BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

I am going to break this down in accordance with your argument on Round 1, line by line. The welfare system is a heavily burdened system, it does in fact support millions of people, a majority of which are laid off, can't find work and have children. It also supports illegal immigrants that come here and find themselves in a quandry from lack of work. However, it is not the reason this nation is in "a lot of debt." Welfare is not free money on any level, it is a supplement until suitable employment may be found. It is not a permanent situation, and there are frequent evaluations to determine a client's continued need. I disagree that anyone becomes dependent on it, why would anyone want to? On a second thought consider that a majority of the welfare recipients actually supported the program while employed. The government does not control the job availability of any company, therefore the government cannot make it easier to get a job. They can however relieve most companies from ridiculous tax proposals, but that is an ancient event and cannot be excused any longer, it is time to face our government and demand better management of the various systems in place as we debate. Unemployment benefits are benefits that an individual earns, it is not something that everyone is entitled to. An employer must pay in for an employee to qualify and there are other factors that determine the eligibility of any individual. Unemployment benefits are a entitlement, quite a few do not qualify. There are hundreds if not thousands of approaches to obtaining an education, and student loans rule many lives that have graduated college. They exist already so there is no reason anyone can't obtain an education, the Internet makes it very easy to get started. The small percentage of "rich" people in our nation are often the direct result of a rich parent from whom they obtained their wealth. There are hundreds if not thousands of individuals that are self made millionaires, from hard work and such, but again a large percentage of those individuals inherited their wealth. That statement is irrelevant, "rich" people do not pay any more into a failing system than the average Joe, it just looks that way due the amount of monies owed due percentages. There is not a system in place that takes from the rich and gives to the poor, aside from that a majority of the rich have paid dearly to avoid such issues directly to and with the government. And finally and again, welfare is short term and it is pitiful at best when a man that is accustomed to making thousands of dollars must stoop so low, but it happens and it is a Godsend that the program is in place. Do you know anyone that has had to address the issue on a personal level? I thought not.
The government should cut significantly spending on welfare

The government should significantly cut spending on welfare because it is part of the reason why the nation is in a lot of debt. Welfare also gets people dependent on it. It gives people free money without working hard. The government should make it easier for people to get jobs instead of giving them free money. They should do that by helping businesses. If they cut taxes and regulations on businesses then businesses will have more money and they will hire more employees. Once businesses start to hire more employees, there will be no need for the government to spend a lot money on welfare. The people who are looking for a job should be on unemployment benefits until they find a job. The people who don't have enough education to have a descent paying job should be on welfare if they go to college. The government should give loans out to poor people who can't afford to go to college and have them pay back the loans once they are out of college and get a good paying job. This way poor people will afford to go to college and will not have to be on welfare once they are educated. Another problem with welfare is that the government pays for it by taking a lot of money from rich people who worked hard for their money. Taking a lot of money from rich people and giving it to the poor is unfair. It is also bad for businesses because a lot of rich people own businesses. If the government takes a lot of money from rich people than the ones that own businesses will either lay off employees or raise the price of their products. If the government cuts spending on welfare then rich people won't need to pay high taxes. Welfare should only be short term. Long term welfare is bad for the economy.
Should eminent domain be allowed for private use? (private use includes economic development)

Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch (5 U.S.) 137 (1803), is not relevant. It was in regard to appointments and judicial process...no were in the case is eminent domain mentioned. In fact relevant law in that case was: 1)U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2 and 2)Judiciary Act of 1789, ï¿½ 13. see <http://en.wikipedia.org...; for reference. Second, the argument of semantics over the word "use" is not a viable defence. That of course is always been were the debate is and as i've stated the court has already upheld the right of the government to take land for private development. Your argument of the founders intent is nothing more than opinion, no additional comments are needed in response. (Unless, you know one personally.) I'll skip over all your other case law sited and give you the latest. It supports my stand and states, "...if an economic project creates new jobs, increases tax and other city revenues, and revitalizes a depressed (even if not blighted) urban area, it qualifies as a public use." this is from: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) <http://en.wikipedia.org...; With that said because this is a supreme court ruling all other case law prior is void. All that is left is what I've already stated. What you find to be "wrong" isn't relevant. The ppl have spoken and eminent domain for private development is valid and should be allowed. If for no other reason than it is legal. Would you take your argument a step further and argue for anarchy? Ignoring the law would be exactly that. Until the law is changed, that is the only alternative. Right and wrong are always relative in these matters. The law is there to settle the argument. This one has already been settled. Bitter taste in the mouth, or not.
Should eminent domain be allowed for private use? (private use includes economic development)

5th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation". I draw your attention to the,"...just compensation" portion. This clearly gives the government the right to take land. It as also been upheld by the courts that using said land for private developement is in line with "public use", as long as there is benefit to the city, town, or county (often in the form of additional taxes collected). I think it is important to not confuse if such an action as exercising eminent domain to such ends is the "right" thing to do, with should it be allowed. The law is clear, it should and is allowed. Until that is changed there is no further debate.
Destroy Yourself

I thank 9spaceking for posting this unique debate. I look forward to it. The topic will be "The Global Flood as described in Genesis never happened." Since I am con, I will be arguing for this notion, since that is the opposite of what Con is, therefore, that is what I will have to prove. I will be using sources, and logic, to show that the global flood as described in Genesis never happened and 9spaceking will have to show that it did, via sources and logic. I'm looking forward to a wonderful debate!
Destroy Yourself

Round one, my opponent accepts, states a topic and his/her stance on the topic. I will attempt to refute the opponent while building up my side, which will oppose the opponent's side.In round two, each my opponent and I have to cite a source that REFUTES our side of the topic. We may choose a published news site, newspaper, magazines, scientific studies, scholarly journals, etc, etc. We may also pose a general logical argument (that is still against our side) for a more philosophical or abstract concept. You cannot choose super untrustworthy sites such as the Onion, Uncylopedia, or other troll sources. (Remember, some sources can still be trustworthy with a troll argument!)After we refute the refutation, the following third and fourth rounds will have us argue about the following, which the voters will vote on:-How well the refutation was constructed-How credible the source or argument was Remember, if you cannot find a (credible) source against your topic, then either you haven't tried hard enough, or your argument is a truism!
Intelligence is more important than physical attractiveness

The sources will be at he end of this debate round. The physical part will deteriorate over time, where intelligence remains forever as long as no diseases or disorders begin to affect the person. You said the above line. But the point here is that inorder to not get affeted by diseases you do need physical fitness. You talk about Gary Kasparov. May I bring to your notice that chess grandmasters give first priority to exercising in the gym. The source is me meeting with Vishwanathan Anand and having this chat with him. Well even physically fit people can have confidence, charisma and excellent speakers. For example superstars in WWE. Dwayne'The Rock' Johnson, John Cena, Daniel bryan. In particular The Rock and Daniel bryan cause they don't have the necessary intelligence but Bryan won the slammy award for superstar of the year, and he was the number 1 trend worldwide on mondays and fridays. All the guys there are physical attractive and the evidence is the record 84,000 audience at wrestlemania 29 at metlife stadium New Jersey.As it is in the Bhagwadgeeta a peope's reflection of the inside being is shown on the outside. So naturally a guy who is physically fit has to have intelligence. Physical fit people have more determination than intelligent people. Simply because they need to have the will power to workout in the GYM or climb the Everest.
Intelligence is more important than physical attractiveness

Physical attraction is much more appealing to people of our age. Now you said that intelligence is more important than physical attractiveness because intelligence can create a variety of positive and helpful outcomes or create useful technology for society. But the problem here is that intelligence can also create destructive things. For example the invention of the atomic bomb created havoc in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction created kept the world in shock and people still criticize the users. Using intelligence can lead to serious problems. Using our intelligence we created different nature harmful things such as plastics, fumes etc. which ultimately will fire on us back in the future. Being physically attractive never has any disadvantages. Talking about making careers, hey the most famous people in the world today are film actors. People get a lot more entertained by watching their favourite bodybuilders and superstars. It motivates them to get healthy and exercise and improve fitness. Talking about criminals wont the criminals have advantage if they could find new techniques to rob, murder etc. if they used their high IQ level? By the way intelligence will never help you in fending of thieves rather muscular strength will save you in such situations. A person can easily get intimidated by the way you look. I feel that average intelligence is required and that's what separates us from animals.What's the freaking use is you are super duper intelligent but cant walk a few feet just because you are obese? The world will laugh at you and you in turn will get depressed and the person may commit suicide. Physical fitness is much more important than intelligence because not being fit will get you a disease whereas not being intelligent will not have any consequences. Being physically fit doesn't require a degree but to showcase your intelligence you need a degree and may be a burden on your parents. Who would want to marry an intelligent guy or gal who has no proper eating habits, exercise, way too obese etc. The face value is more important.
Intelligence is more important than physical attractiveness

(Please note, this is my first debate on here, so I apologise in advance if I have done this wrong. Also, I may be a touch biased in this as I myself possess a high IQ and greatly believe intelligence is more important than physical beauty or attractiveness.) (For this debate, intelligence will be defined as the ability in which one applies knowledge and uses reason) Intelligence is more important than physical attractiveness because intelligence can create a variety of positive and helpful outcomes or create useful technology for society. Intelligence allows a person to achieve a much more diverse range of careers, most of which directly allow and provide the required needs for society to function. This includes the invention of new medicine, new technology, solutions to problems, the finding of criminals, negotiating with other countries which leads to peace and an expansion of knowledge of the world and how it works. Advanced reasoning skills can be applied to multiple situation which can save lives. This includes the intelligence to know how to survive an animal attack, help someone experiencing an unexpected heart attack or seizure, and being able to find the things essential for life in a situation where it is impossible to contact another person. Without intelligence, people would be nothing more than animals. Humans are a species of animal, but they are a very advanced species because of their intelligence. Physical Attraction is not necessary in society, and leads to vanity and narcissism. Physical attraction has been made out to be something required for relationships and to do well in life, but it means nothing where it counts. Would a blind man care whether the person he spoke to looked nice? Or if he could have a logical conversation with them? All Physical attractiveness leads to is self-esteem problems for those who are of average or below looks, where someone who is of average intelligence is more than accepted into society. I would like Con to please answer this question: In what situation does physical attractiveness defeat intelligence?
Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con)

I am a bit confused, sir. How could you be both a moderate liberal and a socialist? To me, a socialist is the least moderate you could be in the American Left. Anyway, to my argument: Economy: I advocate for tax cuts for ALL Americans, rich and poor. History has proven time and time again, that when more money is allowed to the people who have earned it, the economy booms. Those in the lower and middle classes are able to consume more and more products with the money they keep, and the wealthy are able to invest their money in business ventures, which in turn expand and create jobs, well paying jobs. Government by its very nature is inefficient. By having no competition or risk of going out of business, bureaucracies become what are essentially monopolies (something I know socialists hate). Take a trip to the DMV, does anybody there look like they are doing an adequate job? Of course not, because they know that being run by the government ensures that they will remain open as long as people need driver's licenses. Furthermore, those who provide services in the Private Sector should be able to keep as much of their money as possible. If we punish those who are successful, what incentive is there to succeed? Welfare: I acknowledge the need for some basic social safety nets, but the bottom line is that the more you give to people, the less they'll want to make for themselves. Take a look at all of the failed cities in the United States-- Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, what do they all have in common? 1.) They've been run by socialists for the better part of a century. 2.) They are ravaged by poverty and crime. 3.) They are all bankrupt. It is clear from these figures that Leftist ideologies have failed in these cities just like they have failed in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, and any other purely "Socialist" country I can think of. My view is that if we made these cities a climate for businesses to succeed, people would be able to find work, and get off the government checkbook. In short, I believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. The worst thing one person can do to another is make them dependent. And by throwing endless amounts of money at people who don't earn it, you are giving them less and less of a reason to become self-reliant. I believe the late British PM Margaret Thatcher put it best when she said "The trouble with socialism is that you will eventually run out of other people's money." People need to understand that Conservatives care about the poor tremendously, we merely are more focused on giving them opportunities, not just more and more "stuff".
Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con)

Hello, I am SocialPsyche. I am a moderate Liberal and a Socialist. I will, therefor, be arguing from a Liberal standpoint. As I said in my comment, I have a good amount to say about the economy and social issues, but, as I am only 16, I don't have as formulated of an opinion on the U.S. 2016 Presidential Candidate, though I have a loose opinion about it.
Conservative (Pro) vs. Liberal (Con)

This is my first debate on this website, so I figured why not go for a BIG topic? I will be arguing from a Conservative standpoint, and I am looking for anyone Left of Centre to argue from the Liberal viewpoint. :) Round 1.) Introduction Round 2.) Economics (taxation/regulation) Round 3.) Social Issues (Marriage, Abortion, etc.) Round 4.) 2016 Presidential Candidate you are supporting, and why.
ban islam

We do not need to ban Islam. Over 94% of Muslims aren't terrorists so banning all of them would make no sense. I guess by your logic we should ban all Christians because of people like the Westboro Baptist Church. You're being a hypocrite because there are plenty of bad people in each religion, but you are ignoring that fact. Did Muslims start WW1 OR WW2, which left about 100 million people dead. Who did that, Muslims? Nope. There are plenty of religious nuts in each religion, Christians have been the bad guys at one point, now a small population of the Muslims are being the bad guys. You are ignoring the 14th amendment, freedom of discrimination.
Luke 22:36 is literal

Alright. My opponent doesn't understand fetty wap. I guess that's fine. Here we go 35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be acclomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said into them, It is enough. Let's do some word crunching. This can be rephrased as "let him take...his...swords." This seems to be endorsing theft. God hates theft. In fact, he even says it. So, God cannot literally and genuinely be endorsing theft, so this can't be literal. Moreover, my Fetty Wap example can be shortened to "I could...got...glock. This is endorsing the purchase of firearms, which God also hates. If you vote pro, you are compromising the intentions of god by supporting a contradiction. The only thing I can see is a con ballot http://www.theevangelicalchurch.org...
Luke 22:36 is literal

Ok. Luke 22:38 kinda sounds like 17:38. So, i can quote fetty wap too. From his hit 679, "girl, you're so damn fine though I'm tryna know if I could hit it from behind though I'm sipping on you like some fine wine though And when it's over, I press rewind though You talking bands, girl, I got it Benjamins all in my pocket I traded in my trues for some robins He playing Batman, Fetty's gon' rob him I got a Glock in my 'rari, 17 shots, no 38 I got a Glock in my 'rari, 17 shots, no 38" Now, fetty wap says nothing about any luke dude. So, luke 17:38 can't be literal. Now, if you want to start studying some literal bible verses, you should check out my church, the St. Paul church of Scientology. We're giving out free personality tests? Check us out. *drops mic*
Luke 22:36 is literal

Thanks for taking up the debate, Jed. Here is the analysis of what I got out of the passage: 35. Jesus asked them when he told to go without provisions did they lacked anything and they said "no". 36. Then Jesus said for them to get a purse, scrip and sword. In my opinion why would he tell them to get two physical things (purse and scrip) but tell them to get something allegorical or spiritual in the same sentence? Why would he ask them if they lacked the physical needs in 35 but then tell them to get something that is not literal? 37. Jesus quotes a prophecy over himself of what's going to happen. The common explanation is this is referring to the two men on the cross. I have no problem with this but it begs the question of why Jesus said it in the middle of this passage? My personal theory is that either (a) the sword mentioned was illegal to own making the disciples criminals, or (b) it could be referring to the garden when peter resisted. 38. The disciples thinking that Jesus wanted them to take Israel back and missing the point that Jesus wanted them to be prepared for everyday life as they preach the gospel.
Luke 22:36 is literal

Here is the full context of Luke 22:36. Please use the KJV as the base of your argument. 35. And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be acclomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said into them, It is enough.
Luke 22:36 is literal

Thank you the clear up. For a moment I thought you did a rather bad bow out. Lets look at the verse you quoted. 36. ...and he that HATH a purse, let him take it. The verse is saying that if you already have a purse (modern day it would be wallet) then you should go ahead and take it. It'll be like me saying to you as you walk out the door "take your wallet with you". I'm in no way saying that you should take someone else's wallet. I would also ask why owning a firearm is against God commandments.