Also, many Americans already own AR-15s, AK-47s, AUGs, and similar rifles. If you want an outright ban, how would you take away those people's guns? You might be dealing with another civil war there if you try that. Another thing is that handguns cause many more fatalities per year than assault weapons. Are you in favor of banning those, too? If not, then why?
Should slaughterhouses be closed in India

According to data released by Foreign Agricultural Services/US Department of Agriculture, India along with Brazil remained top global exporter of beef during the year 2016. In the financial year 2015-16 India"s total earning from buffalo meat export was 26,682 Crore Rupees. So banning beef meat not only means loss in the jobs sector but also in the financial sector . India produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. India ranks 5th in the world in beef production, 7th in domestic consumption and 1st in exporting. These are my thoughts on beef ban "WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVT TO DECIDE WHAT WE EAT"
Should slaughterhouses be closed in India

Banning slaughterhouses, if it is what the majority wants, is fine. People should be able to vote on if they don't want the slaughterhouses. If someone wanted to raise cows to eat on their own, that would be their own decision and should be legal. People will not lose their lives over this. They will be able to get different jobs instead. That is a ridiculous point as people get laid off all the time.
Should slaughterhouses be closed in India

I think that banning selling of beef meat is wrong . 1) Right to freedom- The constitution tells us that every Indian has a right to choose what he likes , i.e even eating meat . 2)It is not the government's business to interfere in the people's choice . 3) In states like Gujarat , Rajasthan , Uttar Pradesh and many more states , selling eating beef is banned . In a tourist state like Goa , eating beef is banned , the Tourism sector will hit . 4)Many people may lose their lives . for ex:- People working in slaughter houses , people rearing the animals , poultry farmers etc.....