BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Constitution gives govt power to run-up deficits.

Doug Kendall and Dahlia Lithwick. "Off Balance The Balanced Budget Amendment would make the Framers weep." Slate. July 15th, 2011: "It's fairly certain that George Washington and the other Founders gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 would be appalled by the Lee amendment. It is not an accident that the first two enumerated powers the Constitution vests in Congress are the power "to lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States" and "to borrow money on the credit of the United States." The Constitution's broad textual grant of power was a direct response to the Articles of Confederation, which had imposed crippling restrictions on Congress's power to borrow and tax. These restrictions plagued the Revolutionary War effort and made a deep and lasting impression on Washington and other war veterans. Lee and the other proponents of shrinking the federal government to restore freedom misapprehend that the Constitution recognized there would be no freedom without a strong federal government to promote it."
18% spending rule would not fit w/ other timeless Amendments.

Doug Kendall and Dahlia Lithwick. "Off Balance The Balanced Budget Amendment would make the Framers weep." Slate. July 15th, 2011: "in a Constitution filled with broad principles of governance, the amendment's arbitrary spending limit of 18 percent of GDP—an awkward and unworkable figure—would stick out like a sore thumb. Contrary to Chief Justice John Marshall's warning in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Lee's arbitrary spending limit 'partake[s] of the prolixity of a legal code,' and would be out of place in a document that is designed to 'to endure for ages to come … to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.' We face a high duty when amending the Constitution: to match the Framers' maturity and foresight. By every measure that would have mattered to the Founders, Lee's proposed amendment easily flunks this test."
Balanced budget Amend makes fighting recession harder

Kathy White. "Guest Commentary: A federal balanced budget amendment would hurt the economy." Denver Post. July 24th, 2011: "Requiring a balanced federal budget every year, no matter how the economy is doing, would force big cuts in services, increases in taxes - or both. That's because when the economy slows, federal revenues go down and spending on unemployment insurance and other programs needed to spur recovery go up. If the government can't run a deficit, even temporarily, many Americans have nothing to cushion their fall. If a balanced federal budget were compulsory, we'd suffer a vicious spiral of bad policy that would push weak economies into recession and make recessions last longer, potentially costing millions of jobs. The last time a balanced budget amendment was proposed, in 1997, more than 1,000 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, condemned the idea as "unsound and unnecessary." They called it "a proposal that mandates perverse actions in the face of recessions."
Congress shouldn't make Amend if it can't make good fiscal leg.

"On a balanced-budget amendment." The Economist. Aug 2nd, 2011: "I see the argument for a well-designed, over-the-business-cycle balanced-budget amendment. But the idea of enshrining this Congress' pathologies into the constitution is terrifying. Let's see Congress design some quality fiscal rules using the normal legislative process first, and then we can talk about adding those to the constitution."
Plenty of wasteful spending to cut with BBA

Dr. Jim Garlow Chairman, Renewing American Leadership Action. Statement before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011: "GAO Finds Hundreds of Billions in Duplication and Waste. And just how carefully have our stewards in Washington been spending all our tax dollars during this explosion of federal spending? According to the Government Accountability Office, it’s a scandal of epic proportions. A new law, attached to the last debt limit increase by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), mandated that the GAO begin analyzing federal programs for duplication and waste. On March 1 of this year the GAO published its first annual “Report on Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication,” which covered slightly more than one third of all federal spending. The auditors uncovered significant duplication in 33 areas, including: Twenty agencies operating 56 programs dedicated to financial literacy. GAO and agencies can’t even estimatewhat they cost. Highways programs have not been rebooted since 1956. The Department of Transportation (DOT) spends $58 billion on 100 separate programs run by five DOT agencies with 6,000 employees. GAO says the programs have 'not evolved to reflect current priorities in transportation planning.' In 2007, the U.S. Agriculture Department paid $1.1 billion in farm subsidies to 170,000 dead people. Fifteen federal agencies now oversee 30 food laws, and at least four departments compete to administer 80 economic development programs."
Supermajority approval creates dangerous minority rule.

Davis Merritt. "Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable." The Wichita Eagle. August 2nd, 2011: "It would leave the most crucial fiscal decisions in the hands of congressional minorities, a profoundly undemocratic idea. Even if, miraculously, no lawsuits arose, the nation could be impotent to deal with emergencies. If, for instance, a worldwide recession cut into revenues or costs soared, such as in a Katrina-like disaster, operating out of balance would require approval by a supermajority of each house, such as two-thirds, meaning a minority of one-third plus one could stop anything. If you think that wouldn't be a problem because people in Congress surely would act responsibly and not out of ideology or ignorance in an obvious crisis, you weren't paying attention last week as less than 15 percent of the House of Representatives paralyzed that body while the nation hurtled toward default and collapse."
Balanced budget Amend violates intended flexibility of Const.

Davis Merritt. "Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable." The Wichita Eagle. August 2nd, 2011: "Our Constitution outlines in the broadest terms how the federal system works. It contains few numbers, is by design remarkably flexible, and assumes that underlying comity and good intentions will prevail despite strong partisan passions. Amending it is a complex process for good reason, and we should do it precisely and with foresight and caution. A balanced-budget amendment violates those criteria."
Balanced budget could allow for debt during recession/war.

Edward Glaeser. Balanced Budget Suddenly Looks More Appealing." Bloomberg. Aug 1st, 2011: "Any federal balanced-budget amendment should allow the government to spend more than it collects in taxes during wars and recessions, with the understanding that it will spend less during peaceful times of plenty. If the budget is to be balanced, it should be balanced over the business cycle, not year by year."
Formulaic balanced budget amend ignores circumstances.

Kathy White. "Guest Commentary: A federal balanced budget amendment would hurt the economy." Denver Post. July 24th, 2011: "Some of the balanced budget amendment proposals don't just ban the federal government from ever spending more than it takes in. Most also require that if taxes ever are raised it would take a two-thirds vote of Congress rather than a majority. And they cap total spending at some arbitrary level even if revenues exceed that amount. It's government by formula. It ignores emerging needs or crises that can arise at any time. It would ratchet down spending to levels not seen in 50 years, even though our needs have grown tremendously since then."
Balanced budget amendment will help solve fiscal crisis.

Dr. Jim Garlow Chairman, Renewing American Leadership Action. Statement before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011: "This constitutional amendment is necessary to force Congress and the President to confront and resolve our cancerous fiscal crisis. It will end the annual budget deficit and stop the bleeding. And it will prevent future Congresses or Presidents from relying on tax increases or borrowing to balance the budget."
Balanced budget will bring fed spending in line with states'.

Edward Glaeser. Balanced Budget Suddenly Looks More Appealing." Bloomberg. Aug 1st, 2011: "Another reason to favor more federal fiscal restraint is that we could use a better balance between state and federal spending. Over the past 50 years, the federal government has become heavily involved in financing infrastructure, even when those projects overwhelmingly serve in-state users and could be funded with user fees. Why is it so obvious that the federal government has a role in funding rail between Tampa and Orlando, or a big tunnel in Boston? Washington’s prominence is explained primarily by the federal government’s ability to borrow, and not by any inherent edge it has in infrastructure development. Federalizing expenditures breaks the connection between the projects’ funders and the projects’ users. Any instance when we’re spending other people’s money is an invitation for waste. States and localities saddled with balanced-budget rules are relatively parsimonious and spend a fair amount of time debating even relatively modest public investments. That’s far more desirable than the federal government’s freedom to distribute billions without imposing taxes on voters."
Unworkable to measure and define balanced budget

Davis Merritt. "Balanced-budget amendment is unworkable." The Wichita Eagle. August 2nd, 2011: "Our Constitution outlines in the broadest terms how the federal system works. It contains few numbers, is by design remarkably flexible, and assumes that underlying comity and good intentions will prevail despite strong partisan passions. Amending it is a complex process for good reason, and we should do it precisely and with foresight and caution. A balanced-budget amendment violates those criteria."
Reducing spending w/ BBA frees-up money for job-creation.

Dr. Jim Garlow Chairman, Renewing American Leadership Action. "The Case for a Balanced Budget Amendment Now." Statement before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011: "For some reason we have developed a huge blind spot in our public policy discourse that blocks out the fact that every single dollar that government spends has first been extracted from the private sector. The truth is that the government has NO money of its own. The only revenue the government generates has come out of the pockets of the private sector. The truth is the only way there is a net “stimulus” to the overall economy from government spending is if the goods and services the government buys somehow manage to generate more jobs and more economic activity than the people in the private sector would have generated if they had been allowed to keep their own dollars. We know that doesn’t happen. Government 'stimulus' is a dangerous fallacy; based on deliberately ignoring the investment opportunities that the private sector is prevented from pursuing, and the jobs those opportunities would have created. We continue living with the single entry delusion that government spending is free. But the debits we have been generating are still accumulating, and our books are eventually going to be balanced one way or the other. How much better it will be if we change course voluntarily and avoid a collapse. Reducing federal spending significantly would provide America’s productive private economy with enormous additional resources to generate jobs and economic security for all Americans. H.J.Res. 1 provides an important tool to make that happen. Reducing federal spending significantly would provide America’s productive private economy with enormous additional resources to generate jobs and economic security for all Americans. H.J.Res. 1 provides an important tool to make that happen."
Dangers are involved in every sport.

Former All-Star catcher Bob Boone: "It's in every sport that we have, there are dangers there. There are dangers for a jockey climbing onto a horse. Do we just let the horses run by themselves and save injures? We see it in football. If we took the pads off and just played flag it be a lot better. We wouldn't have so many injures but it's part of our society. It's why it's so attractive to us, I think."[4]
Many collisions have caused career-changing injuries.

Giants manager Bruce Bochy, a former catcher who had multiple head injuries in his playing days, called on Major League Baseball to explore ideas to protect players after the Buster Posey injury: "I think we do need to consider changing the rules here a little bit because the catcher is so vulnerable and there's so many who have gotten hurt. And not just a little bit, had their careers ended or shortened."[3]
Runners throw themselves at fielder at second base as well.

Nick Cafardo. "Let’s keep rule change off our plate, please." The Boston Globe. May 29th, 2011: "The argument has been made that at no other base does the runner launch his body at the fielder without trying to slide into the base first. Not true. When runners are trying to break up double plays, are they always near the base?" In other words, such physical contact is a part of the game beyond just at home plate.
Other sports have changed rules to make game safer.

Dr. David Geier. "Should MLB ban home plate collisions?" May 30, 2011: "changing rules about trying to score on fly balls would not fundamentally change the game. It would eliminate the collision, not the ability to score on fly balls. It would affect a small component of baseball to make it safer. Eliminating fighting in hockey or tackling in football are not equal comparisons, as some have argued. Eliminating chop blocks in football or body checking from behind in hockey are much better comparisons. They are evolutions of the rules in these sports to protect their players while still maintaining the integrity and nature of the sports."
Injuries are part of game, don't justify rule changes.

Fadi. "In Defense Of Home Plate Collisions." Red State Blue State. May 27th, 2011: "No one likes to see people get hurt. No one. But guess what: it happens. People get hurt playing baseball all the time. Sometimes they get seriously hurt. It sucks. There’s no denying it. But that still doesn’t make it okay to go off and make drastic rule changes to the game, just because you and your worldwide leader in smut want blog traffic. Hate me ‘cuz it ain’t sugarcoated, just don’t hate me ‘cuz I’m right."
Banning collisions would give unfair advantage to runner/catcher.

Ricky Doyle. "Buster Posey's Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball." NESN. May 29th, 2011: "Collisions at home plate aren't always necessary, and should be occur sparingly, but to regulate them would inevitably hand either the baserunner or the catcher an unnecessary advantage in close-play situations. If Major League Baseball was to employ a rule stating that runners must avoid contact with the catcher -- similar to the 'slide or avoid' rule employed in amateur baseball -- it would give the advantage to the catcher. The catcher would have the benefit of dictating the course of action that a baserunner must take, and would -- perhaps more importantly -- have peace of mind knowing that there is no chance of an ensuing collision. If Major League Baseball was to make a rule stating that the catcher cannot block the plate, the advantage would certainly go to the baserunner, who would enjoy the luxury of a straight path to the most sacred ground on a baseball diamond."
Banning home plate collisions: slippery slope to other limitations.

Fadi. "In Defense Of Home Plate Collisions." Red State Blue State. May 27th, 2011: "Ban home plate collisions? What are you talking about, Buster? It was a freak accident. Ban home plate collisions!?! Why don’t we ban pitching inside too!?! And we should ban breaking up the double play on a hard slide into second!?! How about we ban walk-off celebrations and ban beer in the grandstands, JUST FOR FUN!?!"
Home plate collisions turn baseball players into gladiators.

Dave Cameron. "It's time to end home plate collisions." Fan Graphs. May 26th, 2011: "I was a catcher in high school, and I was trained how to block the plate while trying to keep myself alive. High School isn’t MLB, but I still found myself in a few situations where a significantly larger player was barreling towards me at full speed, and I realized that I had to stop being a baseball player and start being a gladiator. It was ridiculous to me then and is ridiculous to me now. Millar is right – if you want to watch violent collisions, you can watch football. Or hockey. Or MMA. There’s no reason baseball needs to have similar kinds of plays; it’s an entirely different sport with a different premise and different rules."
Home base collisions, injuries too rare to justify ban

Mike Rutsey. "Inside Baseball: Colliding views." Toronto Sun. May 27th, 2011: "These days, though, hard, smash-mouth collisions at the plate are rare birds, close to extinction. The reason for this is the money involved as neither the runners nor the catchers are willing to crash into each other willy-nilly as perhaps they did in the past. There is too much on the line financially."
Home plate collisions can be easily banned without changing game.

Dave Cameron. "It's time to end home plate collisions." Fan Graphs. May 26th, 2011: "Just change the rules and make intentional contact with a catcher illegal, and make it illegal for catcher’s to impede the baserunner’s ability to run directly towards home plate. It’s a simple fix to a real problem, and there’s no reason why we should continue to delay making this change."
That catchers know risks doesn't mean risks can't be reduced.

Mark Smith. "Home Plate Collisions." It's About the Money. May 27th, 2011: "Another argument is that Posey and all catchers understand the risk when they sign up to play catcher. It’s notoriously demanding behind the plate, and catchers know what they’re getting themselves into. It sounds good on the surface. Well, what do you think about factory workers? Back at the beginning of the century, they understood the risks of working in Industrial Revolution factories, but society still realized the conditions were too dangerous and changed the situation. Yes, they understand the risks, but that doesn’t mean they should be there to begin with. Yes, if I had the chance to make millions as a catcher, I would do it, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer to do it without getting crushed at home plate."
Runners would easily adjust to slide into home plate.

Mark Smith. "Home plate collision: It's about the money." May 27th, 2011: "The next argument is what you would have the runner do instead. Slide around, of course. Players only bowl into home because they can. It isn’t allowed at first or third, and it’s only marginally allowed at second. But players don’t run through the defenders there. If there was a rule that took away the option to bowl over the catcher at home, runners wouldn’t even think about doing it. They would slide."
Catcher pads are not meant for human collisions.

Mark Smith. "Home Plate Collisions." It's About the Money. May 27th, 2011: "I also saw this argument, but I don’t think it was common. Catchers have pads and can withstand being hit. Just in case you believe this, yes, catchers have pads, but they aren’t great. They’re only somewhat helpful against half-pound leather projectiles, but that’s usually one after the ball has hit the ground. They don’t work against 200+ pound athletes barreling into you. Pads don’t always work well enough in football, and catcher pads are much worse at protecting the human body."
Home plate collisions are essential tension of offense/defense.

Dave Cameron. "It's time to end home plate collisions." Fan Graphs. May 26th, 2011: "Rounding the bases, getting to home plate and putting a run on the board for your team is what the game of baseball is all about. A baserunner wants to get there at all costs, whereas a catcher wants to protect it at all costs. The mutual discomfort that's evoked in both the catcher and the baserunner as a play at the plate develops is one of the intriguing peculiarities that makes the game of baseball so great."
Ending home plate collisions can be neutral for catcher, runner.

Mark Smith. "Home Plate Collisions." It's About the Money. May 27th, 2011: "Yes, it’s a dangerous play regardless, but those who would change the rules should change it in favor of the runner and the catcher. The runner cannot run into the catcher. The catcher cannot contact the runner with anything other than his glove, and he cannot drop his knee down to block the plate (those knee pads can be dangerous, and the catcher shouldn’t be throwing his weight around anymore than any other player at another base)."
Why subject pitchers to even more risks.

Dave Cameron. "It's time to end home plate collisions." Fan Graphs. May 26th, 2011: "Major League catchers already endure enough wear and tear on their bodies as is. They break down in their early thirties and have the shortest careers of any position on the field. Why should we also expect them to have to stand in and take hits that no other player on the field has to take? Why do they have to be football players when everyone else gets to play baseball?"
Home base collisions are essential characteristic of "hardball."

Ricky Doyle. "Buster Posey's Injury Unfortunate, But Home-Plate Collisions Still Have Place in Baseball." NESN. May 29th, 2011: "Posey's injury isn't the first injury to result from a collision, and it likely won't be the last. It's extremely unfortunate, but it's the result of a hard-nosed play that is as old as the game itself. To take away the potential for a high-intensity, physical play in an otherwise non-physical sport would be a mistake.
Debt deal's modest cuts protect recovering economy

Some commentators, such as Paul Krugman, believe no spending cuts should be considered at all during the US economic recovery, and instead only paid down later. Along this line of reasoning, it may be a good thing that the spending cuts only amount to $2.4 trillion over 10 years, instead of the $4 trillion considered by a bipartisan committee. The cuts might just be modest enough enough to avoid stalling the recovery, but significant enough to start the years-long process of reducing the deficit. In other words, it might be a good balance. If an equal number seem to think it goes to far as do those that think it doesn't go far enough, then perhaps it's in the right spot.
The debt deal ignores/distracts-from unemployment

Rick Newman. "3 Ways the Debt Deal Fails America." News and World Report. August 2nd, 2011: "It shows total disregard for the jobs problem. Surveys repeatedly show that Americans' No. 1 concern isn't the national debt. It's unemployment. And they're right about that. The lack of hiring is the biggest single problem in the economy right now. There are still 14 million Americans out of work, and perhaps an equal number who have stopped looking for work. The unemployment rate is stuck more than four percentage points higher than it was before the recession. The weak job market is the biggest reason the housing bust persists, spending is weak and the whole economy has been going sideways this year. Washington has now spent the entire summer obsessed with a deal that does absolutely nothing to address the jobs problem. Politicians will return from the traditional August recess with no jobs agenda."
Deal far less damaging than default.

Timothy Geithner, US Treasury Secretary. "Compromise achieved, reform’s the next chapter." Washington Post. August 3rd, 2011: "The near-term cuts in spending will not materially add to the pressures on the economy. The direct effects of the cuts — using estimates by Macroeconomic Advisors — are about one-tenth of one percentage point of annual GDP growth, far less than the damage that would have been caused by a prolonged impasse, by adopting the budget proposed by Republicans or, certainly, by default."