BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

1. But the American people are not seeing any of this money! Like I said earlier the money is going back into government programs so the American people as a whole are not seeing the benefits of any of this money. How can you welcome a gift that they are not seeing any part of? It is being spent on road signs in Michigan telling drivers which roads are being funded by Stimulus dollars. It's a big waste, how can you welcome a waste of money that isn't even being wasted on you. 2. That is odd, I'm going to do more research and I'll get back to you next round on that one.
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

1. The Stimulus Package may be a loan, but much of the American public perceives it as a gift. The liberal administration shows no intent to lower the deficit during the current recession, and given past U.S. fiscal policy, it is unlikely that most American citizens alive today will be responsible for this financial burden. Though the Stimulus Package may not be fiscally sound, the American public will welcome, and be pleased by, the instant gratification brought by the Stimulus Package. 2. Oddly enough, my study was released after your own, and contains data prior to the others' publication.
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

I am going to now argue against your two points. 1. The Stimulus Package is certainly NOT a gift of money of any sorts. The money is not free, it will have to be paid back by tax payer money so the money is not a gift. It is an extensive loan taken out by the government in the peoples' name. This stimulus package did nothing to stimulate anything in the economy. The money went straight from the reserves into government run programs. No new jobs were created, no new businesses were opened or stimulated. It is NOT a gift it was government funding for government programs. Not pleasing and unwelcome. 2. The public welcomed it before they saw how useless it turned out to be. They do not welcome it now, more recently it says that it lost major support and is now considered unfavorable. . http://www.rasmussenreports.com...
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

I am presuming that my opponent refers to this stimulus package: http://socialistworld.net.... If not, a link to the referenced package would be appreciated. First off, the resolution contains two claims, both of which must be upheld by my opponent. Second, I'm not entirely convinced of the stimulus package's efficacy. However, it is only necessary for me to disprove one of my opponent's two claims. Ergo, I negate: "A Second Stimulas(sic) is Unacceptable". unacceptable: not pleasing or welcome-Merriam-Webster 1. The Stimulus Package is essentially a gift of money, to states, businesses, and families. It is therefore quite pleasing and welcome. Would you be displeased by a gift of money? 2. The Stimulus package enjoyed widespread public support. A Gallup poll shows 59% in favor of the package, with only 33% opposed. Ergo, the public is pleased by said package, and welcomes it. [1] [1] http://www.gallup.com...
Obama's Stimulas Package Was an Utter Failure and a Second Stimulas is Unacceptable

I will let my opponent start this debate. I would first like to set up a few ground rules. No insults No cussing and please do not act like you are better than anyone else First I would like to define the what I mean by Stimulas Package. I am talking about the multibillion dollar spending bill passed a few months ago by the Obama administration. Please follow these rules and I challenge anyone who wants to take my debate. Thank you
Gay marriage

Yes ,but gay marriage is undermined because most people in the world are straight and gay marriage would tarnish the the good name of America. The bible says that marriage is to be between a man and women, not a man and man or a women and a women. legalizing same-sex marriages is that doing so would undermine the institution of marriage. A marriage between members of the same sex is a self-contradiction, and if their unions are legalized, then marriage itself across the country will be harmed. Because the institution of marriage is in such trouble already, we can't afford further damage. Just how much damage could gay unions do, though. legalization of gay marriage in America is about more than just the status of gay couples; it's also about the future of American civil law. Either civil law is defined by the needs and rights of citizens and gay marriage will be legalized, or civil laws will be placed under the dominion of religious laws and gay marriage will remain banned. Opponents of gay marriage try to offer legal and social reasons for their position, but it always comes back to religion and religion-based animosity towards gays for them. For Christian Nationalists, legalized gay marriage would represent a defeat for their religion in the fight to define the boundaries of American culture and law. Gay marriage furthermore represents a threat to established norms of authority, identity and power. Those who possess that authority and power and who have used them to create their identities are thereby threatened by the prospective changes. One thing that has often puzzled me and others is the argument from so many religious and political conservatives that same-sex marriages "threaten" and "undermine" traditional heterosexual marriages. The same is said even about domestic partnership laws which would give same-sex partners a few of the same basic rights as married couples. Why is this? How can one relationship threaten or undermine someone else's? Marriage is not just an institution, but also a symbol representing our culture's ideals about sex, sexuality, and human relationships. Symbols are important — they are a common cultural currency which we each use to help create our sense of self. Thus when the traditional nature of marriage is challenged in any way, so are people's basic identities. By asking legislatures to pass "Defense of Marriage" acts, voters are using the law to create the cultural equivalent of a copyright or trademark on the institution of marriage to prevent it from be challenged too much.
Gay marriage

On what basis do you find gay marriage to be immoral and wrong? The fact is, that marriage gives you legal rights that are helpful to families. The Declaration of Independence says that all people should go in search of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Not allowing gays to marry is contradicting two of those statements. Gays are not liberated enough from oppression, hate, prejudice, and discrimination from the American people to allow them just to get married. Gays are not allowed the happiness of having a wedding and getting the legal benefits marriage gives. It is sad that American citizens would keep rights from their fellow citizens who have committed no crime, nor hurt them in any way. Most Americans wouldn't be in favor of not having equal rights and opportunities for women, blacks, Jews, Asians, Latinos, Catholics, Irish, and disabled peoples. All of these people have gone through discrimination and oppression, yet legally they have all been liberated. Why not gays? What makes them less deserving? Because they love who they want? Homosexuality is natural. It even occurs in nature frequently: http://articles.sfgate.com... Gay love is just like straight love in that it is two consenting adults who have deep feelings of love for one another. It is not like loving an animal, as the animal does not love the person back in the same way a person would. It is not like incest where a parent "loves" a child because the child is too young to experience love like and adult and is easily misguided because they are young. Gay marriage has nothing to do with anyone but the two people involved in it. You wouldn't think that someone else's failed marriage reflects badly upon yours, so why should gays being married make your marriage less sacred(if that is what one believes)? I see no reason to keep gays from marrying.
Capitalism is a more just sytem than socialism

Before I begin my debate, I'd like to offer some definitions. Capitalism: A system in which all interactions between men are voluntary (Ayn Rand) Just: acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good (Merriam Websters) Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (M&W) Rights: The concept of a "right" pertains only to action"specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. (Ayn Rand) Okay, my first contention: Socialism=theft The basic principal of laissez faire capitalism is the non aggression principal...No man may initiate force against another. In order to implement socialism, the government would have to take some of your stuff and redistribute it! It's like "gimme yo change o yur goin' to jail!" It is probably more eloquently stated, but in anything other than a laissez faire (voluntarist) society, if one does not surrender his goods to his "superiors" (in this case, the government), he usually goes to jail. When stuff is taken by force or threat, it is stealing. All socialism is is government- ran theft. Contention two: Capitalism offers more choices When one company (Or the government) monopolizes the whole means of production/distribution, the townspeople are usually left with only that option. However, with capitalism, there are usually many choices. There are two general stores in town! Not just CommiesRus! With the government owning all the stores, it is often difficult for towns to have an option when it comes to shopping. With private individuals creating new products, people also get to choose from a variety of goods, not just Stalin's Spectacular Soda. What if one does not like Stalin's Spectacular Soda? What if they prefer Dr. Pepper or Mt. Dew? When the government owns the means of production and distribution, it is hard for the creators of new products to put their inventions on the market. Capitalism encourages that! Capitalism encourages creativity, while socialism keeps it trapped. This is just and good because people benefit from having more choices in life. I know that I only have two contentions...I am now ready to hear my opponent's side.
Christopher Nolan should make the next James Bond movie

Christopher Nolan is one of the most imaginative directors of our time he has made many movies from the depth of the Dark Knight trilogy to the originality of inception he has a mind for modern day darkness. seeing that Specter is the final James Bond movie with MGM's contract with Sony, it is a perfect time for Christopher to step up and take the golden role as director. Nolan has publicly stated his desire to helm a future Bond film and his existing relationship with Warner Bros. would appear to be a solid foundation on which to build. His five previous films with the studio have grossed more than $3.2 billion combined worldwide, so the box office ceiling is pretty high (http://www.hngn.com...). Thank you Luck goes to my opponent
The United States is a Democracy.

Ok, look at these 2 definitions (both taken from the examples given by opponent): [Republic] A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. [Democracy] government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Key note: Both are governments that the power rests in the people, and is dictated by elected officials. Therefore, the US is both a democracy and a republic. I.e. a democratic republic. *My opponent has essentially affirmed the resolution right here. "How is the Constitution not relevant in this argument? It is the document that determines whether this country is a republic or a democracy, and it mentioned that the United States is the former." My Response: I'm not saying that it is irrelevant. I'm saying that it is a living document. Times change. Back then a republic was different then a democracy. Today they are the same. Thus, the constitution should be updated. The constitution isn't infallible. At one time, women and blacks couldn't vote, but that changed, it was amended. Voting Issue: 1) A republic and democracy is the same, thus the US is a democracy. For this reason I urge an affirmation
The United States is a Democracy.

"He then quotes [an] article of the constitution. This means nothing, because my argument [is] that a democracy and [a] republic [are] the same thing." 1._ You have missed the point. We are talking about whether the United States is a democracy or a republic. 2._ Not exactly: here are three out of the five* definitions on dictionary.com for the word "republic:" 1._ A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. 2._ Any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth. 3._ A state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state. http://dictionary.reference.com... *I did not use the other two definitions because they refer to the five French republics as well as Plato's work. Now, let us see the definition of the word "democracy" from the same website: 1._ Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. 2._ A state having such a form of government.** 3._ A state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. 4._ Political or social equality; democratic spirit. 5._ The common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power. http://dictionary.reference.com... **I did not include the example, which undermines my argument. You see, the first definitions are similar, but they are not the same. 3._ How is the Constitution not relevant in this argument? It is the document that determines whether this country is a republic or a democracy, and it mentioned that the United States is the former. Your rebuttal, CiRrO?
The United States is a Democracy.

Group all my opponent's quotes. These quotes are misleading, they portray that great American politicians are against democracies. In today's society a democracy is deifned as the same thing as a republic. Today there is no difference, like the difference between Democratic Athens and the Roman Republic. Back in the past, there was a difference. But today, a democracy is the definitions I have given above. These definitions have not been refuted, and thus extend for all remaining rounds. for this reason it is a clear affirmation that the US is indeed a democracy. "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." My Response: He then quotes the article of the constitution. This means nothing, because my argument that a democracy and republic is the same thing. Thus you can drop this argument.
The United States is a Democracy.

Correct me if I am not mistaken, but the people who had some involvement with the drafting the Constitution have said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin "Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." - John Adams "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson "...Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison "It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: their figure deformity... Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government." - Alexander Hamilton Now, you can understand what I am talking about. The first time we even considered calling ourselves a democracy was in 1917: "The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty." - Woodrow Wilson However, contrary to President Wilson's quote, many have said that "democracy is tyranny by the majority," and that could be easily illustrated by the quotes I have supplied from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Now, let's see that article that I have talked about in the last argument: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." - Article IV, Section IV, The United States Constitution. Your rebuttal, CiRrO?
The United States is a Democracy.

I affirm: The US is a democracy. Topical Affirmation [Definition - Democracy] A) the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives B) a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them C) majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group D) Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them or their elected agents E) a form of government in which people hold the power, either by voting for measures directly or by voting for representatives who vote for them wordnet.princeton.edu Essentially the definition of democracy is what the US is, thus the US is a democracy. Rebuttal: The United States is not a democracy, as clearly stated in Article IV, Section IV of the Constitution. Also, the words "democratic," "democracy," or any variations are not mentioned in the Constitution. My Response: This means nothing. Just because the word democracy isn't used doesn't mean that's not what it is. Democracy, as the definitions I gave is what the US government is. That makes the US a democracy.
John McCain is skinny

This is John William McCain: http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net... He is a University of Denver graduate and is retired.[1] As you can tell from his facial structure he is in fact quite skinny. My opponent has failed to reach the burden of proof. I urge a Pro vote. I would like to Con for this 500 character debate. I am now out of characters. Sources: [1]http://www.facebook.com...;
Atheists are Deep Believers

Thanks to my opponent for responding. Pro: 'One who do not believe in God, Believes in the non existence of God' --> This is clearly false. The lack of belief in something does not equate to the belief that it does not exist. The first makes no claims about reality, the second specifically denies that something exists. Pro: 'God by definition itself is a supreme being with infinite intelligence and the Creator of the Universe. Here our finite intelligence will undoubtly be insufficient to explain the absolute in the relative terminology we have and prove His existence' --> A God with properties such as omni-benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience leaves us to expect certain aspects of our world to be in certain ways. For instance, everyone who could possibly come to believe in God would do so, since an omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to, and would want as many people as possible to join him in heaven (to go by the Christian story). We can infer, then, that such a being probably does not exist due to the vast amounts of unbelief in the world. I see no relevant distinction between comprehending an infinite being and comprehending a finite one. What is the 'absolute'? I'm afraid you're going to have to elaborate. We study and build knowledge, infer facts based on observational evidence and learn about the universe we are in all the time with our 'relative and subjective' mind. Why should this not further apply to an infinite God? Pro: '. How will and Atheist empirically prove the non existence of God who by definition itself is not material?' --> Using arguments such as those listed in the first round. Pro: 'There are Hundreds of arguments for and against the existence of God and none of them proves or disproves with evidence convincing to the other' Pro concedes the debate by pointing out that the atheists have evidence for their position, albeit evidence not accepted by theists. By conceding that atheists have evidence for their position, Pro accepts that atheism is not a faith position.