BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2

All I see from you is more and more government, more and more taxes, more and more regulations, more and more spending. You don't understand capitalism and wealth formation. Wealth is created in the private sector. Businesses are crushed by overregulation and ObamaCare and are shedding jobs because of it. We need the private sector to create jobs and the public sector needs to get out of the way for that to happen.
How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2

1. Taxes are too high and are stifling business owners and preventing them from expanding. I want to provide them certainty by not stealing their wealth. 2. Free trade destroys jobs and we want to raise revenue somehow. 3. You should be able to do what you want with your own body. 4. We need revenue. 5. Regulations and red tape are preventing businesses from expanding. 6. The ACA is killing jobs. The CBO said it would kill 2.5 million jobs. 7. They're bankrupt. 8. I want members of Congress to go back and live under the laws that they create. 9. Inflation disproportionately hurts the poor. 10. They're inefficient and the private sector and do better. 11. We need to be energy independent and lower energy prices. 12. Welfare creates a culture of dependency. 13. It disincentivizes people from seeking employment. 14. It kills jobs and bans people from finding entry-level positions. Most minimum wage workers are teenagers.
How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2

Hello, again, Bob. I'm looking forward once again to debating these issues with you. With that said, I'm not the biggest fan of the format that you have devised, since I don't place much clout in policy positions without explanations, but I agreed to it, so here we go: -Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour -Extend unemployment insurance until the economy reaches full employment (about 5%) -Eliminate the sequester -Cut the military budget, and use the proceeds to fund the stimulus that I'm about to suggest. -Pass a (larger) stimulus, and focus on extending state aid and unemployment insurance, green energy, science and technology, infrastructure, and education. -Enact a carbon tax on polluters -Raise taxes on the top 2 percent of income earners -Eliminate oil subsidies, and various tax loopholes for corporations and investors (e. g. , carried interest), as well as the tax preference for capital gains -Re-regulate the banks, including but not limited to Glass-Steaggall, regulations on derivatives, etc. -Add a public option to the health care bill -Forgive all student loan debt and fully subsidize public universities, establishing a positive right to education. That's all for now.
How should we fix the economy? -- Part 2

I want JohnMaynardKeynes and I have a complete debate because our last one wasn't too great. We are going to build on our last debate but should restate our policy positions here. Round 1: State your platform, no explanation. Round 2: Explain your positions. Round 3: Rebuttals Here is my platform: 1. Eliminate all personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest. 2. Impose tariffs on imports. 3. Legalize all drugs. 4. Tax those drugs. 5. Eliminate all federal regulations. 6. Repeal ObamaCare. 7. Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 8. Part-time Congress. 9. Abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard. 10. Abolish the Departments of Education, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. Expand oil subsidies. 12. Abolish welfare. 13. End unemployment insurance. 14. Abolish the minimum wage.
If Truman had not dropped the A-bombs on Japan, than there would of been more lives lost in WWII.

1. Japan defeated the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war but that was 40 years ago and the circumstances were a lot different. The Japanse military was a shell of its former self and the majority of its forces were on the southern part of Japan with only a skeleton force defending its northern Islands and Manchuria which was part of Japan. Considering the USSR was redirecting is forces which just defeated Nazi Germany and its invading 16th army only stopped advancing because it ran out of fuel, Japan had absolutely no chance in any defence against the Soviet Union. 2/3/4. As I have mentioned before, the Aug 9th meeting of high Japanese officials on the issue of surrender, their discussion barely mentioned the A-Bombs and was more focussed on the USSR. Even when Japanese government and military leaders talked about the bomb, they did not consider it exceptional. Gen. Anami on Aug. 13 remarked that the atomic bombings were no more menacing than the fire-bombing that Japan had endured for months. So the idea that the destructive power of an Atomic Bomb forced Japan to surrender is a false one. Simply put, Japanese leaders didn't care them at all and saw A-bombs as nothing more than another bombing raid. Also, Radiation poisoning was unknown at the time so it couldn't have been a deciding factor. 5. You do realise that the Soviet Union did fight in the pacific and did declare war on Japan? The Soviet Union invaded Manchuria and the Sakhalin islands and conquered them. In fact, the fact that Korea is split up is the DIRECT RESULT OF THE SOVIET UNION DECLARING WAR ON JAPAN since Korea at the time was a Japanese Colony. I will agree with you that an invasion of the Japanese homeland would have resulted in millions of deaths for both sides but the Atomic bombing did not make Japan surrender. Instead, it was the involvement of the Soviet Union in the war which would have happened with or without the dropping of the atomic bombs.
If Truman had not dropped the A-bombs on Japan, than there would of been more lives lost in WWII.

If the Soviet Union had joined the war before America had dropped the bombs, Japan would not have surrendered. 1. Japan had already defeated Russia in the Russo-Japanese War 2. The Americans warned the Japanese that we had more atomic bombs for future attacks as well as the means to create more. 3. The atomic bomb would literally vaporize people alive and cause radiation poisoning, so it was nothing like the air raids before. 4. The emperor knew that his people would eventually turn on him if he didn't concede. The more his people died, the more likely they'd revolt on him. This same thing happened to Mussolini and his Blackshirts when he failed to repel the American troops from Sicily. 5. The Americans would NEVER allow the Soviet Union to fight in the Pacific. The thought of communism spreading made them fear too much. So even if the Soviet Union said they had declared war, the Americans wouldn't have allowed them. Now with that being said, a full scale invasion, if that had ever happened, with American and the Soviet Union would absolutely decimate the Japanese people. Scientists Quincy Wright and William Shockley estimated that if the Allies had invaded Japan, they would suffer a whooping 1.7-4 million causalities, with Japan suffering 5 to 10 million. Although there were many factors contributing to the surrender of Japan, the Soviet Union joining was not what had driven their war efforts over the edge. Emperor Hirohito realized how devastating the Americans were, so to prevent further deaths of his people as well as to try and maintain his power, he surrendered. This then makes the a-bombs a necessary sin that prevented further deaths on both sides of the war.
If Truman had not dropped the A-bombs on Japan, than there would of been more lives lost in WWII.

The destruction that the nuclear bombs weren't that much more destructive than traditional bombing raids with conventional bombs and firebombs. Compared to the other 68 bombing raids that the US carried out in the summer of 1945, Hiroshima ranked 2nd in terms of civilian casualties and 17th in the percentage of a city destroyed which puts the bomb in the same parameters as a conventional bombing raid. To Japanese government officials, the nukes were no different from normal bombing raids and considering how even with 68 massive bombing raids with comparable destruction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not convince them to surrender, it makes no sense why 2 more cities destroyed with a new weapon would be any different. This is exemplified when top Japanese government officials met on August 9th, 3 days after the bombing of Hiroshima, where the topic of the bombing raids in general was only brought up twice, once in passing and once in a wide reaching discussion. Instead their focus was on the Soviet Union The real reason why Japan Surrender was because of Soviet involvement in the war against Japan. Before the Soviets got involved, it was hoped by Japanese officials could use Stalin as a mediator or that they could inflict so many causalities on the invading American troops that the Americans would offer better surrender terms. However, when the soviets invaded all those options disappeared. The majority of the Japanese army and their best men were on the south preparing for an invasion by the Americans so there was only a skeleton army defending the north of Japan where the Soviets were invading from. So with the knowledge that Japan had no hope for at very least a surrender with good terms, Japan surrendered unconditionally In conclusion, Truman's decision to drop the A-bombs on Japan would have no saved any lives as it had no impact on Japan's decision to surrender unconditionally. In fact, the bombing would have killed more people as those deaths were unnecessary
If Truman had not dropped the A-bombs on Japan, than there would of been more lives lost in WWII.

Good luck in advance to whoever responds to this. Let's consider the options President Truman had after the fall of Germany when it came to taking over Japan. 1. He could have a full scale invasion into Japan. As a results of this, thousands upon thousands of American troops would be killed. Not only that, but because of the determination of the Japanese people, soldiers wouldn't be the only people getting killed trying to attack American soldiers. It has been documented in several sources that there were military groups that consisted of young children who were trained to kill American soldiers with improvised bamboo weapons (like spears). What's worse is that the people in Japan had also believed that Americans were ruthless and that taking your own life was better than being captured, so there's more civilian casualties. 2. Truman could use a weapon that, while yes devastating, could scare the Japanese into surrendering. However, Truman didn't want to completely wipe out the entire nation, so instead of targeting Tokyo or any other densely populated city, he specifically targeted cities that would militaristicly be devastating. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base while Nagasaki had one of the largest seaports in Southern Japan. Were the atomic bombs one of the worst inventions made to be used in war, yes. Were the effects of the atomic bomb devastating, yes. Is the bomb, itself, immoral, yes. Was it a necessary sin to prevent more American and Japanese soldiers from dying, yes.
Bhartiya Janta Party is a communalist party

I graciously accept the instigator's challenge. I shall be on the side of Con for this debate.Going with the context presented by my opponent, I'll argue that the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), an Indian political party, is NOT communalist i.e. the BJP professes its allegiance to the wider society than to its own ethnic group, which is, of course, the Hindus of India.If any of my assumptions are wrong, I request Pro to correct them immediately at the beginning of round 2. I look forward to a well-contested debate.
Bhartiya Janta Party is a communalist party

Rules: Round 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for argumentsRound 3 is for counter-arguments / rebuttalRound 4 is closing statements and may be used to extend rebuttalThe character limit is 10,000 as this topic would require a detailed and comprehensive debate. Both Pro and Con have good cases to make and this is one of the very pressing issues as the BJP govt. has just come into power with an absolute majority. The Bhartiya Janta Party (referred to as the BJP) is one of the two political power blocs of the India, the other is the Indian National Congress which has otherwise dominated the elections in the past. The Burden of Proof will lie upon the one arguing for the resolution that BJP is communalist.Definition of Communalist in this context: Allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to the wider societyeg: issues such as Punjab violence and communalism Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;Hopefully this should go in as one of the best debates on Indian Politics on debate.org, looking forward to a great debate with someone who makes the perfect opponent, an admirer of the BJP. So any Modi/RSS lovers, any responsible and informed Indian Citizens out there accept this challenge.
Atheism is foolish

Maybe I was unclear as to my claim. I stated using a pragmatic framework, no one should be athiest. This is different than saying no one should be athiest because of pragmaticism. Your whole second paragraph stems from the latter of the two distinctions I just stated. I don't want to say that no one should be athiest. What I do claim, is that when using this pragmatic framework, it is illogical to be athiest. Therefore, the compassion toward belief or faith is a non-issue. The argument you do make is that the only logical decision is to avoid religion because religion is based largley on faith. This is contradictory. The uncertainty of the existence or lack of of an afterlife gives way to some remote possibility of these afterlife scenarios, no matter how small. A logical person would realize that the benefits gained from denying this small chance are small in comparison to the consequences even when the astronomical odds are accounted for. Therefore, the logical decision is to assume this smal chance and basically ensure oneself, despite the unliklihood. Logic doesn't dismiss the unlikely simply for being so, especially when the risks are so large. That being said, you argue that, in a pragmatic or practical framework, shunning religion is logical because it avoids all of these tribulations and conflicts that religion starts. This is conceptually and historically false. Abstainment has never been an effective route to avoiding conflict, especially when religion is concerned. Take the numerous examples of "godless hethans" being violently converted by more powerful religions. Whether you believe in no god or a different god, a non-believer is a non-believer to these religions you describe. If the conflict erupted solely out of conflicting opinions, you would be correct. But, religion calls for believers, whether they disagree or have no opinion. Where religion is concerned, abstainment is definately not the road to no conflict. So, using a pragmatic framework or paradigm, athiesm is not a valid choice for religion because of the lack of benefits and the enormous harms, despite the atronomically small risk. The real world effects of athiesm are untrue. Religious conflict stems to all people, religious or no. Athiests do not avoid this as you yourself testify "a great many Christians in America despise and loathe athiests", proving they are subject to conflict, despite their lack of belief.
Atheism is foolish

I see your point, and it is almost true... for the mddle class american. However for the rest of the world that isn't as comfortable as many of the people of America, we have to realize that being religious opens you up to a world of violence. Due to religion people kill others, leaders start gruesome wars over religion, and potential friends become bitter enemies. The simplest way to block this world from becoming a reality for you, is to shun religion. a great many Christians in America despise and loathe athiests, however, to my knowledge, the worst this has ever come to is verbal blows. Religious stability for non-athiests has always been suprisingly low, especially when combined with cultural, social, and military instability. In fact, it would productive if no one was religious. This leads me into my second point. It is important to distinct humans from machines and computers. Machines view the world in cold hard facts sprinkled with logical decisions. They view the pros and the cons. Now what you suggest is that people look at choosing religion as a logical choice. That's is all and well, but if everyone were to view religion as a machine, then the logical conclusion would be that there is no such thing as religion, because religion is largely based on faith, which holds no place in logical discussions. In fact, it would be the logical choice for no one to be religious. This would prevent arguments, and stop wars. Logically, no one wants to die, especially because the belief in after-life is a humongous jump of faith, especially to a logical entity. However, the fact is, humans aren't logical. Maybe we used to be, back when survival depended on it. It is important to realize that although many people aren't as comfortable as the middle class American, they still aren't facing life or death situations too often. Because humans are driven by emotion, it is impossible to suggest that someone repress their views of say, athiesm, just because it is logical.
Atheism is foolish

I believe whole-heartedly in the freedom of religion. That said, I think, from a practical standpoint, atheism is foolish. Strictly from a consequentialist standpoint the value of being an atheist is far less than that of being any other religion involving punishment/reward in the afterlife. No one can be CERTAIN about religion. So, if you are an atheist and you die and it turns out you were right, what do you win? Weight that against what horrors you would recieve if you were wrong. So, purely from a practical standpoint, it makes WAY more sense to believe in some sort of afterlife religion just because of the risk involved. No matter how confident you are in your belief, the risk is to great to chance. Following this practicalist logic, no one should be an athiest for their own good. *NOTE: I will not turn this into a religious justification debate. This is from a practicalist standpoint and I am not arguing for or against the validation of any religion from anything but a pragmatist view. I'll clarify upon request. Thanks.
Religion is an excuse for violence

Violence in religious perspectives Qur"an (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Qur"an (4:76) " "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah"" Genesis (9:15-16) " "God gave power to the Pharaoh so that he could show off his own power by killing him." Genesis (10:2) " "God wants to be remembered forever for the mass murder of little children." See? It was even stated in some verses of the Holy Qur'an and the Bible. That is, sometimes, violence is necessary and humane for as long as it is done for the sake of the Almighty. People committing violence for the sake of God are even rewarded in the hereafter. Have a thought on that.
Religion is an excuse for violence

Con has forfeited this round. But still, I'm going to post my argument to support my claim. Religion aims to uphold peace between people. Also, it tends to inculcate the minds of its followers for the best. In addition to that, religion doesn't intentionally promote violence. Because of that, whatever violence will be committed regarding religious strife should be an excuse. Nowadays, wars are almost always caused by religion. People have different ideologies and beliefs and they want to win the war so that their beliefs and ideologies will be uphold. The aforementioned war almost always turns out to be a bloody one. There are a lot of innocent people being killed. But of course, they don"t intentionally want to slaughter those innocent people. Their strong belief is causing them to not care of other people; thereby, causing them to kill lives. In Islam, however bad a dilemma appears to be for as long as it"s been done for the sake of God, then it's still acceptable and even better.
Women can think as clearly as men.

Alright, I'll list the studies again. http://www.newsweek.com... Sited in the Trump article as well, here http://www.trumpuniversity.com... Keep in mind that studies are typically released through the press. Both Trump and Newsweek are legitimate sources, and these are legitimate facts. Regardless, I haven't seen any counter claims or counter evidence of any sort, so the only person gaining ground here is the PRO side.
Women can think as clearly as men.

Well I looked up my opponent's damn "study" once and now it is my opponent's turn. The magazine articles both refer to the same study and if my opponent wants to talk about it he should produce it the same as he thinks I should do. After all it is my opponent's stupid study which he claims proves something. Well then where is it? I have produced two abstracts, my opponent none. Studies in the educational system are likely to be more reliable than commercial ones which are not peer reviewed.
Women can think as clearly as men.

OK, so we've already shown from a measurable stand point, women can be as smart as men. My opponent hasn't addressed this, so let's move on. I couldn't access neither of the links, so this isn't fair to me. My opponent's point on students has little to do with this debate than puberty; adolescents shouldn't be looked at because they represent a very small fraction of life. Nevertheless, women still CAN (per resolution) think as clearly as men, as my opponent hasn't shown otherwise. Vote PR
Women can think as clearly as men.

Where are these claims coming from, the flaws in this study? How do you know this? Sources? This same study has been done in multiple environments so these results aren't isolated to one circumstance. The Intelligence Quotient test was initially designed to measure mental clarity, capacity, and critical thinking skills to create an intelligence profile. This shows your overall mental abilities. Therefor, if women place identically to men in IQ scores, they think on the same levels of clarity.
Women can think as clearly as men.

Both links refer to the same lame "study" by Adrian Furman proving zero about how people perceive "IQ" which at least I have heard of, and http://en.wikipedia.org... "Emotional intelligence" which I have not. Four of the respondants did not even know their own gender. There was gender imbalance in the group anyway and who are they and what IQ test and what does it purport to show? Much more definitive metrics are needed.
Women can think as clearly as men.

Women are just as equal as men, logically-wise. http://www.trumpuniversity.com... Donald Trump shows in IQ tests that men and women are fairly matched; women just tend to underplay their intelligence while men overestimate it. The "men-dominate-women" role doesn't reflect their intelligence, but just what societal norms are. A Newsweek article says otherwise: http://www.newsweek.com... These equalities are internationally proven. Tha