BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

Pro has strung together facts and figures without a cohesive case addressing the core philosophical question posed, which is does a right exist? I had already previously conceded in most modern states universal health care provided by the state works from a practical and functional standpoint. Pro in fact conceded that in some areas the hybrid approach of the United States with a mostly market but some state intervention is better than states with universal state ran systems. Especially when it comes to wait times. Pro says "In the United States, fewer than 10% of patients wait more than two months to see a specialist versus 41% in Canada, 34% in Norway, and 28% in France. The US 5-year survival rate for all cancers is 64.6%, over 10% higher than the 5-year cancer survival rate in Europe (51.6%). A 2009 study found that the United States had better cancer screening rates than 10 European countries including France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland. The United States is estimated to have the highest prostate and breast cancer survival rates in the world." Statements like this would lead one to believe that less state intervention is better in many if not most cases than more state intervention. Still this is not addressing the question of this debate. The question is what constituents a right? Are positive right really valid rights? It is moral to use force to provide a good or service? If a right to health care exists as a positive right then where does it end? Is there a right to clothing, shelter, food, or a certain income? I argue you have no right to use force to accomplish such things. Government is force, your relationship with government is not voluntary and I refuse to accept the notion that we need violence accomplish civil society. The fact of the matter is to provide health care or anything else though the state it requires resources are forcefully taken from the population and redistributed. This flies directly in the face of everything we learned in Kindergarten, don't hit people and don't take their stuff. Voting to take stuff from people though a state is no different.
Health care is a right and thus a service that should be provided by a government

Many people in today's society assert that health care services are are right that should be provided for by a government. This argument comes from a concept called positive rights. A positive right is a right that imposes a positive duty upon an individual or group to provide a product or service. This is in contrast to what political scientists call negative rights. Negative rights are rights in which the only duty is upon others or the state to not interfere with the exercise of the right (1) examples of negative rights would be, speech, free press and so forth. Also there is an argument that centralized health care systems by a state, treating it as a right will provide better outcomes for patients and communities. I will address both. Enforcement of positive rights require that the initiation of force be applied. To enforce an right to health care it requires a state to use force(sometimes violent) to compel someone to provide the service. This initiation of force is in direct conflict to the principles of non aggression and the golden rule. l argue that health care is a negative right. That is that you have the right acquire health care services in a free and competitive marketplace without interference or force/coercion involved. Government run health care systems work functionally in places where implemented. For example the with the National Health Service(NHS) a completely government run health care system in the United Kingdom there are not sick people dying in the streets. However, does that system provide outcomes better than those that could be provided for with a free market approach? With the NHS rated at "below average" compared to other nations for health care (2) and with a life expectancy of 75 years (3) versus 78 years in the United States (4) can we say health outcomes are better with state run health care? Also, one need not look further than the United States' own Veterans Administration Health Care system to see the results of state run health care in the USA. In the end however, the main arguments against health care as a right is a philosophical one rather than one based on outcomes as broad outcomes are comparable. So I ask pro, do humans have right to use violent force to compel other humans to provide a good or service or is that slavery? Sources: 1) https://www.whatsbestnext.com... 2) https://www.gov.uk... 3) http://www.cdc.gov...
Write a short story. The best one will win. 4k charcaters

Dark grey clouds rolled in from the south, streaks of white lights flashed from above, thunder crashes above the clouds, splashes of rain pattered against the window, the wind blew hard against the tall dark trees making them dance. I sat there alone on the comfort of my bed watching the storm past waiting for the time to end, in my left hand holding tightly was a sharp shiny object with spots of rusty crimson liquid, I slowly placed it to my wrist first softly I than sliced it against my skin all I could see was white lines running across my wrist than I started to do it harder more showed crimson liquid seeped from the fresh slots on my wrist dripped down my pale skin to the already bloodstained bed sheets, I soon moved to my left wrist more slits came while I had a smile on my face, the pain was going away with every cut I had done. A car door slammed closed and the front door slammed closed footsteps ran up the stairs silence came, the footsteps stopped at my door the doorknob started to rattle silence BANG a knock came after "Lilith please open the door" mother pleaded with me "why" I muttered, she could tell what I was done "please open this door I"m begging you" my mother sobbed behind door. "Please open this door" mother was now crying "why are you doing this to yourself Lilith, don"t do this not again, don"t be like your father, stop being like him I"m begging you to stop this" mother continuously saying I couldn"t listen why did she have to bring this up. The next thing I knew the blade went back to my skin but instead I put it across my forearm slits form across my skin bright crimson liquid floods out of the cut, I couldn"t stop it this was all my mother fault. black spots danced in my vision the black grows larger it encased my full vision finally I"m leaving this place this is all over, I could hear sirens coming closer from the distance, the front door slammed open footsteps running up the stairs banging the bedroom door open but they were to late was all I could think while my eyes slowly fell shut. to be continued
Write a short story. The best one will win. 4k charcaters

Write a short story, keep it interesting, legible and short, yet concise. No more than 4k characters. "Son, your mother and I want to talk to you, please sit." I acknowledged this request and sat down with minimal concern, for it was not the first time my parents had bothered me with such petty trepidations. To that I answered very arrogantly "What could it possibly be this time father?" With a stern and emotionless look he told me in a crisp, yet sincere tone, "We want you to leave the house, we're done looking after you and we're done being disrespected by you." The sudden realisation hit me; this comfortable life-style I was living was not meant to be. The weight of the world began its slow, cruel asphyxiation onto my chest, weighing evermore heavier with each breath I exhaled; the room began to spin in a circular motion. I tilted my head back and began to gasp for air that didn't seem to exist. Panic set in and my hands began to fidget helplessly, I was powerless to the strangulation that was tightening. While desperately struggling for my existence, I flicked my eyes in the direction of my parents who were sat there confused, non-reactant to my impending doom. "Help" I whispered vulnerably. I got no response from them, they did however, stand up and walk out of the room, I heard my father present a question to my mother, "Shall I put the kettle on sweetie?" This only further instigated my close battle with death, as I felt my heart thud in an uncontrollable manner. My ears began ringing and my vision blurred, as though I had received a ghastly and dizzying blow to the head. I was in an immeasurable amount of pain and so much distress that my last resort attempt to scream produced nothing more than a gargle of dribbling saliva. I lay there, like a limp corpse. My vicious suffering began fading and so too, my life. I knew I would succumb to the hallowing darkness that began its persistent crawl through my body, I felt nothing, I had finally died and my pain had subsided in its entirety; I smiled before finally fading away, to become one with nothingness. "Get up off the floor you silly sod you." As my mother walked in and so rightfully called my bullsh*t "F*ck off mum, why do you always gotta be a b*tch?" I stormed up the stair case and decide that was enough drama for one night. I lay there awake, scheming my next move. "So the f*ckers didn't buy my act, guess I'll have to MURDER them both, mwahahaha, mwhahaha, MWHAHAHAHAHHA!!!" ...To be continued in the next episode of Dragon Ball Z
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

LAST ROUND.They renamed the colony to be ironic and because of their arrogancy, since they didn't win. "Donkey Kong getting beat up by a nerd" is just a tease of his awesome intelligent side as I demonstrated his smartness in the last round.My opponent claims Donkey Kong getting beaten up. But that picture is of Donkey Bong, the sad twin brother of Donkey Kong.My arguments remain un-refuted. VOTE ME.
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

If there was no ad hominem made against the Indian troops then why did they name their colony in such a way that it insults donkey kong? If Doc Emmet L Brown did not beat up Donkey Kong and it was the other way around, then why did the Indian troops rename their city that way?Simple, because Donkey Kong got beat up by a nerd and is therefore unfit to rule Hong Kong (even if he did rule Hong Kong, the Indians obviously took over later)Con says that the Name Hong Kong was all a ploy from Donkey Kong and that he is really smart.No that is not the case, look below! He got beat up! By the way, I refuted all of your arguments. Try again, 9spaceking (you did not refute if India was ever there or not)
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

My opponent has misunderstood. I have no ad-hominem against the Indian troops. You see, they are actually not weak, they just can't fight Donkey Kong because Donkey is way too awesome, not because of their weaknesses.I never gave any evidence that Doc Brown could beat up and almost kill Kong, I said that Doc Brown rejected Kong's offer and DOC BROWN GOT ALMOST BEATEN UP TO DEATH. Not Donkey Kong. AS for Hong Kong meaning "Nerd Beats up Stupid Donkey Kong", it was all a ploy from Donkey Kong. He's actually very smart. Studies suggest he actually has a massive almost 200 IQ, and he's an amazing scientist, psychologist, etc, who knows how to play with people's brains.BELOW: a picture of WISE Donkey Kong in his seventies Below: Donkey Kong confusing you with his awesomeness and his (invisible!) inventions The rest of my arguments remain un-refuted. Try again, TheUnknown.
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

Con asserts that Indian troops stood no chance against Donkey Kong.This implies that Indian troops are weak and is therefore an ad hominem attack against those filthy imperialistic scumbags and therefore Con must lose conduct points. Furthermore if a science nerd like Doc Emmet L Brown could beat up and almost kill Donkey Kong, he is unfit to rule Hong Kong. The Indians wanted revenge for Donkey Kong's ad hominem attacks so they named their colony as 'Hong Kong', Hong is actually an acronym for the Hindi saying: "Hapiskilliya Onanga Nanga Goriiiie" Which means "Nerd Beats up Stupid Donkey".So Hong Kong actually means: "Nerd Beats up Stupid Donkey Kong"[1]Sources:[1] www.hongkongnamemeaning.info(this link may not work because Donkey Kong got it taken down like a whipped female dog)
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

Those indian troops stood no chance against Donkey Kong. You see, as cited from http://inflationmonkey.blogspot.com..., You can see the graph below. In the beginning of 2008 India was pretty much the least money in petroleum. But after 2008, India's oil increased so much that it went up to the most priced of them all. This just shows part of the influence Donkey Kong had due to his bossing over everyone and trying to get barrels super expensive so that no one will buy them.Now, I need to prove that the time around december 30,2012 is prior to 1947. The answer is simple. Donkey Kong decided to try and spread his influence and asked this doctor, who reacted like this And he tried rejecting, but it doesn't work out. He got beaten to (almost!) death and Donkey Kong navigated his amazing time-traveling car all the way back to before 1947 to take control.Now, my opponent tries mentioning the balls of power during that time. Unfortunately for those indian troops they'd been misguided the whole time. While thinking they have the balls of power, it was all an elaborate ploy for Donkey Kong to take over the world... Or even destroy it by just posting a poster and punching it.
India controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947 (troll arguments)

If a man holds a ball (hehe) in his hand, it can be said that "He is holding a ball" or "His hand is holding a ball". Let us replace the ball with Hong Kong, replace the man with the British Empire and replace the hand with India. Just like how a man controls his hand, the British Empire controlled India (prior to 1947). But why is India the hand that controls Hong Kong? Because a lot of Indian troops were in that city. Look at these filthy Imperialist a-holes ( http://gwulo.com... ) ( https://www.flickr.com... ) ( http://allhumorpic.com... ) On the 2nd link, you will see a poor Chinese man who just wants his freedom from his imperialist Indian Overlords! Therefore India was a colonialist scumbag which controlled Hong Kong prior to 1947. However all was not lost for Hong Kong, because: Once you go curry, you don't have to worry
Agnostic (pro) vs any other stand on religion(con)

There is very little proof as to whether Christ was only a man or a "Messenger of God". The bible is written by human hands and is an opinion rather than concrete evidence. Many other religions have similarly weighted proof, yet each one of them tries to discredit the existence of another. Agnosticism is the best stand among all the religious stands as it gives you a neutral position over God, and in case God does exist, he won't have reason to smite you. On the other hand, if you take a affirmative religious stand and it is wrong, you won't have a pleasant afterlife. If there is afterlife at all.
Agnostic (pro) vs any other stand on religion(con)

Very well then. I think agnostic is the best religious stand is there is not enough data to declare whether God exists or not. It could be possible that there is a God who just created the universe and left it to us, and now doesn't exert any influence whatsoever. However, the idea of a being living in an unknown realm is just a bit hard to believe, especially with few evidences to prove that he is there, and therefore agnostic is the best stand. Christianity may or may not be true, who knows whether Christ was a mortal or a God, or a messenger? As for the Bible, it is a book written by mortal hands, and a mortal mind can easily fall to illusions. Waiting for con's points as to why christianity should be a better and more logical stand than agnosticism.
Vampire Rights

Yes Vampires are dangerous. So is every creature under the sun! Vampires have mingled in humanities past for 100s if not thousands of years in the world of true blood. Vampires never kill off as many humans as humans have in war and crime but if we did what you suggest to a human being it is against one's civil rights to do so. If we can do this to intelleget beings what is to stop our views on our own rights?
Vampire Rights

I was afraid you weren't coming back.Yes, some humans do choose meat substitutes.However, the vast majority do not.It is folly to give rights to a group of people when the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of them will engage in violent criminal behavior.Every species must look out for its own interests first. That is nature. If I was a chicken and chicken had sentience and resources and were in power I wouldn't hesitate to advocate restricting the rights of humans. The fact that a tiny number of them will voluntarily content themselves with "veganism" wouldn't change the structural fact that humans as a group have a strong tendancy to eat chickens.Maybe after some time the vampires will be reconditioned in the ghetto to only want synthetic blood. Targeted efforts to change their nature to one less dangerous such as changing their chemistry so they only desire synthetic blood and hate the taste of human blood should be undertaken. But until that time it is too much of a threat to humanity to allow them to freely mingle with the rest of our society.
Vampire Rights

I am sorry for my absentce for the last week. If my opponent were to forgive and would like to try again with this debate afterwords I would be happy to redo this. Vampires have made it clear true blood is not as good as the real thing. Humans have this view on things aswell. Such as meat and meat substitutes. Still even though there is a lack of taste people still eat this way out of choose. i.e. vegans. Same as in human government and society one individual does not have the same viewpoints as everyone in that group. Are all black people rappers? NO. Are all asian bad drivers? No. Just because one individual is a terrorist doesn't mean they all are. Just like all middle easterners are not terrorist not all vampires are. Vampire reproduction can be restricted to those who want to become an undead being. Many people wish for it and it can happen for them if it is made that way.
Vampire Rights

Vampires are too dangerous to be accorded equal rights.They say they want "integration, equality, and tolerance". Let's look at some facts:-Many vampires have been drinking from and killing humans for hundreds, in some cases thousands of years. Synthetic "True Blood" doesn't taste good to them compared to human blood. They may say they are OK with just drinking True Blood for eternity, but they're lying.The vampire terrorist, Russell Edgington is only the tip of the ice berg of the threat we have from vampires. From his own words they can not be equal to us, they consider themselves to be superior and above our laws. They see their relationship with us as a relationship between predator and prey. The only way for the "prey" to defend themselves is by sending them all to ghettos where they an be administered "True Blood" under tight police control.Another point, since they can not reproduce naturally the only way for them to grow their numbers is to become a "maker" and turn more humans into vampires.
The practice of humans' purchasing and then eating meat is unethical (Copy #2)

Purely for the sake clarity, I shall offer some definitions as provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary [1]. Vegetarianism - "the theory or practice of living on a vegetarian diet. " Vegetarian - "a person who does not eat meat. " Vegan - "a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also: one who abstains from using animal products. " I accept my opponent's first two points. I question the third because grocery stores are not the only places where meat can be purchased, if we separate famers markets and other similar locations from them. I plan to use these in my arguments as well. I thank my opponent again, and I am also anticipating a great debate! [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The practice of humans' purchasing and then eating meat is unethical (Copy #2)

Greetings! I hope to engage in a debate about whether buying meat and then eating that meat is unethical. I wish this debate to include primarily arguments surrounding veganism/vegetarianism, so I have given definitions in order that we might focus on "generic" meat-eating cases. This debate is only open to persons who have equal or higher ranking than me. Sorry! 1. Pro must defend that the general practice of purchasing and then eating meat (but not necessarily every example) is unethical. 2. "Eating meat" will mean the common and continued practice of eating nonhuman flesh by adult humans who are reasonably economically self-sufficient. 3. The round will be specifically be aimed at the purchasing and then eating of (the same) meat in America from grocery stores (and not, for example, road kill). To clarify, the ethics I am talking about does not refer to some "inherent" morality, but a morality in the context of the contemporary American society. (This does not necessarily mean that the morality is an American morality, but that the debate is focusing on being moral in America.) First round is acceptance, and a chance to contend or ask about any of the conditions of the debate, if you would like to do so. I'm looking forward to a great debate! --kbub
Political debate on this nation's most sweeping issues

I will now address the points the Pro brought up. Affirmative action-These quotas actually don't serve to eliminate bias but increase bias and serve to establish reverse racism. Quotas only serve to hurt and not encourage. Basic affirmative action programs such as beginning point systems serve to correct the problems the pro points out. Media-We agree on the media point Abortion-If the child has no support then obviously the child's mother and itself life is in danger due to the mother barely being able to provide for herself. BUT this is only if the mother can barely provide for herself. The key problem with the Pro's statement's is that he uses subjective terminology in sentences. Responsibility and levels of support and morals differ from person to person. I would like to label this argument as an appeal to emotions as the point detracts from the debate by trying to argue what is right or wrong according to his personal set of morals. Gun regulations-Using the Pro's logic we should ban knifes, forks and spoons as well. The only reason I support strict handgun regulations is that a majority of gun related homicides are attributed to handguns and not assault rifles[1]. A ban on assault rifles has already occurred and has already been found to be ineffective by the U. S. Department of Justice. Also banning all guns as the pro suggest creates a black market on guns due to the expo facto stipulation. [1]-. https://www.ncjrs.gov... [2]-. http://www.bradycenter.org...
Political debate on this nation's most sweeping issues

Well we disagree the issue of Affirmative action, media, abortion, and strict handgun regulations. Affirmative action- my opponent says some services shouldn't be required to enforce affirmative action. I'd have to disagree for the simple fact affirmative action opens opportunities across the board. For example if Colleges weren't required to reach a quota racism and bias can ensue. This fact not only applies to education but across the board Media- In terms of media i'd agree that the WORLDWIDE media has a positive effect. As oppose to national news stations like MSNBC and FOX abortion- My opponent says that he supports abortion only in cases of life of the mother. But what in cases of rape or incest? What about the cases in which the mother just doesn't have the to support a child? What if the mother is not responsible enough to manage another human life? It's wrong that you'd make a child come into this when the of family simply has no means to support a child Gun regulations- My opponent supports only strict handgun regulations. Assault rifle or in that any type of gun kill people. Not just handguns.