BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama SUPPORTS the socialist idea to "spread the wealth around"

Sadly my opponent did not post an argument in round 2. This is not too surprising however, because it is an absolute fact that Obama supports the exact topic typed in the subject. There is very little my opponent can due in terms of debating what Obama has previously admitted. Please take a moment to watch this 28 sec video clip and listen to Obama's very own words. He specifically says, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." (http://www.youtube.com...) With Obama himself specifically admitting, in his own words, that he supports the idea of spreading the wealth around, there is no retort further in this debate. I do wish my opponent the best of luck in his future debates and welcome him to debate with me on another topic in the future. Thank you to all who have taken their time to read this debate and view this short video clip which lets everyone hear Obama's own words proving the 'pro' side of this debate. Enjoy your day.
Obama SUPPORTS the socialist idea to "spread the wealth around"

I am confused by my opponents back and forth style rhetoric. The idea of a mixed economy that he speaks of does not relate to spreading the wealth around, it relates to an economy that is mixed with both private and public industry. It does not have a clear definition but is summarized as a mixture of capitalism and socialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Even if one would extrapolate that a mixed economy includes spreading the wealth around, that would be the socialist side of a mixed economy. My opponent is focusing on the wrong point though, the term 'socialist idea' used in R1 is only used to describe Obama's ideal of 'spreading around the wealth'. This is not a debate to argue what type of economy we have in this country or who's predecessor had which ideals; though Bush spent a ton of government money and was far from a capitalist. That said, I find it necessary to point out an error in my opponents argument. He stated, "All democratic countries have some form of taking money from its people and distributing it unequally among its citizens in the form of taxes." That has nothing to do with how America was created. Our country did not have tax on income for nearly the first century of its existence. Only until funding for the Civil War was needed did the income of it's people get taxed. It is important to note that this 'war tax' also expired after the war ended. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The tax was not intended for social programs and was also a flat tax; it was a tax specifically for the war. In fact, the 16th amendment, which alters the constitution to make it legal for the federal government to tax income, was only added about a century ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Clearly our country, a democratic country, does not need to be based on taxing and unequal distributing of that tax to its citizens. I need to get back on topic, but felt it necessary to explain an errant point made by my opponent even if it is off topic. The point of this question is that Obama thinks it is a good idea to spread the wealth around. I can understand my opponent avoiding this topic because it is a fact that Obama thinks it is good to spread around the wealth. Though, if he decides to continue making a debate in round 2, I would please ask him to either concede the point that Obama thinks it is a good idea to spread around the wealth, or to show facts as to how he can disprove the topic of this debate. I would like to welcome my opponent to this page. It is a wonderful place to have debates and express thought. I have only been here about a month myself and have met many great people and have had many classy debates. I expect a classy and educated debate for this topic and also welcome my opponent to debate me again on other issues or find many of the other great people on here to debate as well.
Obama SUPPORTS the socialist idea to "spread the wealth around"

This is my first debate, so I hopefully I can keep up. Good luck to you! "Merriam-Webster online has described socialism as being "...distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." as well as "...government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." This definition nearly spells out word for word that the government which takes money from it's people and spreads it around to others is a socialist ideal. Obama has specifically expressed his support of spreading the wealth around, and this is a socialist tendency." While this definition does define a purely socialist ideaology, this is not the sole ideaology of Barack Obama and his administration. All democratic countries have some form of taking money from its people and distributing it unequally among its citizens in the form of taxes. Yet these countries are not socialist nor do they promote socialist ideaologies. They follow a system of a mixed economy (Keynesian economics). Essentially, a mixed economy borrows and examines ideas from both extremes: both socialism AND capitalism to try to attain some optimal level (1). What Barack Obama is doing is bringing the USA back into its optimal level through the ideaology of a mixed economy. If for any reason it seems like he endorses a socialist viewpoint of "spreading the wealth" it is only because he is rectifiying the many years of undoing of the mixed economy as a result of a strictly capatalist idealogy spread by his predecessor George W. Bush. Now that it is has been pushed so far into the capalist ideaology, it needs to be greatly reeled back into its optimal level by pushing some socialist views until a equalibrium (or as close to) can be met. Therefore, I conclude by stating the Barack Obama does not endorse "spreading the wealth" from a strictly socialist viewpoint, but rather from a mixed economy viewpoint. 1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Obama SUPPORTS the socialist idea to "spread the wealth around"

Just to be clear, the reason I selected 'PRO' for this topic, is only because I agree that Obama supports some socialist ideals...specifically the idea of spreading around the wealth. I do NOT agree with his idea to spread around this wealth. I have talked with many people in the forum who have gone so far as to argue against Obama having an idea of spreading the wealth around and I find that to be shocking because, to me, it is an absolute fact. I do welcome anyone who cares to argue that Obama does not support spreading around the wealth, though I would be shocked if anyone actually took such a stand. Merriam-Webster online has described socialism as being "...distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." as well as "...government ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." This definition nearly spells out word for word that the government which takes money from it's people and spreads it around to others is a socialist ideal. Obama has specifically expressed his support of spreading the wealth around, and this is a socialist tendency. This debate is about Obama and his views. Not a topic to argue what Socialism may or may not include. I would be shocked if someone accepted this challenge because as I said, they would attempt to argue against a pure fact that Obama supports spreading around the wealth, but I surely welcome anyone who wishes to accept.
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

1) Determination of free speechMy opponent completely evades my point of that she said that she had introduced the legislation so therefore it would be included in the bill on the limits of free speech and as I stated that the Liberals who control Congress and the Presidency would easily give a long stretch of free speech, as a matter of fact the Democrats are for Labor Unions and that is a major dependency on free speech, but the democrats would ensure that they get a say in matters. . http://www.cnn.com... Actually the government is already starting to label some of the right to criticize. Look in Kansas where governor Brownback has taken steps to limit the right to criticize. . http://www.queervoice.net... You might say that this is bad but actually look at Kansas' s social freedom ranking in the US which is #13 . http://freedominthe50states.org...2) Westboro Baptist Church We can still protect minorities as we currently have anti discrimination laws in place. Heck, we even have affirmative action that allows the minorities a leg up in the world. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... But you can see that the Phelps is a good reason on why the freedom of speech mustn't include the right to offend. It's already bad that they insult gays and Americans, but when they go and insult dead soldiers and God then they have gone way to far. (see video for more) . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... 3) IslamChristian voices are silenced, because of discrimination and that they are the ones being offense. Islam has posted horrible things and they have fallowed through on these horrible things that they have threaded (see last round). That is why the freedom of speech must not include the right to criticize because we're ending up with genocides due to this. Now let me explain before you say that I'm crazy. As I stated before the right to criticize allows for threats to go unheard of and when people don't get punished for those threats they sometimes go ahead and fallow through.
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

1) Determination of a free speachMy opponent here brings up that if we illegalize the right to critize then the government has the right to determine what free speach is, but Pro contradicts herself by saying that they have introduced the legislation. So this leads to the question of if Pro introduced the legislation then why didn't he specify what is the reach of free speach. Second Liberals control Congress and they advocate liberty, so they would be pushing for a large strech of free speach. http://www.dorfonlaw.org...;2) PhelpsNow for those of you who don't know the Phellps (Westboro Baptist Church) call for a persicution of gays and all. They hold up signs saying that God hates f@ggs and Soldiers go to hell. This is unexceptable! They even protest at dead soldiers funerals and finaly someone took them to court, but they failed. http://www.law.cornell.edu...3) IslamPeople in the Middle East have what we call Sharia Law, which is ruling according to the Quran where all people who aren't Muslum are in trouble. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org... year they exicute non believers in Islam. They behead homosexuals and discriminate against women. People in the Middle East fell deaply about there religon to where many people have even looked into cenosoring their television for their children. (see videos)http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -George Orwell Due to ideas made popular in the renaissance and the age of enlightenment, many countries have introduced legislation allowing for freedom of expression. Even in civilized countries in which such legislation is weak, such as England, one usually still can express her or her political views without being gunned down in the street for disagreeing with a tyrannical regime. It is these laws that allow one to freely give their opinion on a variety of topics, without fearing as to whether it will offend a psychotic religious leader or a power hungry despot. Without protection of "offensive" speech, it becomes all too easy for those in power to decide that any criticism of or opposition to them or their ideology is incurably offensive and therefore must be banned. It is in this context, that I urge you, dear reader to consider the proposition that freedom of speech must include the right to offend. Without such a right is becomes all too easy for governments and oppressive political movements to violate the right of free speech. In closing, I would like to ask a question of the audience: to whom would you give the right to decide what it offensive, and therefore not protected by free speech? Who would you give the right to decide what you can read, what you can hear, and, most importantly, what you can say? [1] September 11-25 "Western" Journalists call for censorship of western media that criticizes Islam [2] Friday, March 29th, 2013 Islamist activists in Bangladesh demand that bloggers who disagree with Islam be prosecuted [3] Saturday, March 30th, 2013 The Egyptian satirist Bassem Youssef is arrested on charges that included offending Islam and the current Egyptian leader, Mohammed Morsi [1] http://wapo.st... [1] http://lat.ms... [1] http://slate.me... [2] http://bit.ly... [3] http://nyti.ms...
Resolved: Freedom of Speech Must Include the Right to Offend

I assume that round one is for definitions and acceptance so I'll define a couple words that I think are going to key for this debate. Must- means should http://www.google.com... But if you think that Google isn't a creditable source then here's one that defines should as must http://www.merriam-webster.com... So with that word defined I look forward to a great debate. (also my school is hosting a tourney that I have to monitor, so if I could ask you to please not respond until tomorrow)
Economics of Christianity

INTRODUCTION Thank you Kasmic for debating this with me, it was a pleasure. Due to this debate only being 4 rounds me and my opponent couldn't place counter rebuttals until the final round. Hopefully, this won't be held against either of us. I will largely ignore his counter rebuttal in the name of fairness. THE LAWS OF MOSES If you remember in round 2, I printed up a long list of laws God handed down to the Jewish people guiding them in their governmental process. My opponent hasn't denied the Laws of Moses do this but has instead insisted that they don't count with a wave of his hand. Contrary to my opponent's assertion that Christians don't follow the laws of Moses, many actually do. Stating that Christians don't follow the laws of Moses is simply an over generalization and many groups, such as those calling themselves Messianic Jews do actually follow the Laws of Moses. In Matthew 5:17 Jesus reveals that he doesn't intend to abolish the laws of Moses. So despite my opponent thinking those laws don't count, Jesus disagrees as well as Messianic Jews. Besides that if you reread round 1 to see the resolution written out, it clearly states me and my opponent aren't debating Christianity but instead debating what the bible says. That distinction may be important to some voters. STEWARDSHIP My opponent misses the point when he drills this stewardship argument in. God has given man dominion over the Earth and despite him being the owner (technically), he has commanded us (see round 2 laws) to act in a capitalistic fashion, and seeing as how he asks that those who work hard receive more than those who slack, he clearly isn't advocating for distributing stuff based on need. CONCLUSION Jesus taught the importance of charity and focusing on the afterlife. He never advocated for governments to act communistic, this is in direct violation of God commanding The nation of Israel to be capitalist. This is a clear win, vote Wylted
Economics of Christianity

CLASSLESS SOCIETY The bible in no way supports a classless society. If you read my round 2 argument, you can see that the bible states that we shall reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7). In Genesis you see that after man's fall in the Garden of Eden that God commanded, man to live and eat from the sweat of his brow (Genesis 3:19). To say that the bible advocates for a classless society is absurd. It clearly says that people who work hard shall have while those who don't shall starve. Maybe if man's downfall in the Garden of Eden hadn't occurred things would be different. Now my opponent states that God views every man as equal. This is basically the bible's equivalent of saying "all men are created equal". If you take a look at all the other things the bible says, specifically what I've already pointed out the only reasonable interpretation of these verses is to think God views all men as equal not that he wants all men to have an equal amount of assets despite how capable they are. God has actually helped to create a class system by appointing kings and prophets to lead the people. (Romans 13:1) FREE LOWER CLASS FROM POVERTY The verses my opponent points to are actually just encouraging Tithing. The bible requires a few different tithes. One to the church, another for the poor and the total is about 23%. http://www.gotquestions.org... Communism would be more like a 100% tithe and would be unbiblical. ABSENCE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY My verse completely contradict this, which we'll get more to next round during counter rebuttals. As far as the rich man is concerned Jesus was teaching people to put their treasures in heaven. This guy put his money before God which is no different than worshipping a false idol. Jesus isn't commanding everyone to give up all their possessions, he's encouraging everyone to put God first. Just as he encourages people to pluck their eye out if it keeps them from going to heaven (Mark 9:47). If your wealth keeps you from God, give it all away. It's his anyway but if not keep it. Remember that Jesus's disciples had to pool their resources together and act as a team. They were on the road in hostile roman territory. It's okay for people to pool their resources and actually can be an effective strategy in tough times. I pool my resources with my family whom I live with. In no way do I support communism. This is just an arrangement for me and my love ones common interest and we in no way would force that on anyone. Jesus and his disciples selling their possessions to eat and pooling their resources isn't the same as advocating for a communist society, and in fact Jesus's teachings focused mostly on spiritual matters and can't crossover to government affairs. This is unlike the Government which was set up in the Old Testament. CONCLUSION Points for the final section have been covered in this round and my previous arguments. Counter rebuttals will be next round. Good luck to my opponent.
Music debate

For my next piece of music, I will use a piece by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the Overture to The Marriage of Figaro.The Marriage of Figaro was a comic opera composed in 1786 by Mozart, based on a stage comedy by Pierre Beaumarchais. Although the play by Beaumarchais was at first banned in Vienna because of its satire of the aristocracy, considered dangerous in the decade before the French Revolution, the opera became one of Mozart's most successful works. The overture is especially famous and is often played as a concert piece. The musical material of the overture is not used later in the work, aside from two brief phrases during the Count's part in the terzetto Cosa sento! in act 1. [1]Please enjoy.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;http://www.youtube.com...;
Music debate

For the next piece, will use George Fredrick Handel's Sarabande, which has always been one of my favorites.Sarabande is part of the Keyboard Suite Handel wrote.The Keyboard suite in D minor (HWV 437) was composed by George Frideric Handel, for solo keyboard (harpsichord), between 1703 and 1706. It is also referred to as Suite de pièce Vol. 2 No. 4. It was first published in 1733. http://www.youtube.com...
Music debate

For my next piece of music, I've decided on a piece by Franz von Suppe:Ein Morgen, ein Mittag und ein Abend in Wien Overture (Morning, Noon, and Night in Vienna Overture).Looney Tunes fans may recognize this as the central theme to the Bugs Bunny cartoon, Baton Bunny.Please enjoy this wonderful piece of music.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Music debate

http://www.youtube.com... Fugue in G minor, BWV 578, "Little", is a piece of organ music written by Johann Sebastian Bach sometime around his years at Arnstadt (1703–1707). It is one of Bach's best known fugues and has been arranged for other voices, including an orchestral version made by Leopold Stokowski.[1] It is a common misconception that the Little fugue in G minor is so-called because it is unimportant. In fact, early editors of Bach's work attached this title to distinguish it from the later Great Fantasia and Fugue in G minor, BWV 542, which is longer in duration. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Music debate

For my next piece, I decided to go with German composer Johannes Brahms.One simply can't think of the Romantic period of classical music without thinking of Brahms. As a clarinetist myself, I have performed this piece in its entirety (all four movements). The piece in question is Brahms' Clarinet Concerto No. 1 in F Minor, Movement 4, composed in 1894.Brahms composed this sonata, as well as three other works for clarinet (a Clarinet Trio, the Clarinet Sonata No. 2 in E-Flat Major, and a Clarinet Quintet) near the end of his life. He had retired, but after hearing the wonderful playing of clarinetist Richard Mulhfield, was inspired to come out of retirement and compose these four chamber works for clarinet in rapid succession. [1]It was Mozart who first realized the potential of the clarinet, so when Brahms composed his wonderful works for the clarinet, there wasn't much soloistic music being written for it. We clarinetists owe Mozart and Brahms a debt of gratitude for writing such wonderful music and showing how diverse and wonderful the clarinet actually is.Romantic music was known for its use of emotion to great effect, to evoke feeling for those listening. This version on YouTube has the music in case you'd like to follow along (provided you can read music). But notice how the performers do not stick strictly to the 4/4 time, sometimes speeding or slowing then returning to the tempo of the piece. This is known as rubato, and is a method employed to add emotion to the piece so that it doesn't become stale.Again, please enjoy.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(Brahms)http://www.youtube.com...
Music debate

The next piece will be Bach's Concerto for Two Violins in D minor 1/3. The Concerto for 2 Violins, Strings and Continuo in D Minor, BWV 1043, also known as the Double Violin Concerto or "Bach Double", is perhaps one of the most famous works by J. S. Bach and considered among the best examples of the work of the late Baroque period. Bach wrote it between 1730 and 1731 when he was the cantor at Thomasschule, in Leipzig, Germany. [1] Later in 1739, in Leipzig, he created an arrangement for two harpsichords, transposed into C minor, BWV 1062. [1] In addition to the two soloists, the concerto is scored for strings and basso continuo. Wikipedia. . http://en.wikipedia.org...(Bach)http://www.youtube.com...;