BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama's Bailouts are Failing

I am arguing against Obama's bailout on the platform that the bailouts are failing. I would like to start my debate by defining fail and bailout: fail - to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved bailout - an instance of coming to the rescue, esp. financially Now I would like to say that the bailouts are a failure using the dictionary definitions of both words. A) Obama has spent billions of dollars on financial bailouts on companies deemed vital to the company. Obama spent 85 billion dollars bailing out AIG and almost 100 billion dollars bailing out General Motors. AIG now is in trouble for permitting their executives to take million dollar bonuses that the Obama administration approved (unknowingly) and General Motors is still billions of dollars in debt. GM has lost thousands of jobs and Obama was forced to oust the CEO. Despite government help and assistance the company is still failing. The bailout did not work. B) Congress does not know what they are voting on 90% of the time. When they voted to allow AIG their second bailout they also voted on the approval of the million dollar bonuses that caused such a controversy. Of course when the executives took their Congress approved bailouts people freaked out, Congress included. They were shocked when they found out that the bailout bill included the bonuses (which most of the AIG execs. gave back. They aren't the bad guys here. ) which just goes to show how little the Congress actually reads what they are voting on. They follow President Obama blindly, like misguided sheep. C) I believe the economy runs in cycles, every so often the economy must go down in order to come back up. You can look at a recession timeline and every ten years or so the economy goes into a recession. Yet despite this very clear piece of evidence the American people still freak out. Are recessions good? No of course not but the economy always comes back up. Mr. President fails to see this and with his continuing attempts to fix the economy is flooding the market with more and more cash (which can only lead to inflation, not a good thing in hard times). If the economy is going to fail in order to rebuild I say let it. Throwing billions, almost TRILLIONS of dollars at it is not going to fix it. If anything it is going to prolong the economic struggle. D) My last point resides in the number of job losses since Obama came into office. This month [March] 663,000 more jobs were lost bringing the unemployment rate up to 8.5%. I am not saying that the bailouts caused these job losses, I'm sure they were inevitable in these hard times but what it did do was blow billions of dollars to no affect at all. Despite the spending the jobs continue to be cut. They are effecting nothing but the national debt. The bailouts are failing [see definition up top, it describes exactly what the bailouts are doing]. I applaud Obama's attempts to fix the economy but enough is enough. It's not working, give it up.
Hitler was a good man

Even giving credence to the ridiculous notion that there was a "filth" that was the "Jewish rebellion," your claim that he was a good man still doesn't hold up. Amongst those that he killed and tortured were people that were undoubtedly innocent people, like some of the young children and babies that he killed. The only Jewish rebellions that did in fact happen were ones that happened under harsh and unbearable Nazi rule. You say that he may have done terrible things to "these 'so called' people," but he did it for the right reason. Firstly, I don't know what you think those people were, but they ate, slept, cared, felt, wanted, and gave, like people do. They had (granted before the Nazi's beat or starved many of them) healthy bodies, limbs, faces, and other traits of humans. So they are called people because they were people. Second, you implied that the Jews were a plague that was corrupting Europe, and that is why Hitler's actions were good. Many Jews during that period were integrated with German society, were workers, and had German neighbors and friends. Can you expound on how they "corrupted" Europe? Do you have any evidence that Jews "stole from the poor"? I couldn't find that quote from Christopher Nolan anywhere, but I suppose it doesn't really matter if he said that or not. If he did think that Hitler was a Dark Knight, he was obviously ill-informed on this subject.
Hitler was a good man

Hitler was a good man. In the time of need, when his people were overrun by the filth that is the Jewish rebellion, he saved us all. Sure he didn't meet the requirements of a classical superman, but this is because the world is not painted simply in black and white, but in different shades of grey. He may have done terrible things to these "so called" people, but he did it to the right people and for the right reason. The Jewish plague that corrupted Europe had to be stopped. These men and women that stole from the poor to make themselves richer, through lies and deceit had gone far enough. In the words of Christopher Nolan himself "Hitler indeed was the true Dark Knight".
Hitler was a good man

You didn't give any examples of them "lying" or being "deceitful," empty allegations don't mean a thing. You then said that if I didn't agree with you on Hitler's "work", I am a "moron". That statement does have a humorous aspect to it, but I'm not going to expound. "Without Hitler, we would be no where." Hitler didn't advance our culture in many ways. He didn't have one break-through idea or theory, and his only possible innovative idea that I know of is of blow-up dolls. If Hitler finished the job, for one thing, we would not be having this debate. Or at least it wouldn't be with me. And Jews have won 36 Nobel prizes for chemistry, 29 Nobel prizes for economics, 51 Nobel prizes for physics, and 55 Nobel prizes for physiology of medicine. These are evidence that the world would not be "a better place today" if Hitler had killed all the Jews. You did have courage to start such a debate, so ill give you that. Voters, pro's argument that Hitler was a good man, was based on his assertion that Jews were evil, vile, cheating, thieving creatures that needed to be exterminated for the good of the world. Pro failed to give evidence or examples of these actions or traits by the Jews in Germany.
Hitler was a good man

You couldn't be more wrong. The Jewish epidemic was in fact, one of the most disgusting events ever. If you don't believe that Hitler wasn't doing the gods work by eradicating the Jewish filth from our planet, then you are more of a moron then i thought. Hitler was a genius and a great man at that. Without Hitler, we would be no where. He advanced our culture in so many ways. Through technology, resources, war plans... i could go on forever. And the justice that he gave us when he began the slaughter of those pathetic, lying, deceitful creatures was one of the greatest things to have ever happened to our species. If only he finished the job. The world would be a much better place today.
Allah's pre-determination means we are not liable for Actions.

For us to not be liable for our actions, this god, Allah, would need to exist to begin with and have pre-determination of our lives. Not only do you need to prove Allah exists, but you also need to prove he pre-determined everything. I believe burden of proof is clearly on pro, and I will not need to prove anything until they sufficiently proved these two things:1) Allah exists2) Allah pre-determined our lives.
Allah's pre-determination means we are not liable for Actions.

Now, I have debated this before, although I was not able to finish the debate, due to me being inactive from Debate.org. Allah has predetermined everything, as said in the Quran. Yet we claim we are liable for our actions, and that Allah is fair and just. This is only a platform to justify suffering and is illogical to say that an artificial intelligence has predetermined your actions, yet he holds you liable for them.
WE OUGHT TO OPPOSE MASS DEVELOPMENT OF FLYING CARS FOR CIVILIAN USAGE.

THIS DEBATE IS ANOTHER NO BRAINER. FLYING CARS WOULD BE FAR TOO HAZARDOUS TO SOCIETY! THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT FLYING CARS WOULD BE A TERRORIST'S DREAM. TERRORIST COULD SLAM INTO BUILDINGS WITH PLENTY OF SUCCESS, JUST LIKE 9/11. THEY WOULDN'T NEED PRIOR TRAINING OR UNDERCOVER WORK TO HIJACK A PLAIN. THEY COULD SIMPLY GO TO YOUR NEAREST CAR LOT, PURCHASE A FLYING CAR, AND CAUSE MASS DESTRUCTION. THE SECOND BIG ISSUE IS THAT CRIMINALS WOULD HAVE PRACTICALLY NO LIMITS IN ESCAPING CRIME SCENES. WITH REGULAR CARS, THE POLICE CAN USE SPIKES, CAN CUT OFF ROADS, AND CAN SLAM INTO THE GETAWAY CARS OF THE CRIMINALS. BUT WITH FLYING CARS, CRIMINALS WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE IN ALL THREE DIMENSIONS. FLYING CARS WILL CONSUME WAY MORE ENERGY THAN REGULAR CARS AND IF THEY RUN ON GAS, THE CO2 LEVELS IN THE ATMOSPHERE WILL SKYROCKET. FLYING CARS WILL PROMOTE THAT CRAPTASTIC 90s FILM KNOWN AS FLUBBER. THE AIRPLANE INDUSTRY WOULD SUFFER A HUGE BLOW AS PEOPLE WOULD PREFER TO USE FLYING CARS INSTEAD OF GETTING ON AIRPLANES. LOTS OF PEOPLE WOULD LOSE JOBS BECAUSE OF THIS. BIG BLOW TO ECONOMY. FOR THESE REASONS, I AFFIRM. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE THAT WE PERSONALLY GO FIND ALL PROMOTERS AND FLYING CARS, LOCK THEM UP, AND THROW AWAY THE KEY!
Dark energy is spin energy

1. Aetherisc spin - Aether particles - left and right - spin at the speed of light. E=MC2 That's what this equation tells us. I didn't just make it up. You have to know how to interpret an equation in terms of a physical reality. Scientists have ben staring at this equation for over a hundred years but nobody really understands it. This equation is about dimensional tranference of energy. Thus, mattter can take the form of either light squared or spin and rotation. The universe is three dimensional - left spin, right spin and no spin dimensions. These three dimensions make up 'empty space' mattter and light. The universe is a very simple place. It is made entirely from one particle which has three states. (Occam's razor principle applies) The simplest solution is alwys the best.2. Atoms and galaxies exist in different fractal dimensions. They have different time dimensions. A galaxy moves very slowly compared to an atom. ( 10 to the power of 35 Plank's constant differential). Thus, that's why scientist can't join the dots in regards to atoms and galaxies being one and the same.3. "The only logical power supply for the universe..." There is no power supply for the universe. It doesn't need one. Energy is constant and is not created. Why would it need power?The aether matrix carries the sun's spin energy to Earth via light. The sun transfers its spin energy which is gathers from the incoming aether particles which are forced together by the sun's gravity. This spin energy is tranferred to the aether matrix which carries this energy as a spin wave through apparently - ' empty space'.Science is full of false concepts like 'photons' which are supposed to carry light. This is false. Waves need a medium to travel in. Space has positive and negative characteristics. This is the aether matrix.4. There is no such thing as "frictional energy"Electricity is created by friciontal energy. When you rub two surfaces together it creates aetheric spin energy that we call 'electricity'. This energy can be stored in a battery. The spin is frictionless unless you apply a point of resistence to it.5. Hydrogen - Deuterium - Heavy water? Definitely has a neutron.When aether particles approach the sun - the particles are forced to slow down or stop their spinning action. The first particle of matter to be created is the hydrogen atom. The hydrogen atom is a transition element which is half way between aether and matter. This is why the sun's atmosphere is made of hydrogen.6. If it was "frictional energy" it would be called that. Not dark energy.That's why I am here. To educate the masses on real physics.
Dark energy is spin energy

"Energy can't be created nor destroyed." True, but it can be tranferred and transformed into various types of energy. One must understand that matter itself is just energy in a different or alternate state. The equation E=MC2 shows that matter/mass, light and energy are all transferrable. Why is the neutron the heaviest part of an atom? That's because weight is a measurement of aetheric pressure. The neutron is a no spin particle which creates a hole in space that the left and right spin particles rotate around. This basic principle applies to atoms, solar systems and galaxies which are all dimensional fractals of one another. The solar system and galaxies are a fractal models of atoms. Their speed of rotation is relative to their size. Larger systems spin slower than smaller systems is a general dimensional rule.The only logical power supply for the universe can be aetheric spin energy which spins at the speed of light. This is also implied in the equation E=MC2. The speed of light squared can become matter. But how? That's because when the aether particles approach a large body like a sun they are pushed together and stop/slow down their spin rate. This process gives off a lot of frictional energy in the form of sun light and radiation. Note - The aether particles are not attached when they are in space and have alternate left and right spin properties. This positive/negative - left/right spin arrangement is cancelled and becomes a neutron + energy. Thus, aetheric spin energy is the source of all the universe's energy. The universe is based on the positive, negative and neutral principle. Atomic research has confirmed that all sub-atomic particles come in groups of three.https://en.wikipedia.org...
Dark energy is spin energy

First of all, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. I am not familiar with the concept of aetheric spin, but if you are talking about angular momentum (such as a gyroscope) there needs to be a force or torque in order for it to happen. As far as dark energy goes, most of what we understand about it is unknown. All that we know is that the universe is expanding faster than it should based on our calculations of what we know to be there. So whatever is causing it to expand is what we call "dark energy" because we don't know what it is at all. The name itself is misleading because it may not be a form of energy. It is just the term that scientists gave it because they don't know what it is. One hypothesis is that it could be some property of space time. So it is highly unlikely that dark energy could be some sort of spin. In fact, it could be multiple different things. We don't know what it is but there is more dark energy than anything else we know of in the universe.
nature is the only thing that affects personality

It probably would have been best if we had established a definition of personality at the onset of this debate, but lets go ahead and do that now. Personality - : the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people : attractive qualities (such as energy, friendliness, and humor) that make a person interesting or pleasant to be with : attractive qualities that make something unusual or interesting [1] "PTSD does not change one's personality. It is a terrible condition that affects the way one thinks and acts. It is not who you are." The way we think and act is a part of our personality. It is part of what makes us who we are. What is personality if not what we think and how we act? I do not debate that nature does play some role in our personality, but I will argue strongly that life experiences can have an effect on our personality as well. The debate resolution, as you stated it, says that nature is the ONLY thing that affects personality. That is just completely incorrect unless you are basing this on a definition of personality that I have never heard before. But our personality is a combination of how we think and act, and you just admitted that PTSD completely affects the way one thinks and acts. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
nature is the only thing that affects personality

I understand were you are coming from. Soldier's witness horrible things and are often never the same. However, PTSD does not change one's personality. It is a terrible condition that affects the way one thinks and acts. It is not who you are. Any experience or upbringing can affect the way that people act and plan for their future. This is a given. It is not, however, their personality. It is the way they are taught.
nature is the only thing that affects personality

By making the statement "Nature is the only thing that affects personality," you are making that claim that nurture has no affect on personality. You have the BOP to prove that people are a certain way by nature, and that their nature is unchanged by people around them and experiences in their lives. I will accept the BOP as well, in so far as I must show that something other than nurture is capable of impacting personality. I will argue that people are a product of their nature to some degree, but they are also the product of the people around them and their life experiences. Here is one solid example of how experience can change the way a person acts and reacts in certain situations, change the way they interact with the people around them and change how they plan for their future: "It's no surprise, once you understand the distress that soldiers experience during war, that they find it hard to be the same, emotionally, ever again. Some may say that their inability to form close bonds with loved ones is due to the experience of near death and the fear that they will leave someone behind. The emotional effects of war on soldiers very often hinders their future achievements too as they find it impossible to imagine or plan. Veterans of war who experience PTSD without adequate counseling and care often do not marry or have children, perhaps because they have experienced near death and have severe difficulty letting go of the idea that they may die any day. " [1] I would argue that an experience like going to war would be enough to effect a person's personality. I believe that this is enough to fill my BOP, that personality can very much be affected by experiences. [1] . http://www.healthguidance.org...
Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

I thank Noumena for his constructive. I will now present my own arguments in favour of a representative democracy. The proper role of the state is to make decisions for the country that will protect the citizens. That is essentially why the state even exists. I will show how a representative democracy fills this role, making it the best form of government. Obviously, not a lot of sources will be required to back my arguments as they are commonly known. C1: REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IS EFFECTIVE IN SELECTING LEADERSHIP AND MAKING DECISIONS Clearly, if the democratic process was delegated to individuals, decisions would take much longer to be made. For example, a potential nation-wide law that needed to be made with each individual voting would be very inefficient. Rather, a representative democracy would allow the politicians elected to make the decisions for the country. This does not mean that individuals cannot get involved, lobby groups and writing letters to your governor requesting that a bill be passed or stopped etc. This system of representative democracy creates a group of people devoted to making decisions and running the country. C2: A GOVERNMENT EASILY MAINTAINS PEACE AND ORDER The government is responsible for the army, national guard, police etc. [1 – 2] and the government is what gives these groups of people the power to maintain peace and order within a state. As I will show later in my rebuttal, a country without a permanently standing government (anarchy) will ultimately be incapable of protecting itself, both from domestic and foreign threats. A representative democracy (alike to almost any other form of government) will be capable of physically protecting its own citizens by stopping crime and ensuring that everybody conforms to a certain societal expectation. For example, it is typically not morally permissible to break into somebody’s house, nor is it morally permissible to kill that person. The police maintain the law as expected by the people. C3: A GOVERNMENT CAN EASILY ADMINISTERS JUSTICE AND OTHER KEY SERVICES The government and its various branches are responsible for administering justice and deciding the appropriate punishments for crimes. An anarchist viewpoint on justice would not allow for this, as an eye-for-an-eye leaves everybody with only one eye, and a permanent body must exist to handle justice because of potential biases. Furthermore, the state (through tax-payer dollars) allows for the creation of schools, roads, and public services that we all benefit from. Essentially, a representative government streamlines the entire process of decision making, allowing the country to be more efficient. Furthermore, government administers key services to the country that would not be possible in an anarchist state. I look forward to Noumena’s rebuttals. SOURCES http://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

I thank Noumena for instigating this debate. I agree with all definitions provided.The form of political democracy that I will play on defending will be representative democracy, or a democracy where the people elect representatives to make decisions for the country. Similar to all democracies, representative democracies can focus upon justice, fairness, elections, human rights, and equality, among other things.I look forward to Noumena's opening arguments!
Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

This is for Airmax's Jury Voting Tournament.This debate will cover two opposing viewpoints regarding what is, if any, the proper role of the State. The BoP will be shared between Pro and Con. Pro will defend an anarchist theory of proper governance whereas Con will defend political democracy and its accompanying principles.R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: Rebuttals/DefenseR4: Conclusion===Definitions===State: an institution with a geographical monopoly on the provision of law/defense which can coerce payment in the form of taxation.Anarchism: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished."[1] Anarchist theories of governance hold that all relationships should be voluntary (read: contractual) and that initiatory violence is inherently illegitimate.Political democracy: "Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives."[2] I'm not sure exactly what form of political democracy Con plans on defending so I'll let him expand on this in his opening round. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.===Sources===[1] http://ahdictionary.com...[2] http://ahdictionary.com...