BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialized Medicine is bad for America!

First of all, I would like to point out that there is an important distinction between Welfare and National Health Care. Welfare goes to individuals with little or no money. Welfare gives things such as food stamps and creates programs that help the uneducated poor learn to do certain jobs so that they ultimately earn money independently. Welfare does not focus on the health status of a person. The medicaid and medicare programs, or government funded health care programs, concern a different group of people. This includes the people that insurance companies will not cover. I feel that the insurance companies are one of the main faults here so far. These companies reject people for various reasons, many unjustified. Even if a person is accepted by a health insurance company, the price is very high, a price that definately no single working mother or a retired widow could afford. While you say it will only help these people, according to the census bureau, about 40 million people live below the poverty line. This census does not take into account those who are barely making it. It also does not include those who do not have health care, but who would be below the poverty line if they did. Even then 40 million is approximately 1 in every 6 or 7 people in America. So is it really bad to help "just" them? The next worry you had was about the rich paying for health insurance for others. If there was a national system for health care, they too would be insured by this health care so some of the cost would be for their own. Plus, according to the Pysicians for National Health Care, the U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, about $8,000 per capita, and many of those countries have national health care. Considering the general income of a "rich" person, let's say it's at least $100,000 a year, does less than $8,000 really seem like too much? As for some other trivial concerns you have, such as bosses not being able to afford perks for their middle class employees or the health care going to people who have gotten piercings, I mainly feel as though these issues are irrelevant. But since you bring it up, the perks, first of all, are paid for by the company and not by any individual, and no health care program that I have heard of would tax companies for individual health care. If they do please let me know and I'll check it out. Secondly, many of the countries that have national health care such as Canada or France have more perks for all of their citizens than we do now, plus they have the national health care program. Third, assuming that the cost of the national health care would cost less than $8,000 as cited above, these perks would not be lost. I contest the fact that overall, socialized medicine would be good for America. Many more people would be insured, it would cost less, and America, considered to be one of the greatest lands in the world, would have more to offer than it already does.
Socialized Medicine is bad for America!

I believe National Health Care is a terrible Idea for America. It will destroy capitalism, take away from personal responsibility, hurt the middle class of America and eliminate consequences for people who do stupid things such as punch holes in their nipples and penis to hangs things out of. Very few people will benefit from such a program because taxes will go through the roof! The people at the poverty level will have less money. The middle class will hardly be able to afford to live and will in turn become the lower class and the rich will simply be taxed more giving them less money to donate to Charity, invest into the stock market Or if they own their own business they will have less money to pay for their employees benefits such as bonuses, holiday and vacation pay and all of the other goodies the middle and lower class benefits from. The truth of the matter is socialized medicine will hurt more people than it helps. The only people it will actually help is the unemployed people on welfare because if they don't make any money they will not be taxed any money. In other words free bee. But as Abraham Lincoln once said "You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." And its true. Our welfare system is corrupt. It is not meant to be a prominent thing. It is supposed to be for the people who are 100% disabled and unable to work. And to help people get back on their feet after they loose their job, until they find a new job. However too many people of welfare today can work, but they choose not to. Too many people on welfare milk the system for all its worth. Health care is the only motivation for some of them to work. So they can make the money to pay the bills. However if you give them the only things they need to service (food, medicine and a place to hang their hat) they will never have any motivation to get off of welfare. They will eke their way through life at the bare minimum if it means they don't have to work. There for America becomes lazy and eventually as socialism turns into communism we loose our character and strength and become a weaker nation from it. That is why I believe National Health Care or socialized medicine is a terrible Idea for America. It will destroy us from the inside out! Mark my words.
Gay people are gay.

I am very sorry for my forfeit of the previous round. You see, I was in the wilderness of Africa observing the gay in their natural habitat: the gay bar. I wasn't able to bring back photos, but trust me: gay people exist. Now on to your argument. Actually, he holds two doctorates in poopology and gayology, so he obviously knows what he's talking about. Need you even ask? Besides, when he says that "one of the things that they do" is to eat poop, he only means to say that one of the things in the litany of different things that ALL GAY PEOPLE do is eat poop. He's saying that all gay people eat poop. He's got two doctorates in poopology AND gayology, and because of that I take his word for it. Nonono, you see, there's a 50% chance that a gay person will eat poop in any given amount of time. However, if we stretch that amount of time to their entire lifetime, then that percentage increases to 100%, because all gay people eat poop. So, basically, the older a gay person is, the more likely they are to have eaten poop. If you take all the poop in the world, assuming that any given person will create the same amount of poop, it can also be assumed that half of that poop will be eaten or in some way consumed by a gay person, because gay people start out at 50% when they are born. If half of the poop in the world will be eaten by gay people, then it is safe to assume that gay people eat poop, because gay people are born starting with the 50% chance that they will eat poop in any given amount of time. Basically, this proves that gay people eat poop, and if gay people eat poop, then the rest of my previous argument is consistent and proves my point. Thank you, and be sure to vote affirmative in this debate!
Gay people are gay.

Oh man, this is a five-round debate. Your source said that he had done "a little research", which is by no means a way to discover that all gay people eat poop. Furthermore, if you listen, he doesn't even say that "all gay people eat poop", he says that "one of the things that they [gay people] do" is to eat poop, which allows my probabilities to be constructed just as they are. My probabilities were conservative. The most likely thing is that if a person is gay, there is a 2% chance that they eat poop (because there's a 50% chance that they do, but the individual pair is only two people, so 2 percents), and if they eat poop, there is a 24.5% chance (obvi) that they are gay, leaving only 49%. Videos like 2girls1up indisputably prove that it is not only gays that eat poop; in fact, I have never seen a gay person on the internet, so I'm beginning to doubt their existence in the first place. That Ugandan man may have been traumatized by something else and be misremembering the poop story. So let's review: Hypothetically, very few (2%, remember) gay people are gay, and if we use Olsen's Probability Theorem, we find that this means that theoretically 49% of gay people are gay: just under 50%, which would be a winning number. However, all of this theory doesn't matter because gay people don't exist, and therefore they cannot be gay, because they don't exist to do romance to other men. Therefore, gay people are not gay people; gay people are not gay. Ball's in your court.
Gay people are gay.

Well, first of all, your attack on my argument is rather futile. Although technically there is a 50% chance that gay people eat poop, this black man says that ALL gay people "eat da poo poo," and therefore all people that are gay eat poop. To prove my point, I will cite this picture: http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com... However, even the MATH that you have done is incorrect. You took 50% and multiplied it by 33% and got 16.666%. How is that even close to correct? I mean, come on. Let's be serious, here. 50x33 = 1650, so it should logically follow that 50% x 33% = 1650%. That means, following YOUR logic, that there's a 1650% chance that gay people are gay! That's means I'm BEYOND just winning, it means that I'm winning an EXTRA 1550%! That's so much extra! I have so much to spare!
Gay people are gay.

Your syllogism is as follows: Gay people eat poop People who eat poop are gay Gay people are people who eat poop, making them gay. Ipso facto, gay people are gay. However, your syllogism SHOULD read SOME gay people eat poop SOME people who eat poop are gay. SOME gay people are people who eat poop, making them gay SOMETIMES. Ipso facto, SOME gay people are SOMETIMES gay. If we work out the probabilities, there is a 50% chance that a gay person eats poop (50% that they don't), and a 33% chance that the poop-eating person is gay (33% chance that they're lesbian, 33% chance that they're straight). This leaves only a 16.666% chance that a given gay person is gay, mathematically proving that gay people are, on the average, probably not gay.
Gay people are gay.

As you can see from this thread on the interwebz,: http://forum.bodybuilding.com... Gay people eat poop. I mean, why else would this person ask that question? The fact that they asked the question as to why they eat poop proves that they eat poop. Not to mention that I would trust this guy with my life. I mean, he's from Austria, man. He's fuckin' awesome. Furthermore, I will cite this video on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com... One can discern from this video that people who eat poop are gay. I mean, this guy obviously knows what he's talking about. He's a doctor! He said so himself! So, if gay people eat poop, and people who eat poop are gay, then it must logically follow that people who are gay are gay.
Blocking home plate in baseball

An MLB baseball catcher makes an average salary of 2 million dollars. With all that money team provides them they should be expected to give up their body and stop a run from crossing the plate. In 2012 the Baltimore Oriels won around 40 games with a one run difference. And made the playoffs by 3 games. Buster Posey an MLB catcher for the San Fransisco Giants blocked the plate in 2011 and broke his leg it was bad, the very next year he won the MVP award in is league and never looked back. Baseball is one of oldest sports in the United States and hasn't changed much since than don't change America's pass time with trying to protect a millionaire. Sources http://turtledog.hubpages.com... http://espn.go.com... http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Apps that are used in schools to track student details should be banned

Sorry I was gone my network plugin broke down The company plans to generate revenue by marketing additional services, like more detailed behavior analyses, to parents. But ClassDojo could make money from the information it collects in other ways. Another section of the privacy policy says the company may show users advertisements "based in part on your personally identifiable information." If the company started selling data to advertising companies, such as Adcolony, There is no knowing where this data may end up. Another concern is that people applying for a job are not the same as their younger selves. For example we are already seeing job applicants being judged on things they posted on Facebook when they were 11. A problem would then arise if the company or organisation providing the job saw a child's entire educational history before making a final decision. A situation may pop up where people are being offered jobs based on how mature they were as 4 year olds. This would not only be extremely unfair, It would also have the potential for people being employed who are not suitable for the job role. The point of these apps is that it is supposed to help the child, but the only thing preventing criminals from accessing everything from my mobile number to where I go to school and where I live is a firewall that is used on the wifi access at my school, which I know from experience to be of terrible quality. Imagine if this data fell into the wrong hands
Apps that are used in schools to track student details should be banned

Since con forfeited the round I will just make a quick statement on the matter. Children are at a high risk of danger through the choices they make from peer pressure as well as more sinister problems such as kidnapping. These tracking devices are created for their own protection as to make sure they're safe. It's also important to remember that it is recommended to be used up to the age of 12 so they are allowed to have a certain amount of freedom when they're old enough.
Apps that are used in schools to track student details should be banned

In my opinion, apps that track students should be banned. this is due to privacy mostly, as nearly all the data contained by these apps is collected and stored by third party companies. I find it very worrying that companies like classdojo store things like where children go to school and what their contact details are. The fact that schools are trusting unknown companies whose biggest asset is a database filled with children's contact details is very disturbing
Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board.

Pro has asked me to once again explain why it is impossible to completely eliminate whole departments. He mentioned that "anyone can work together to accomplish a goal if survival was threatened." This is true, however, as I stated, not everyone feels that their survival is threatened. That is why it is CURRENTLY impossible for whole departments to be cut. I am not said it would ALWAYS be impossible. Pro answered my question on what people did before the entitlement programs were enacted, however his connection of the average age of death to these programs is erroneous. The average life span that we now enjoy is indeed much higher than it was 100 years ago. That fact, however, has nothing at all to do with social security nor to the governmental healthcare plans, which is what Pro was implying. There is only one thing that can be attributed to our increased longevity, as well as the increase in the number of people who are able to reach old age. Knowledge. We now have a far better understanding of all the medical fields than we did 100 years ago. Pharmacueticals, hygene, anatomy, to name a few. And whats more, we have invented amazing technologies using that very knowledge. Social Security, when it was enacted in 1935, had nothing to do with healthcare. It was a means of ensuring money for seniors after they retired. The military does not need as much revenue as it is currently receiving in order to maintain security. If the military only needs x number of dollars in order to maintain national security, then anything over x is simply wasteful. the military exceeded x a decade if not more ago. Pro states that I have not offered any original ideas, but only refuted his. I disagree. Within my refutations are many ideas, but the clearest one of all is that without significant cuts in all aspects of government nothing will change.
Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board.

Pro has chastised me for refuting his arguments. Is that not the point of a debate, to show the flaws in your opponents arguments? Pro failed to read the second sentence of my first contention. I said "The political winds simply have not shifted that far to allow entire departments to be cut..." Pro stated nothing is impossible. Well, he's half right. Nothing is impossible given enough time and resources. What i meant by "impossible" was that it is now currently impossible to eliminate those departments, not that it would always be impossible. Pro then states that Americans needs the entitlement programs to survive. I only have one question for Pro, what did Americans do before these programs were enacted? They surely were not "left to die, starving sick and cold" as Pro contends would happen now. And of course we require a military in order to protect us, but do we really need to spend almost 700 billion dollars in order to protect ourselves? Again Pro paints a gloomy future of Americans dying if we cut the Defense budget, and again Pro fails to realize that we could easily maintain a high level of security with a drastically reduced force. as shown here by the CATO Institute. http://www.cato.org... Two more things. Pro stated at he beginning of this round that my ideas were not relevant to this debate. If that was the case then why did he bother to refute them at all? And lastly. Why, why, does Pro feel it is necessary to campaign for votes? He continually asks for you to vote for him. If his arguments were valid and strong then why would he need to ask you to vote for him, wouldn't you do it anyway? Maybe he thinks you are too stupid to understand what hes saying and so he feels he must tell you he is right, rather than showing you he is.
Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board.

If by an across the board cut Pro means a set percentage amount to be cut from each department, ie: 20% from all departments regardless of what they are, then I concede this debate as I agree that would be useless. However what I view as an across the board cut, is that each and every department be viewed and investigated and then a decision to be made on how much can and should be cut. There are two problems with Pro's contentions. The first is that it is politcally impossible for most if not al of the progams Pro mentioned to be eliminated. The political winds simply have not shifted that far to allow entire departments to be cut, especially when those departments are the ONDP, the Deptartment of Agriculture, and the Department of Education. While I do agree that these should be completely cut, it simple cannot happen. The second problem is that Pro's cuts don't go far enough. There is not a single government program or agency that does not have waste. But the real problem is the entitlement programs. Social security, medicaid, and medicare. Pro did not even bother to mention these. Nor, for that matter, did he mention the insane amount of money the department of defense receives. Without cuts in these monstrous programs, nothing will change.
Solving the debt issue: Cut deep or across the board.

In the face of Paul Ryan's new budget cut plan, and Obama's soon to be released updated budget, a question has formed that could solve our debt issue or dig us further into the hole. Many have suggested that the Federal Government cut spending in a few key programs and leave others standing. It has also been suggested that spending be cut across the board and keep all current programs intact. This debate is over which plan would be better. I, in this debate, am supporting allowing the Federal Government to cut spending deep into certain programs and allowing others to remain intact. My opponent will be arguing in support of allowing the Federal Government cutting spending across the board and allowing all current programs to continue to exist. Rules are as follows: -Historical evidence is not required, but historical evidence trumps theoretical evidence. -The last speech will not be allowed to enter in new evidence, snce I will not be allowed to refute it. Instead, the final speech will be used to refute all of my arguments and give an analysis of the debate. -Specific examples must be given. If not, any specific evidence will trump thought and philosophies. -I would ask all judges to put aside personal beliefs and read all of the arguments, in order to judge this debate fairly. -Please be fair and reasonable with your arguments, and if not I would ask the judges to vote you down. -Please take this seriously, for I am excited to here another point of view on an issue that could decide the fate of the United States. Good Luck to my opponent, and I look forward to a good debate.
Scariest films !

I apologize to my opponent, as her initial argument was completely different. While I can accept that she made a mistake in judging 11 films as the top 10, I will not accept her modification of the argument. The burden of proof is on my opponent to prove that her list comprises the "scariest" films. As such, I need only offer one example of a "scarier" film. I now bring my opponent's attention to Asian horror. http://inventorspot.com... http://blog.japundit.com... There are quite a few Korean and Japanese horror movies that are far more frightening than at least half of the movies my opponent has listed. Koreans, known for the their drama shows, implement a lot more plot in their horror movies and there are frequently themes of prolonged torture, intense psychological grief, mixed along with the typical aspects of horror movies. The Japanese also rely far more on psychological fears rather than gore and what I call "startle" films. Most American movies are "startle" films where the only horror part comes from scenes where things jump out. With most Asian horror, your gut wrenches in fear just from the atmosphere of the film. When the actual horror scenes come up, it is a slow, prolonged fear that is simply indescribable. I highly recommend my opponent reconsider her list to include international horror films. Thank you.
Scariest films !

Hmm most scariest films i have to admit im not that scared of "films made to be scary " anymore..but these are films watched when i was younger that i thought was horrifying LOL The exorcist (without a doubt!) The shining Texas chainsaw masacre The poltergiest. Jacobs ladder Carrie Silence of the lambs Creep Godsend. The omen. Stigmata ERmmm can think of much more... :/ I thought the omen was quite funny tbh but a little freaky ;) anyone care to disagree these films are in the top 10?