BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

I angelcoba will gladly debate on the pro side for Gun Control. My opponent will debate why Gun Control is not needed and any other reasons why. Example: Limitations and restrictions is not needed due to respecting the 2nd amendment. My opponent will compete to argue why gun control is not needed in /ammo/etc. .. . I will argue why Gun control is indeed needed. I have the burden of proof to demonstrate to my opponent and to others why Gun control is important. I want my opponent to consider the following. .. 1. ( Acceptance, Thesis ) 2. ( Respond to objections) 3. ( Conclusions ) I accept this debate to who ever accepts it. I believe there should be formidable gun control all over the United States due to school shootings, movie theater shootings, and home invasions. I believe every American citizen should feel no need of protection while roaming around the community. Citizens should not fear those with guns. Heavy guns, guns that belong on the battle field. I as well believe in strong background checks for those that feel the need to purchase a gun. The world has knowledge to the school shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, United States. Sometime before 9:30 a. m. on December 14,2012, Lanza assassinated his mother. Around 9:35 a. m. he used his mother's Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle(a rifle in which only belongs on the battle field. ) He shot his way through the locked glass doors in front of the school, carrying high capacity magazines. 9:46 through 9:45 the shooting stopped after firing 50-100 rounds and reloaded only fifteen rounds from a thirty-round magazine. After the rampage, 20 children, 20 innocent children were found dead and as well as 7 adults. The killer was found dead as well, meaning this was caused for nothing. Now that the man is dead justice can't be served. And that angers me. The movie theater tragic: Gunman killed 12 in Colorado. In Miami a father was killed protecting his daughter from an home invasion. As we all suspect the criminals that killed the innocent people are mentally-ill. This is why I urge for strong background checks to all citizens that want to have possession of a gun in order to protect our citizens, our children of the future. I urge for reduction in ammo and weapons that belong only in the battle field and not in America's streets.
Limit the Power of Congress

"The implication is not that ARRA has been too small, but rather that it failed to increase government consumption expenditures and infrastructure spending as many had predicted from such a large package." The Obama stimulus package was 831 billion to be spent from 2009 to 2019 [1]. At the unemployment peak only 100 billion was spent and by 2011 500 billion was spent [3]. Keep in mind that this stimulus was only meant to be a slow stimulus of the economy over several years. It would have been more effective to spend more earlier so we partially agree. This is a problem that can be fixed simply with different bailout policies. Stimulus spending is necessary to turn stagnation into an upward spending spiral. My main point is not about the stimulus of 2009, but about the bailout of 2008. Our financial system was collapsing and banks were failing. Even with the stimulus, quite a few banks failed [4]. So the government gave 700 billion to banks to keep them from failing and bringing worse financial ruin to the American people [3]. While nobody wants to give public money to banks, this was necessary to prevent another depression. Keeping a financial system from collapsing is a good reason for deficit spending. Rainy Day Fund as Alternative This is a good idea but I don't think this will ever happen. Judging from the history of civilization, governments rarely rack up surpluses and save them for very long. Governments and nations just don't have that kind of self-discipline. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But if we are in a market crash and there is no rainy day fund, deficit spending is the only good option. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2: http://mercatus.org... 3: http://en.wikipedia.org... 4: http://www.forbes.com...
Limit the Power of Congress

I understand that the stimulus spending is apportioned to more than just labor although Stanford University's Taylor, and Cogan authored a paper analyzing the recent stimulus package in which they conclude: "changes in government purchases have had no material effect on the growth of GDP since the time ARRA was enacted. The implication is not that ARRA has been too small, but rather that it failed to increase government consumption expenditures and infrastructure spending as many had predicted from such a large package." I can't find records from the most transparent administration in history (sarcasm intended) showing the timing of stimulus spending. That does not however change my argument that the ability of the Gov't to engage in deficit spending should be limited. The Gov't doesn't have to engage in deficit spending to stimulate the economy. Surpluses can lead to a rainy day fund which can be deployed as needed. And deficit spending generally weakens our ability to provide the necessary services that the government supplies because a growing portion of revenues must go to servicing our growing debt. If stimulus spending is not carefully spent on projects that make our country stronger and which provide no return, we end up paying for waste well into the future. Furthermore this weakens our standing in the world. China receives almost $74 million a day from the US debt or about $26 billion annually[2] or 16.25% of its 2013 military expenditures[3]. I misspoke when I said that politicians "have no business acumen." It takes great skill to waste the large sums of money that they do. They are in the business of buying votes and they are particularly adept at that. [1] http://www.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.politifact.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Limit the Power of Congress

Recovery.gov reports that $243,547,437,392 has been pumped into the economy in the form of federal contracts, grants, and loans from Feb 17, 2009 to Sept 30, 2013. Most of this money was issued after the recession had ended. The site also reports that this created 72,246 jobs. This website only tracks some of the bailout funds. The value of Obama's Stimulus is 830 billion excluding Bush's stimulus package or the auto bailout [1]. Many jobs created by the stimulus were not reported to the Obama Administration. According to our best reports, the stimulus package created 2.4 million jobs. The stimulus does not only pay for wages but for materials like road construction materials, so the price per job is low [1]. I would like to see some support for the claim that stimulus spending was spent after the recession. Much of it like the bailout to banks to ensure that our financial and economic system did not fall apart was spent very quickly. I wonder how many jobs were saved because our financial system did not fall apart? There was no death spiral from 1990 to 2002 because there was no market crash like the great depression or the great recession. The great recession was worse than other recessions because the initial crash was far worse because the financial system was collapsing. Deficit spending is high, but this is a far better alternative to the depression that would have happened if our financial system had collapsed. This year, our deficit is down to 680 billion and is nearer to the 2004 level of 410 billion [2]. So the bailout money did save the economy from another recession, and our deficits are falling. 1: www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/01/national-republican-congressional-committee/stimulus-jobs-cost-taxpayers-gop-committee-says-in/ 2: www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/30/congratulations-america-your-deficit-fell-37-percent-in-2013/
Limit the Power of Congress

Let's bring this argument back to the point. First. The argument/debate surrounding what caused the Great Depression and what brought the US economy out, is still being conducted. Economists have proffered a few theories, unfortunately we cannot conduct a controlled experiment to verify/disprove their theories. I'll bring this back to my initial points. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was in effect until 2002. During this time the US experienced 2 recessions (July 1990 - Mar 1991, and Mar 2001 - Nov 2001). Would Con please point out the prolonged "economic meltdown" that occurred during these two recessions? Or the "death spiral" that we all experienced? On the other hand it is a fact that the Great Recession (Dec 2007 - June 2009) has seen deficit spending as high as 10% of annual GDP. This recession was also twice as long as the previous two recessions. Recovery.gov reports that $243,547,437,392 has been pumped into the economy in the form of federal contracts, grants, and loans from Feb 17, 2009 to Sept 30, 2013. Most of this money was issued after the recession had ended. The site also reports that this created 72,246 jobs. That is a cost of $3.37 million per job. What a bargain! These fools in Washington have shown that they have no business acumen and should be restricted on how much damage they can inflict upon taxpayers. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://research.stlouisfed.org... http://www.recovery.gov...
Limit the Power of Congress

While it is right that stimulus packages are not perfect, they are certainly better than the alternative which is economic meltdown. In the case of the Great Depression which started in 1929, the economy went into a death spiral for three years until 1932 when unemployment peaked at 25%. This happened because when consumers lose money since they lost their jobs, they are going to spend less. This resulted in less demand, meaning that more people will lose jobs. Demand falls because of this, and the spiral goes on and on. Because of the depression the unemployment rate did not fall below 6% until 1942 13 years later[1]. The stock market did not recover to its original level until 1954 35 years later[2]. Income per capita did not return to its original level until 1942 13 years later[3]. Our nation lost a decade and a half because of that recession. A death spiral must be avoided. Pro's solutions such as letting the market handle things will not work because this is a case where the market by itself goes into a death spiral. Cutting government spending won't work because the people who are receiving less money because of these cuts will spend less, reducing demand and aggravating the death spiral. The best solution is to increase government spending by borrowing instead of collecting more taxes. This is a way of boosting demand and stopping the spiral in its tracks. In the 2008 recession, thanks to the stimulus packages, we are able to halt the spiral in its tracks in 2009 [4]. This process is not perfect as you noted but sure beats the alternative. Wasting some stimulus money is better than increased economic disaster. 1: snohomishobserver.com/2012/09/25/certainty-for-the-rest-of-us 2: sun.menloschool.org/~nfortman/8th/decadesweb.2003/jillh/index.html 3: aneconomicsense.com/2012/07/20/the-shift-from-equitable-to-inequitable-growth-after-1980-helping-the-rich-has-not-helped-the-not-so-rich 4: bishopforcongress.com/debunction/obama-losing-job
Limit the Power of Congress

The idea that the federal government must engage in deficit spending in order to prop up the economy in down-turns is ill-advised at best. The stimulus projects which the government funds are rarely well-planned. They lack proper controls, monitoring, trained personnel, and a framework for evaluating there efficacy. Furthermore the spending tends to occur very late in the downturn and continues well beyond the economic crisis. This chaos creates the perfect environment for politicians to buy votes and reward campaign contributors with lucrative government contracts. The relationships between campaign contributors and politicians are often clouded which reduces the likelihood that particular politicians will ever be held accountable for issuing political favors in the name of staving of a crisis. If in fact there is a depression in aggregate demand in the economy, individual market participants each acting in their own self-interest produce much more efficient results than government spending. This indicates that by decreasing government spending (and thus taxes) individual market participants are enabled to efficiently allocate their capital to the most optimal endeavors.
Limit the Power of Congress

The following should be added to the constitution as an amendment. "Congress shall not enact any legislation that is not budget neutral or which is not offset with savings derived from existing funds." Our system of government has become corrupted. We must limit the ability of the government to both award favors to political cronies and to burden future generations. When politicians are required to secure funding prior to enacting legislation they are forced to 1. look for cuts (or savings) in current programs or 2. to raise taxes. Both of these options effect the American people directly and would garner a more active and informed electorate. A similar rule was included in the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 and was allowed to expire in 2002. Total federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each year this legislation was in force. Furthermore GDP almost doubled during this same time period.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

Secondly you have not stated how evolution or life started. You state many facts of examples of adaptation but even you haven't come across the problem of Microevolution. Evolution is not one species evolving (or adapting) to make a better species. But to explain how life came on the earth, and how non-living things turned to cells to all the way to multi-celled organisms.However, I have shown many examples of transitional fossils in the last round (between dinosaurs and birds, ape and men, etc.), proving that evolution is responsible for life as seen today. Also, non-living things turning into cells is not evolution, but rather abiogenesis; that is a topic for another time.The links are not arguments, as you have to make your own case.
Evolution is supported by scientific evidence

First I give some links not as sources of my argument but to give some thought into what we are dealing with: http://www.crisismagazine.com... http://www.ucg.org... http://www.uncommondescent.com... Secondly you have not stated how evolution or life started. You state many facts of examples of adaptation but even you haven't come across the problem of Microevolution. Evolution is not one species evolving (or adapting) to make a better species. But to explain how life came on the earth, and how non-living things turned to cells to all the way to multi-celled organisms.
Resolved: Iran is not developing nuclear weapons

Iran has come under the spotlight of suspicion for its developing of a nuclear program. Iran claims it to be solely for peaceful purposes while a majority of other nations allege it to be for a weapons program. I am arguing in favor of the resolution as I believe that the proponderance of evidence shows that Iran has no intention to develop a nuclear weapon. I ask that this debate remain somewhat close in terms of its process to Lincoln-Douglas debate. I am new to this site but I do have 3 years of experience in LD.
We push some thoughts out into unconsciousness; thereby, we can deceive ourselves

I used 'unconsciousness' not in Freud's sense, but in a broad sense, which is 'the state of being uninformed or unaware' ("definition of unconsciousness"). The following is one of the many examples explaining my thesis. "People are unrealistically optimistic even when the stakes are high. About 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, and this is a statistic most people have heard. But around the time of the ceremony, almost all couples believe that there is approximately a zero percent chance that their marriage will end in divorce-even those who have already been divorced! (Thaler and Sunstein 32)" Works Cited https://www.google.co.kr.... Accessed 13 January 2017. Thaler, Richard H., Sunstein, Cass R.Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, And Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Print.
We push some thoughts out into unconsciousness; thereby, we can deceive ourselves

Let me explain further, Freud split the human personality into three parts; id, ego, and super ego. The symbiotic trinity all individual, yet together, is what produces the tormented mind of a human being. The unnamed unconscious mind, is the other side of the coin, so to speak, of id, ego, and super ego, all predetermined in the same sense that your body and brain were predetermined by your genetic makeup in the womb. The unconscious mind is alive and alert, even when you are piloting your body for a time. However, when you sleep the unconscious mind will tell you things in the process of dreams, that your conscious mind was either unaware of, or rationality blind to. In your dreams, archetypes replace the resolution of consciousness. Thoughts and or observations about yourself, obtained from the unconscious mind, by the conscious trinity of your being, cannot be returned. They will stay with you for life because the thought is a part of you, that you are unaware exists.
We need to increase government spending and lower taxes

So, for my final argument, let's point out the faults in your argument. First, the US deficit. We are not currently anywhere as low as your $500 billion estimate. We are currently at $17 trillion dollars in debt. Not billions or even millions. Trillions. Your "estimate" or whatever is horribly off. If you used an outside source for that, it must have been horribly out of date. It is true that we've always been in debt, but we have never been as low as $500 billion. It's always been in the trillions since the 1980s. Second, money just does not "poof out of air". True, money can be made on the computer, but it takes just as long to create virtual dollars as physical dollars. In order for a currency to have worth, it has to have a limit. If the US government can just "poof" money whenever it wants, then we don't have a currency. Sorry, but that won't stand either. You seem to be stuck on thinking like a citizen. I'm guessing that you are most likely a middle class citizen with no worries whatsoever. The only problem you have with the government is taxes, and they have to go away. First, taxes are not borrowing. You never get the money back you have. Second, well, second, let's give an example. Let's say I know a family. They are a struggling working class family, and they use a government program called WIC to survive. They have a two year old son, and without this government program, they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their child. If you want to cut taxes, sure you become more rich, but what about that struggling family? The WIC program would not have as much money, and they would not be able to qualify. You would want starving children to die just for what, a tax break? The fact is, if you get a tax break, tons of programs will have to be cut. Either that, or the governent will have to take out loans. The government has already approached the debt ceiling several time. You seem to forget that the sky is not the limit, but the ceiling is. If tons of government programs are cut, the US has to cut back not only on hospitals, WIC, and food stamps, but it also has to cut back in security, including the army, navy, CIA, FBI, and more. You would rather risk the entire nation's security just so that you get a tax break? Shame. My previous argument stands true about how the government will fall. Thus, I have proven all of your arguments wrong and forced you into a rather undesirable position.
We need to increase government spending and lower taxes

You have it all wrong. Taxes are not a sub-part of government spending. Taxes are actually the main revenue for the government as of right now. Whatever money the government needs but can't get from taxes, it borrows (1) . Expansionary fiscal policy occurs when government spending exceeds tax revenue, and the government borrows money as it has no other revenue source. Contractionary fiscal policy occurs when taxes are high and government spending is low, which usually happens when a government is paying off debt (2) . The US government is currently paying off an enormous amount of debt. Thus, it is currently on a Contractionary Fiscal Policy state. You dropped most of my arguments before, including one that stated: do you want the US debt to rise? Do you want the economy to fail like it already is? You can't spend what you don't have, and right now, the US government can't increase its debt or the government will fall. You need to rework your math. If I run a grocery store, and I have 10 tomatoes, is it possible for me to sell 20? That is the same idea that you are getting at. I'm sorry, but this is a dreamer's argument. It is just not possible in our current state and won't be for a long time. Your turn, Pro. Sources: 1. http://nationalpriorities.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia has viable sources for everything, so thus it is a reliable source, at least it is in this debate.)
We need to increase government spending and lower taxes

Government spending comes from the money that it borrows. Government borrowing can either be from taxation, money printing, or open market operations. The government chooses to engage in open market operations to finance its borrowing. Private or international investors buy US bonds and that gives the government more money to spend. Thus, additional money is added to the economy without taking from the private sector (unless interest rates rise due to increased borrowing but this wouldn't happen during a recession.) High government spending and low taxes are expansionary fiscal policy Low government spending and high taxes are contractionary fiscal policy.
We need to increase government spending and lower taxes

The very idea of this debate is near impossible. It is nearly impossible to both increase governemnt spending by lowering their income. The government would have to take out loans, and we are already in debt enough as it is. We're talking about trillions of dollars in debt. Trillions. Are you saying we should add more to that total? Because if we add more to that total, won't the economy fail even more? Won't the US Dollar be worth less? Is that really what you want? The most logical way to get rid of debt and thus be able to increase government spending like you want seems to be to actually raise taxes. If our government fails, the economy fails.
It is better to believe in God regardless of his existence

Since nobody could disprove or prove Gods existence there's still a chance even if small that he exists which means heaven and hell has has a chance of existing too and only good Christians can go to heaven. Okay now time for math on average a person lives 80-85 years so about 82.5 years and on average a worship service is one hour and thirty minutes and your expected to go to church at 6-7 years old so you have to go to church for about 4,742.4 hours in your life time for an eternity in heaven or you could spend 0 hours in church and an eternity in hell your pick.
Members of the US military are not heroes

My opponent has repeatedly provided reasons why it is bad or wrong for US militants to be considered heroes, but as previously stated, that is not the objective of the debate. My opponent's weak argument that a hero needs to fill criteria for being a hero often is simply not valid. The definition of a hero, as cited by my opponent, does not call for these requirements to be repeated. As I have proven in my previous arguments, the average US militant is admired by the general public, has shown incredible courage, has achieved the outstanding, and does demonstrate noble qualities such as preservation of life and intense dedication. Thus, by the definition cited by my opponent, the typical US militant IS as hero, whether this is a good thing or not. I thank my opponent for the debate, and I wish him the best of luck in his future debates. Go Tigers!