azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.Explain to me why it is obvious. Because nothing contained within your post would allow me to validly infer that you were referencing a republican or something similar. (Do you not realize the ambiguity inherent in the term conservative ideologues?)Shall I explain?This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists…Very well!Who do you consider to be mainstream, and how many failed predictions of the same do I need to present? I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. However, you would then argue that A. they are not mainstreamB. that thirty is not enoughC. ten years is too long or not long enoughD. or whatsoever else may suit your denial.I think you ought to study the history of The Glass Steagall Act and the consensus opinion of economists concerning the Act. You will find a lot of evidence that may just try your trust of mainstream economists. (Many economists assert that today’s economic crisis can be directly traced to the repeal of Glass Steagall which occurred in 1999.) I find it extremely laughable that there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your arguments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists. Now, allow me the license to appeal to your sense of reality. In the last thirty years, and more quickly the last ten years, there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class. The record profits of Wall Street are occurring at the same time that record wealth is being lost from the common man. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? Hell, we can go back thirty+ years on this truth of reality.Conclusion: Go ahead and trust the consensus opinion of mainstream economists and likewise observe the continued transfer of your wealth. And perhaps you may learn that maybe, just maybe, the economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. Consistency establishes intent! A man (economist) who consistently advocates policy that transfers your wealth to another is guilty of seeking to transfer your wealth. I thought liberals were for the little guy? Well, I am no liberal, but I certainly am for the little guy. What say you?
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Explain to me why it is obvious.It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.However, you would then argue that...Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth?there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted. there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class...You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend.Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same?They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here."transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose.One glaring problem with this assessment:"Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006."http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htmSeems to me economists aren't the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Explain to me why it is obvious.It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.If you would have used the term ‘conservative’ I would have supposed you were referencing republicans exclusively. Yet, the term you used is ‘conservative ideologues’. And while you may argue that republicans are conservative ideologues I would also argue that republicans are not the only conservative ideologues. For I personally know many democrats who are conservative ideologues. I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!The following is an illustration of the very reason why I asked you to qualify what you call extraordinary evidence:You affirm that there are no stones that are white. I affirm that there are stones that are white. You assert that my assertion is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I in turn request the number of stones that you require as evidence that there are stones that are white. And you reply that my evidence is anecdotal if I present the evidence of white stones.Remember, I am seeking to satisfy your request to provide the necessary evidence that brings into question the prudence of relying upon the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. I am not attempting to prove that the consensus opinion of mainstream economists is true or false in the future. You must realize that I am attempting to demonstrate the fact that when a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations we must realize that we have been misguided. And unless we want to be misguided in the future I recommend that we consider the track record of those who guide our expectations. Not that they may be right or wrong in the future, its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to follow the same course. I’ll address your other statements after we settle this latest disconnect. (You have assumed that I am attempting to draw an invalid inference.)
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

You affirm that there are no stones that are white.No. When I say economists in general can be trusted I'm obviously not referring to every economist in existence. I'm saying in general -- on average -- for the most part. You already stated that you understood this.You have affirmed that there are at least a few unscrupulous economists on planet Earth. This is a reasonable claim. You then suggest that we should not rely on the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. This is not a reasonable claim. Without a logically sound measurement of the ratio of unscrupulous to scrupulous economists we can draw no conclusions about the trustworthiness of the consensus opinon of the profession as a whole.To continue beating this analogy to death... there are white stones and there are non-white stones. We can make no sound assertions about the ratio of white to non-white stones without some logically sound measurement. Grabbing a bunch of white stones and saying "Just look at 'em!" is called cherry-picking, and it is not a logically sound measurement.Further, since we're talking about human beings and not stones, it is reasonable to assume that they are, for the most part, acting in good faith. To suggest that unscrupulous economists outnumber scrupulous economists, or to suggest that the body of unscrupulous economists is sufficiently powerful so as to render untrustworthy the consensus opinion of the profession as a whole... This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence... Such as a random sampling of predictions made in a major journal or newspaper....a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations...The keyword there is "consistently". You have not demonstrated they consistently get things wrong and cannot do so with cherry picked anecdotes.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

I think what we have here is a failure of communication, both of us. While I am extremely careful with my choice of words I too am very careful with inferences I draw from your words. And without going into the long drawn-out dispute of attempting to determine which of us lacks skill in both comprehension and discourse I think we ought to call this discourse un-settled. Both of us feel as though we are beating our heads against the wall? It’s difficult to advance a position when the dialogue necessary to advance that position is falsely understood. Perhaps more care will be taken in the future to avoid this conclusion. Agreed?
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Whatever.................................................
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased?Something to read:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

No not the ones Obama was getting his information from I would like to know the names of those economist that told him his Stimulus was passed that unemployment would stop at 8.5%. There where many that where seeing a recession in late Oct 07 and myself included. Being in real estate I had a good feeling that there was going to be a bust and i even made my sellers take some offers then that they thought where low but now that look back and see how far down they would have been they are thankful, they would have lost even more. Peter Schiff was one out of many that saw this coming. I Even was selling stock short before the crash on Oct 08 and made out pretty well. I'm not an economist but I have a degree in it and numbers to me make sense I understand what is happening and I can predict with good accuracy of what will lie ahead. If in the next year unemployment the national average gets below 9.5% or lower that would be huge for Obama. I hope for everyones sake that it does.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Peter missed (by his own admission) the rebound of the dollar. Yet, I do agree that Peter, Dr, Doom, Robert Chapman, Joe Stiglitz and a few other economists accurately predicted the current economic recession. They seem to be the only economists who have the balls to tell the public that all is not rosy in the future while their counterparts offer-up optimistic appraisals of the coming party.Their counterparts, who seem to receive a lot of media attention, universally and unanimously always see the US economy through rose-colored glasses. Coincidently, they are the same economists whose opinions make headline news and whose opinions are sought by politicians. However, the economists I named are extremely wary of the gigantic stimuli of the world’s governments and Central banks ( the stimuli: The race to debase the worlds currencies). But their politically, friendly counterparts have nothing but praise for the same. And it is this latter group of economists from which dull-minded Americans seem to derive hopium.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Doesn't saying "Economists expect" suggest that they are all in agreement? That is not the case. Not all economists agree with that. There are very successful and reputable economists that say that we have not seen the worst of it yet!Its not a matter of people finding jobs so much as it is companies hiring those people. It is my opinion that the current administrations policies are not favorable for that happening.I disagree with your assertion that the bail outs were the correct thing to do but that is another debate. Just my opinion.Looking forward to your "rational" response. :_)
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

You are correct with that they do expect us to see more pain ahead how much more I don't know. But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes during a time when people and employer's are struggling to make it, it leaves no incentive to hire. i attend a monthly business group here in Charlotte NC with different companies and they all say the same thing there is a big issue with uncertainty and confidence is low. The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: It is too early to tell

"But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes"...on the rich that is."The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed."You can't be concerned about the budget deficit & debt at the same time that you rail against tax increases. The Bush Tax Cuts are directly tied to our nation's recent budget deficits. We have BOTH a revenue AND a spending problem in the USA, and anyone that refuses to acknowledge that has their head firmly in the sand IMHO.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher. If you ask them where are the new jobs they don't know. He has at least 2.5 years to do something and to have hopes of re-election but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift that Obama should have concern about. We shall see! I hope for all of us that things get better.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: It is too early to tell

"Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher."Everyone knows that employment numbers are ALWAYS a lagging economic indicator. The recession is about to be officially declared to be over...wake up..."but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift"...in your wild dreams that is. You are constantly talking about NJ & VA as if they are national trends, when there is ZERO evidence that there are, period.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Jesus some people are retarded. @ Itsnotright:Banished? You didnt even spell it right you redneck retard. What are you doing on a computer anyway?As for the question. Because most Americans are as stupid as "itsnotright" I would have to say that the economy has to just start making a come back around the time of the re-election. If it gets better and stays better earlier then all the gun toting gay hating people will come out and vote for the republican. If it doesnt happen at all or only minimally then people will blame him for not doing a good job and will vote the other way. I voted yes on this question because I do think he will bring the economy around but I think it will take about three years which is right around election time.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

I'd say it's a little early to tell. We've not even gotten to the one-year mark since his inauguration. And there's no telling what the next two years will hold for our country. It will surely depend on what additional issues we face and how they are dealt with. Although on the basis of his current work, so long as the economy does rebound within the next year, and nothing else happens, he'd win a second term.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

He will win the Nobel prize in economics weeks before his re-election that November. (Don't forget Clinton's slogan: "Its the economy, stupid!") It worked for Slick Willie, it too shall work for Obama.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

i think obama because obama been a good president so far all the good things he done for us
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Yes he will because he has helped alot and he hasn't been in office a full year yet. It's time for change and I think Obama is going to be the one who makes the change. People need to start supporting him more and understand that the world was messed up before he got in office. He has made a lot of things better so yes he will win in 2012.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

No matter what happens with Obama's policies, the Republicans have moved too far to the right to produce a candidate with moderate appeal. While the Republican nominee used to be decided with a lot of input from party elites, the far right talk shows have taken over the party since Obama's election. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will not allow moderates like Giuliani or Huckabee, or even traditional Republicans like Gingrich to become the Republican nominee. Instead, far right "heroes" such as Palin will dominate the nomination process. These candidates will inevitably run poor campaigns that focus on false and trite attacks that the electorate is no longer as vulnerable to due to the widespread internet and decline of a single, easily influenced mass media. However, the Republicans will give a strong convention that will make people wonder if Obama is vulnerable, until a disastrous performance in the debates eliminates whatever hope they had. Thereafter, the Republican campaign will devolve into infighting and will run out of money due to the poor management skills of its leadership, which will cause all but approximately 40% of electorate, representing essentially tea-baggers, loyal republicans, and mistake voters, to turn against them. Obama will then win by a clear margin.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Obama is a very smart black man who is also the most popular man in the planet!He's the first ever black American president and the people love him!He will be greater than Washington and Linkoln!Yes,he will win in 2012
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

disregard this message i am tired :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I even voted myself down!
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Of course Obama is going to win that guys a boss he will boss his way till all his trems are complete, theres no taling him down! Barack Obama is unbeatable!!
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

yes he will because alot of people want change and have an african american president!
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Yes because America has finally seen the bright side of things and had the first african american President that made history
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Wait? Because Obama is African-American you appeal to the public as somehow deciding for Obama on that reason? Hillary Clinton would have probably been President if not for Obama. Don't make this a racial issue because if Obama fails miserably than what does that do for history and the first African-American President?
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Saddly yes, I HOPE not, but yes.Because people don't really realize what he's doing, they just take him because he's African American and they want ~~CHANGE~~.Hopefully by the end of his term people will be like "eh i don't think so."We'll see !!
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

Yes, Obama will win in 2012 because by the then, the economy will bounce back to a decent level of satisfaction. Besides, there is no real Republican who can challenge him right now with a so called celebrity status. Maybe this is why Palin is on the show face campaign before presidency campaign.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

It's either Obama or Palin and I really think you want Obama.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: It is too early to tell

Palin has successfully killed off her chances of winning any higher office. She's a proven quitter. When the going gets tough, the tough don't quit.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

obama wont win but what difference does it make who wins? whoever gets elected will carry out the orders of the corporations just like all the others. civil liberties will continue to disapear, the u.s. will continue expanding their military. it will start new wars with people. rich people will get further tax cuts. you can call me nostradamus.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: Yes

Yep.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: Yes

It is now 2015 and I am glad that I was with the voting majority that re-elected President Obama.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: Yes

It is now 2015 and I am happy that I voted with the majority to re-elect Obama as President.
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

yes obama will win because he is one of the best presidents weve ever had
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: yes

yes well he won the Nobel prize which is not given to anyone
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

Maria Skłodowska-CurieLinus PaulinThe Curie family claim the most Nobel Prizes, with five:Maria Skłodowska-CurieHer husband Pierre CurieTheir daughter Irène Joliot-CurieTheir son-in-law Frederic Joliot-CurieIn addition, Henry Labouisse, the husband of the Curies' second daughter Ève, was the director of UNICEF when it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965.Gunnar Myrdal (Economics, 1974) and wife Alva Myrdal (Peace, 1982)J. J. Thomson, awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1906, was the father of George Paget Thomson who was awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1937.William Henry Bragg shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1915 with his son, William Lawrence Bragg.Niels Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1922, and his son Aage Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1975.Manne Siegbahn, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1924, was the father of Kai Siegbahn who shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1981.Hans von Euler-Chelpin shared the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1929 with Arthur Harden. His son, Ulf von Euler, was awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970.C.V. Raman who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1930, was the uncle of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1983.Arthur Kornberg shared with Severo Ochoa the 1959 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of the mechanisms in the biological synthesis of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid.[37] Kornberg's son Roger won the 2006 Nobel prize in Chemistry for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription.[38]Jan Tinbergen, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969, was the brother of Nikolaas Tinbergen who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Konrad Lorenz and Karl von Frisch.Did you say no one wins the Nobel Prize?
Debate: Will Obama win in 2012?
Side: No

does this guy even know why he won the prize? well if you wanna know its for doing his damn job thats right all he did was take some nukes which is his job, to be a peace keeper, maybe not in other countries but we always do anyway