BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay exclusion is just to protect procreative marriage

Margarette Somerville. "The case against gay marriage." McGill Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law. April 29, 2003: "People advocating same-sex marriage argue that we should accept that the primary purpose of marriage is to give social and public recognition to an intimate relationship between two people, and, therefore, to exclude same-sex couples is discrimination. They are correct if the primary purpose of marriage is to protect an intimate pair-bond. But they are not correct if its primary purpose is to protect the inherently procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding or to protect an intimate relationship for the purposes of its procreative potential. When marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, there is no need to choose between these purposes, because they are compatible with each other and promote the same goal. The same is not true if marriage is extended to include same-sex couples. That would necessarily eliminate marriage’s role in symbolizing and protecting the procreative relationship."
Gays cannot recklessly procreate as straights can

A New York Court ruled in 2006 presented what is known as the “reckless procreation” rationale in favor of gay marriage. "Heterosexual intercourse," the plurality opinion stated, "has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not." Gays become parents, the opinion argued, in a number of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, “but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse.”[3] In other words, the non-procreative nature of homosexuals is as much a blessing as it might be seen a curse.
A bottle of liqueur is as dangerous as Four Loco.

"Banning alcoholic energy drinks is loco." USF Oracle. November 8th, 2010: "Many complain that Four Loko's 23.5 ounce can is too large to contain 12 percent alcohol and that it's too dangerous to mix alcohol with ingredients like caffeine and guarana, which are the active ingredients in energy drinks. However, bottles of liquor can contain more than six times as much alcohol as Four Loko. Wine can easily contain just as much at 12 to 15 percent alcohol. Both come in much larger sizes."
Caffeinated alcohol drinks often advertised toward youth

"EDITORIAL: Ban Big-Bang Beer. All Business, Editorial. November 15 2010: "marketing strategies of companies that sell these 'blackout in a can' products have been clearly offensive. Often the brightly colored cans of fruit-flavored danger are placed on shelves next to traditional energy drinks. [Washington Governor Chris] Gregoire correctly surmised: 'It's no different than the kind of appeal that Joe Camel had to our kids when it came to cigarettes.'"
Caffeinated alcohol drinks mask effects of alcohol.

Yakima Herald-Republic. October 27th, 2010 "Professor Ken Briggs, chairman of CWU's Department of Physical Education, calls drinks like Four Loko 'a binge-drinkers dream,' as the caffeine and other stimulants enable drinkers to drink a lot without passing out or employing the body's normal defenses against overindulging, such as vomiting or stumbling around."
Four Loco makes abuse far too easy.

Yakima Herald-Republic. October 27th, 2010: "Reasons are many for the concern. Start with the potency: Four Loko is 12 percent alcohol, more than double that of mass-produced beer brands like Budweiser or Miller and well above the 7.5 percent of the imposing-sounding Foreign Extra Stout by Guinness and many IPAs. The servings are massive; one can of Four Loko contains 23.5 fluid ounces, about double the size of a standard beer can. So in terms of alcohol, a single can of Four Loko equals four or five cans of the usual stuff. Four Loko is among about two dozen products on the market that combine a stimulant with alcohol. The alcohol content is actually more like that of wine, whose alcohol levels run in the 11 percent to 13 percent range and whose normal bottle size is 25.4 ounces. So one can of Four Loko is like one bottle of your favorite chardonnay. But there's more to it than that. It's the stimulants that make the drinks so insidious, according to McKenna. The drinks contain a heavy dose of caffeine and fruity, sweet flavors to cover the taste of alcohol and make it go down easy. [...] And the cost is a mere $2.50 a can; compare that to your favorite chardonnay or hard liquor of choice, or even a six-pack of beer. Four Loko is easily available at your local convenience store. Yes, alcohol of any sort can be abused -- whether at a wine tasting or a hops festival -- but the combination of all of the above simply makes it too easy. Sorry kids, this is different."
More important priorities than banning alcoholic energy drinks.

"Don't ban Four Loko in H.H." The New Hampshire, Editorial. November 12, 2010: "It's unfortunate that Mr. Schumer can't concentrate on more important topics; Four Loko should not be among a senator's top priorities. Schumer's involvement in the issue is similar to politicians bashing Facebook's privacy policy. It's good for some free PR. Try mounting a campaign against the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Schumer, or actually make progress against repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Caffeinated alcohol drinks have harmed lives/communities

"EDITORIAL: Ban Big-Bang Beer." The Columbian, Editorial. November 15 2010: "The ravages of these high-octane mixtures of alcohol and caffeine have spread through Clark County. Local counselors say teenagers drink the stuff like soda, and consumption has increased greatly in recent months. In September, four teenagers were injured in a car crash after allegedly consuming caffeinated malt liquor. Also, an officer-involved fatal shooting of a 22-year-old man occurred after the war veteran had consumed as many as four cans of the stuff. We see no need to increase long-standing regulation of other alcoholic beverages. But when there are repeated instances of young people -- in a matter of mere months -- guzzling potentially deadly beverages, it's time to take action. And the eagerness of the Washington Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association to enact this ban further proves it's the right thing to do."
Education better than banning caffeinated alcohol drinks.

"Don't ban four loco in N.H." The New Hampshire, Editorial. November 12th, 2010: "Don't take away individual rights. If you want to discourage something, educate us on its risks. It makes more sense to convince us to follow a practice than to force it upon us (particularly in this case, when it's not that hard to get across the state's border). Education is the way to go. We gladly published a guest op-ed on Tuesday from UNH Health Services, and we believe the media's coverage has made the risks obvious."
Too few have died from Four Loco to justify ban.

"Don't ban four loco in N.H." The New Hampshire, Editorial. November 12th, 2010: "Banning Four Loko at any level, whether across campus or across the state, is a gross overreaction. First of all, of the millions of students enrolled in institutions of higher education, an incredibly small percentage has been hospitalized after consuming the beverage. Yes, a few have died. Unfortunately, college students die from alcohol poisoning every year. That would be happening without Four Loko."
Combining caffeine and alcohol is nothing new.

"Don't ban four loco in N.H." The New Hampshire, Editorial. November 12th, 2010: "Yes, the combination of caffeine and alcohol poses a situation somewhat different than just drinking a traditional alcoholic beverage. But it's not as if no one thought to combine alcohol and caffeine. Ever heard of a Red Bull and Vodka or Irish coffee? Caffeine is legal. Alcohol is legal. How does legal plus legal equal illegal?"
People can easily combine caffeine and alcohol on own.

"Banning alcoholic energy drinks is loco." USF Oracle. November 8th, 2010: "After consuming alcohol, someone could easily drink coffee or an energy drink and experience effects similar to Four Loko. Mixed drinks such as Jager bombs — which mix Jägermeister and Red Bull — and Vodka and Red Bull are already popular choices, and have been for quite some time."
Kids have been getting drunk for years; Four Loco nothing new

Washington Beer Blog. Seattle PI. Nov 18th, 2010: "We've all heard the recent news about Four Loko, the highly alcoholic, caffeinated beverage-of-choice for people looking for a shortcut to inebriation. In case you've been living in a proverbial cave, here's what happened. A bunch of college kids got wasted, not using beer bongs and Schlitz Malt Liquor, but using something called Four Loko. Some of these kids, including some underage drinkers, ended up in the hospital. That's a drag, really it is; however, those college students did much more than simply get sick and wasted at a party. They let the cat out of the bag. You see, until that party in Roslyn, nobody knew that college kids like to get wasted. It was a well kept secret that many coeds are on a mission to find the shortest route to hammertown."
Government-mandated procedures would reduce doctor flexibility/quality

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care."
Many single-payer systems give patients free choice of practitioners.

In some countries with socialized medicine, such as the UK, patients are offered a choice of general practitioner, all of whom are self-employed or work in private partnerships employing all practice nurses, doctors and clerical staff. In addition, some hospital services are sub-contracted to the private sector, so that patients can choose from a range of providers International comparisons of quality of care and health outcomes generally rank the UK above the U.S.
Quality of health care is much worse under universal health care.

According to Reuters in London, one in 10 patients admitted to National Health Service hospitals in Britain is unintentionally harmed and almost a million safety incidents, more than 2,000 of which were fatal, were recorded last year, according to a report on July 6, 2006. Such figures were "terrifying enough", the report by parliament's public accounts committee said, but the reality may be worse because of what it called "substantial under-reporting" of serious incidents and deaths in the NHS
Universal health care will have rules that decrease patient flexibility

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? [...] The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of."
Lack of preventative care does not significantly contribute to life expectancy or quality of life.

Most of what determines length and quality of life (excluding human issues such as traffic accidents, homicides...) is genetics and life style choices (eating/exercise). Early detection will certainly weigh heavily on life expectancy for certain diseases, but no amount of "prevention" will stop cancer if you genes are highly susceptible. As most people know, most doctor's visits end with "take this and call me if it doesn't get better" which should hardly be seen as "preventative" of anything.
Free, universal health care helps the unhealthy in times of need.

When an individual is sick, they shouldn't have to think about how to pay for their treatment. In free, universal health care systems, when one is sick, they are simply told to rest and get better. This is essential for proper healing. Conversely, in a non-free-universal-health-care system, a sick person is required to figure out how to pay for their health care, rather than simply focusing on getting better. The stresses this causes hampers healing.
Universal health care reduces administrative costs (i.e. paper work)

Medical professionals are often challenged with massive amounts of paperwork in private health care systems. A universal health care system will help coordinate and reduce paperwork, allowing doctors to concentrate on treating patients. A single payer system could save $286 billion a year in overhead and paperwork. Administrative costs in the US health care system are estimated to be substantially higher than in other countries and than in the public sector in the US: one estimate put the total administrative costs at 24 percent of US health care spending.
The uninsurance problem should be solved by less, not more government

Lawrence R. Huntoon, MD, PhD. "Universal Health Coverage --- Call It Socialized Medicine". Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. 2000. - "Collectively, the uninsured pay about $17.1 billion in extra taxes each year because they do not receive the same tax break as insured people with similar income... Where, we must ask, is the compassion for these overtaxed, hard-working people? This is clearly a government-created problem. What we don't need is more government (nationalized health care) to "fix it." What we need is to get government out of our wallets so people can have their own money needed to purchase and own their own health insurance."
Single-payer health care allows bargaining for lower drug prices

"Single-Payer FAQ". Physicians for a National Health Program. Retrieved May 30th, 2008 - "When all patients are under one system, the payer wields a lot of clout. The VA gets a 40% discount on drugs because of its buying power. This “monopsony” buying power is the main reason why other countries’ drug prices are lower than ours. This also explains the drug industry’s staunch opposition to single-payer national health insurance."
"Is it wrong to call single-payer systems socialized medicine?" is another inconsequential question.

It's answer is meaningless to which system provides the most benefits to the most people. It's a semantic argument which will hang more on specific definitions or words that anything resembling rational health care debate. Having said that - the answer is "yes". Socializing anything involves taking individual decisions and "socializing" any negative effects to the community instead of limiting it to the individual.
Free, universal health care is an illegitimate "positive" right

. The main premises here is that "rights" should only protect individuals from harm from others and allow them certain freedoms, but a right to universal health care entails individuals burdening other members of society (possibly violating the liberties of innocents) for things that are perceived as needed or desirable. The extreme of this argument is the circumstance in which a careless smoker is given the "right" to burden others for their expensive health care costs.
Allowing for pooling of resources to force drugs to lower prices will reduce overall innovation.

Reducing profit, reduces motive and the money necessary to get a drug through FDA trials. Without profit motive, drug companies will naturally move away from the rare and complex, yet fatal, diseases if they only affect a small percentage of people. Without the ability to set the price, their resources will naturally be moved almost exclusively into benign treatments which will have a larger percentage of the population as potential users.
No universal health care causes "job lock"

"The Case for Universal Health Care". American Medical Student Association (AMSA). 2005-2006 - "“Job lock”: Job lock refers to the idea that people stay with their jobs when they would rather work elsewhere because their current job offers health insurance. For example, many individuals opt to stay with their job instead of starting their own business because they are unsure of whether they can get health insurance on the individual market, which has higher premiums and often denies people with pre-existing conditions."
A right to health care violates the rights of physicians

One cannot have a right to other people's services. Does a physician not have the free right of association and contract with patients? Why would physicians be forced to perform free or government-set prices for their labor? Why shouldn't they be able to charge market value for their services? Did they enter into their practices with the understanding that they would not be able to charge fair market value? No. They are generally service providers like any other that expect fair, market-based compensation. Universal health care would deprive physicians of this freedom to charge market-value by imposing government pricing on their services, almost certainly at a discounted rate.
Free, universal health care would devastate the insurance industry

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money."
Universal health care will cut physician cash-flow and disrupt living-standards.

It is important to recognize that many private physicians have oriented their private practices around a certain level of cash-flow. They have rented office space at a certain level, taken out mortgages at a certain level, and sent their kids to private schools all on the assumption that their existing cash-flow in their private practices would continue into the future. It is unfair to suddenly and dramatically curtail this cash-flow and force physicians to re-adjust their lives accordingly. For some, this will be impossible or unbearable.
Government-funded universal health care would violate patient privacy

- Sue Blevins. "Universal Health Care Won't Work -- Witness Medicare". Cato Institute. 2001. - "Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Universal health care internationally is better than US system

Paul Krugman, Robin Wells. "The Health Care Crisis and What to Do About It". New York Times Review of Books. Volume 53, Number 5 · March 23, 2006 - "Single-payer and beyond. How do we know that the US health care system is highly inefficient? An important part of the evidence takes the form of international comparisons. Table 1 compares US health care with the systems of three other advanced countries. It's clear from the table that the United States has achieved something remarkable. We spend far more on health care than other advanced countries—almost twice as much per capita as France, almost two and a half times as much as Britain. Yet we do considerably worse even than the British on basic measures of health performance, such as life expectancy and infant mortality."
Single-payer health care erodes competition in price and value

The notion of the free markets as a source of efficiency dates back to Adam Smith. The health care industry is no exception to this rule. If it is open to the free-markets, consumers will shop for and purchase the best price and value. Pressure will be placed on insurance companies to cut costs and sell their surface at a lower price for greater value. Free universal health care would interrupt this, reduce efficiency, and increase costs.
Millions don't have health insurance in US; universal health care would address this

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?". Balanced Politics.Org - "The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums."
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't get health care

"Should the Government Provide Free Universal Health Care for All Americans?" Balanced Politics.org - "Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant."
Universal health care systems are more economically efficient.

America spends a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than any other country, and has worse ratings on a variety of subjects such as quality of care, efficiency of care, access to care, safe care, equity, right care and wait times according to the commonwealth fund. New Zealand, which spends one third per capita what the US spends on health care beats the US on every marker of efficiency and care. Although not definitive, this does lend credence to the idea that universal health care is more efficient than our for profit health care system as the US was inferior to Germany, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser degree Canada in nearly all health care quality issues. This despite the fact that the US system costs 2-3x more per capita than the systems in these other countries.
Government-funded universal health care is no right

Anthony Randazzo. "Questioning the "Right" to Health Care". Reason Foundation. 2009. - "People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing...."