azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

The first article is not false? Why then, why I search the authors name in Google, do I see, on the first page, two articles specifically stating that he's wrong when it comes to debt + Obama? Links: 1 & 2I liked your second article more, it seemed less biased, and it did raise two good points. First of all, Obama is supposed to spend more in a recession, government spending should counter the business cycle. Bush had no real reason to continue the deficit in the way that he should have, whilst Obama had the biggest recession in modern history. To get back to your original point, of how Obama has increased debt more than any other president, I was simply pointing out that it's hardly a fair comparison.Second of all, Obama's tried to increase tax on the upper classes, and the corporations, and been blocked by Republicans. Again, it's hardly fair to call him 'the worst president ever' when the results you are using against him are not of his own making.But, as I said originally, I don't think Obama deserves all of the love that he gets from the 'Left'/liberals/democrats, whatever you want to call them. He is currently the best of a bad lot. I remember looking through the official comparisons of the various candidates economic projections, and yes, it is true that Ron Pauls cut the deficit most quickly, and therefore debt, but it did so at the expense of the economy. The Libertarians look to 'save' the economy, but at the expense of the people who it is supposed to help, and this is where I feel that Obama does well, and the Republicans do neither.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Those two links don't say that he's lying, they say that he's misrepresenting information... which as my second link shows is the case for both knoller and the people who attack Knoller.Obama is supposed to spend more in a recessionKeynsian economics is not the consensus. Many believe that increased spending is never a good idea, especially under a recession. Letting the largest of corporations fail is not only supported by Right Wing economists but by even some of the Left-Wing revolutionaries (Occupy Wall Street).Bush had no real reason to continue the deficit in the way that he should haveBush had reasons, including the War and humanitarian aid for Africa and India (yeah... people forget about that part for some weird reason). I disagree with Bush's fiscal policies as well as Obama's. Obama's tried to increase tax on the upper classes, and the corporations, and been blocked by Republicans.Obama supports the Bush tax cuts. He did not try to end them in any way.it's hardly fair to call him 'the worst president ever'I already pointed out that that title belongs to Jimmy Carter.He is currently the best of a bad lot.Even Romney wishes to use the Ryan plan, which would save AT LEAST 5 trillion dollars. And if Romney were to use Ryan's earlier plans, healthcare would be solved and spending would be moderately decreased even more. However, the Ryan plan is not as good as it SHOULD be.it is true that Ron Pauls cut the deficit most quickly, and therefore debt, but it did so at the expense of the economy.It's not just about cutting spending, Ron Paul wishes to eliminate most Federal powers that keep our economy at a stranglehold. Federal spending and regulation is what got us here in the first place. The War on Drugs, the War on Terror, the Federal Reserve, etc. Obama is just another politician with the same BS that Bush brought us. The idea that people truly believe him to be a candidate of "change" is, at times, frustrating. The Libertarians look to 'save' the economy, but at the expense of the people who it is supposed to helpHow are they hurting the people it "helps." Federal manipulation of the economy has only led us to here. Once again, the problem is big government. We put so much faith into a group of people who think that manipulation and control of free individuals is the answer. It's a hegemony of slavery.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Good thing I provided the second link to show how it's still relevant.Good thing that that article said that the entire 'comparing debt' idea was stupid, and that they're all as bad as each other.Even if you want to use the expense of welfare argument, that is not NEARLY the amount that went up in spending under the Obama administration. Unless Corporate welfare counts...Of course, but the $700 billion spent on stimulus, increased welfare spending, and decreased tax revenue, it would make a big part of the difference.One that Obama continues, and even expanded by bombing Libya and progressing the disaster in Pakistan.I haven't personally, but I bet if you compare the costs of conflicts that the two leaders started, you would see a massive difference. However, yes, I agree, Obama's foreign policy is not perfect. Part of why I have repeatedly claimed that he is simply the best of a bad lot.Which will do practically nothing to cover the costs that he continues to spike. It's a red herring.43 billion is not a small amount, and yet it is Republicans who continue to block it. This is not Obama's fault.I was referring to his proposal on Healthcare, not something a decade ago (that actually also led to economic prosperity. If it wasn't for the war, Bush would have a much better legacy in economics).I agree, I was saying I don't trust him because of what happened a decade ago. And Bush's deregulation (under Ryan's plan) lead to the market crash and the recession we're still in. Yes, the times of prosperity were good, and Bush's, but that doesn't mean it was a good thing overall.Even so, helping those who truly can't help themselves is still a small portion of government spending.http://www.newsmax.com/US/Catholic-bishops-Ryan-budget/2012/04/17/ id/436184 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/222003-catholic-bishops-criticize-ryan-budget-cuts-to-food-stamps And yet the plan you support feels that cutting this small portion of government spending is necessary and justified. I'm not arguing the left v right economic perspectives, I'm simply arguing that cutting all forms of social support will hurt more those who need it the most. I don't see why that's hard to accept.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Good thing that that article said that the entire 'comparing debt' idea was stupid, and that they're all as bad as each other.That's more like it, recognizing that he's not such a Messiah after all. That's all I wanted.Of course, but the $700 billion spent on stimulus, increased welfare spending, and decreased tax revenue, it would make a big part of the difference.Money isn't spent on less taxing. that just means there is less money to spend.As for stimulus, this does not help those who can't help themselves. this helps keep irresponsible corporations in power.And increased welfare spending is not the answer, as LBJ and Nixon have shown. Instead, proposals by Bill Clinton, JFK, and Reagan have gotten more people off of government dependence and more independent, as well as leaving room for the private sector to increase wealth for all Americans (as it historically does).Part of why I have repeatedly claimed that he is simply the best of a bad lot.If the bad lot doesn't include Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both for completely ending the turmoil in the Middle East, you'd be right.43 billion is not a small amount,Not compared to the debt and massive spending that it's trying to quellAnd Bush's deregulation (under Ryan's plan) lead to the market crash and the recession we're still in.False. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were irresponsible in their rewards to banks that did the wrong thing. Subsidization and inflation encouraged the banks even more to give out money to poor people who can't afford to give it back. The housing market regulators focused more on pushing ideological goals than thinking about what could actually profit the housing market. In fact, the housing market was encouraged, by government regulators, to over-supply and care little for their expenses (after all, they were being subsidized to an atomic level). Bush should have gotten government COMPLETELY out of the housing market. However, this wasn't the case, and folks like Ron Paul knew this would happen.but that doesn't mean it was a good thing overall.Clearly Bush should have listened to Ron Paul instead of the ideologues pushing for bigger government.necessary and justified.based on the assertions of Catholic Bishops?They complain more about the subsidies going to farmers, which is, of course, wrong. However, Obama is not eliminating subsidies, as Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

That's more like it, recognizing that he's not such a Messiah after all. That's all I wanted.Just to make you happy, I don't really like Obama that much, he's failed in a lot of aspects that I thought he'd do better, drones in Pakistan and others, hasn't pushed Republicans far enough to help the economy, and hasn't done shit to stop everything with Iran. I also remember watching a 2008 video of him speaking for ending the war on weed, yet it's only gotten worse, from what I've heard. I just don't like people calling him the devil, because he isn't.Money isn't spent on less taxing. that just means there is less money to spend.Debt is created by a deficit. Less taxing means more debt.And increased welfare spending is not the answer, as LBJ and Nixon have shown. Instead, proposals by Bill Clinton, JFK, and Reagan have gotten more people off of government dependence and more independent, as well as leaving room for the private sector to increase wealth for all Americans (as it historically does).Increased welfare spending was mandatory, it takes years to change the systems, and as far as I'm aware, it largely falls outside of his mandate (state law, not federal, I'd assume?).If the bad lot doesn't include Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both for completely ending the turmoil in the Middle East, you'd be right.As I've said before, I like this part of them, but disagree with others. If I could mix and match, I could find most of my views in US politicians, I just can't find anyone who has all of them in one.Not compared to the debt and massive spending that it's trying to quellAgreed. Regardless, he's making an effort, and being blocked off, for no real reason.FalseWhilst I agree that there was a large extent of government failure after deregulation, were there not deregulation in the first place, there would not have been the opportunity for CBO's, the abuse of the housing market, and the reckless behaviour that you described. You wish to completely deregulate the banks? This seems unwise, bankers operate in their own self interest, not in that of the bank, and not in that of the country. Remember that the heads of banks who brought about the recession got hundreds of millions of dollars, that sort of behaviour would only become more common, with people not being held responsible for their actions.Based on the assertions of Catholic Bishops?I was simply using them as an example. I have many complaints of Republican behaviour, and I can only imagine that this budget is just more of the same.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Btw, I want your opinion on something. I live in Qatar, which has a large government sector, mostly in banking and petroleum. This generates a massive portion of its GDP, over 60%, and it therefore charges minimum levels of tax. My parents only pay import tax, no VAT, no income tax, and massive subsidies on energy (petrol & electric).The government spends billions trying to improve the country, ensure long term financial stability, building infrastructure, maintaining culture, and provides its national citizens with the most extensive benefits system in the world (most nationals get about $1 million throughout their life, if they're born today).Is this government bad?
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

As for Qatar, it seems that you're living under an oil company and not an actual country like the United States.If the USA could be as small and focused on one cash crop, sure, things would be better.But to believe that Qatar is the way it is because of anything but the fact that Oil is one of the most highest demanded products on the planet is really... a misunderstanding of economics.300,000 people under an absolute monarchy that has possession of one of the largest oil supplies is pretty much nothing compared to the USA, which is above 300,000,00 people and has a very mixed set of resources. That's like living in a city that shits gold and then saying "see, why can't you be like us?"
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

I think you misunderstood what I was asking. I'm not asking if this model can be exported around the world, I'm far from naive. I was simply asking your opinion on what the government does, as a Libertarian. Considering much of what you complain about is the economic aspect - government takes your money & fucks up the economy - since all the Qatari government does is inject money into the system (money from oil, which a private company could have got, granted), I was wondering how you felt about it.Essentially, whether you're a pragmatic Libertarian, or purely principled. Just out of interest.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

As a human being with the ability to reason, I'm very much against this model.Qatar is depending greatly on totalitarianism and oil. A simple drop in demand for oil will destroy your country. Under a Free Market, companies will work to meet demand. But with a government that hogs the oil reserves while depending on their supply, they have created little room for free trade. It's either Oil, or you're all screwed.So really, even that's pretty bad.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

They may be dependent on petroleum products, but their main export is LNG, not oil. LNG is used in energy production, as well as in some cars, and its demand & price fluctuates much less than oil does. For example, Qatar produces over 95% of UK oil, and demand is only predicted to increase. They've made attempts to diversify their income (they've learnt from Dubai), and have one of the biggest banking sectors in the region, and huge infrastructure plans.They also allow a free market to a reasonable extent - both Shell and Exxon make billions there, and there is a significant number of foreign companies in the country.And, could I say that your main justification for no government is simply economic, rather than social?
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

your clarifications aren't showing in my argument feed. but anyway, it's no doubt that Qatar is doing quite well. I've already said that. However, an entire social and economic system to be dependent on government exports is kind of the point that I was making. Qatar has to run itself like a business to keep its employees (citizens) happy and working for the government. And it is not a free market just because it pulls in Capital (Hitler pulled in Capital but delegated most of the citizens to work for militarist goals).Shell and Exxon make billions because of Globalization. Not because Qatar allows "free markets."And the social aspect has much to do with with my justification for little (not no) government. A social system with a terrible economic system is not a good social system. People will have little access to goods and services of better quality if the private sector is limited and heavily regulated. As explained in my many posts before, overall wealth goes up with the pursuits of the private sector. This has been evident in transitional periods for the Soviet Union and China, which portray the greatest examples of binaries in their economics.Society benefits when they are free to trade with each other and when they are free to compete for consumers. When free trade is restricted, people will never be able to get the goods and services that they need (unless you restrict the population itself).
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

nonsense. hes had to amend the entire economy whilst fighting 2 unwinnable wars and bring healthcare to the 50 million poor. the growth hes created vastly outgrows europe, his debt to dgo ratio has improved from 3.59 to 3.26 a huge change. he will save 2 trillion in military soending and was infinitely more effective than bushh in foreign relations
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Seriously? Bush raised the debt by two BILLION for the wars (BOTH OF THEM) Obama has outspent that in a week. Learn the truth
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Oh god...Bush raised the debt by two BILLIONActually, he raised it by $5,000,000,000,000 (well, $4.899 trillion). You were only off by $5trillion.for the wars (BOTH OF THEM)$2 trillion+ is for the wars. That cost was inherited by Obama. Thankfully, Obama is ending this neocon trend.Obama has outspent that in a week.long sighGod I hope you can't vote or are mentally incapable of finding a polling station.Learn the truthFunny. I was going to tell you the exact same thing...
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

God I love idiots sometimes.The wars that Bush started cost about 3 trillion dollars alone. This money was essentially wasted, in terms of the American economy. He also threw away hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts (mainly for the rich), as well as deregulating the banks, causing them to rapidly spiral their risks, into what we now call 'a great big fucking recession'. Considering that he started off with a budget surplus, I hardly consider this a good record.Then, you look at Obama. He's cut back on military spending, partially through removing troops from around the world (saving lives), as well as through straight cuts. In his first year, spending fell - overall spending growth in 4 years is lower than the inflation rate (0.4%). Obama is spending essentially the same amount as Bush did at the end of his presidency. However, due to a fucked economy, tax revenues have fallen massively, and government non-discretionary spending has risen (due to increased welfare payments).So no, that's patently wrong. Please learn a little more before spittling off indoctrinated bullshit.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

"God I love idiots sometimes."If it wasn't for stupid people there would be no smart people.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Well, it depends whether you see 'smart' as a relative value, or as an instrumental quality of someone - whether you feel especially smart because you made someone know they were wrong, or when you achieve something very difficult.But yes, people like this make me feel very proud of what (little) I know. Intellectual masturbation + all that shit.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Are you kidding? Jimmy Carter was a muffin compared to this guys idiocy. Jimmy Carter actually wanted the Country to do well and Succeed. This waste of human flesh is happy to destroy the Capitalist system (Using Pivard and Cloens method) He still refuses to (Spends four million to keep closed) disclose his academic record (Probably because he, like most liberals lied to use the system to get ahead(Used the foreign student criteria to get into either school he "Supposedly" attended although NOONE at either school remembers him)) Has a meeting with his cabinet ONCE in seven months(Yeah that makes twice a year if he works it right, although he is too stupid to think anyone notices how dumb as fuck he is) then tells us to inflate our tires? What a fucking moron, and anyone that supports him is as dumb as a stump to even think he is anything but a waste of human flesh.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

possibly the biggest pile of rubbish ever written by human hand
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

yah obama did one thing he said he would... he did change the economy. just not like we wanted him to
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

he sucksss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

i agree lol i hate this stupid character thing
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Press space to the end of the line.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

When people are disputing whether obama is a good president or not, when they are for him, their biggest argument is talking about how "bad" of a president George W. Bush was. That is besides the point. It seems to me that people have forgotten about Reagan and Lincoln (just to name a couple).
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

dupe
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Yes! Obama doesn't care about U.S. citizens at all, all he cares about is having his face put on the dollar bill!
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

i think obama is a liutral wich dosent make him bad but obama care does nothing but hurt the econimy
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Reading this is like listening to nails on a chalk board.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Those damn "liutrals!!!!!"
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

If it were possible, England would flip over. WHAT IS THE USA DOING TO OUR LANGUAGE?!
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

i dont like dont just because !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

Obama is looking at the long game, obama care is the biggest and greatest progress american has ever made, obamacare will benefit both the economy and all of america , it will in fact ensure americans have a bigger stronger healthier workforce, plus it will save the lives of milions of americans and improve their quality of life too...its right morally and economically, it may even save your friends and families lives and maybe your own too.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Wilson was pretty bad, and so was Buchanan. Carter gives Obama a good run for his money (or should I say other people's money) but I have to say Obama is without a doubt the worst, most spendthrift, most disengaged, incompetent and inept President I've ever seen. An outstanding stump politician, but completely devoid of leadership skills.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: For obama

its not beside the point at all thats absurd, obama took over the disaster bush left behind and rebuilt america fairly
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

Obama is not the worst (Andrew Johnson is) but for sure Obama is up there. We all like vacations but he has gone on too many.
Debate: Is Obama is the worst president the USA ever had?
Side: Against obama

I think the sides in this debate are a bit skewed from the question itself.I would prefer not to vote on either side of this due to that, but of the two choices this is more accurate; I am personally against Obama, after all.That said, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say he's the worst president the USA ever had. He's certainly not one of the best, but I doubt he's a candidate for the worst.