BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Socialized Healthcare would be good for the United States.

It's generally agreed upon that healthcare costs in America are out-of-control, the system is broken, and SOMETHING needs to be done to fix it! Often, people try to focus on identifying the cause. Is it the spiraling cost of malpractice insurance due to the need for Tort reform? Are doctors and hospitals overcharging for their services due to the fact that they can, since they have such limited competition, and, are profit-oriented? Or, is it the health-insurance companies raising premiums in such a way that it could easily be seen as, "Price-Gouging"? I would argue that the cause is, "all-of-the-above" - or, in short, a "broken system". The way to fix this broken system is clear. It's not something new, ground-breaking, or inventive. It's called, "Socialized Healthcare" and it exists in every industrialized country in the world. .. except the USA. "Oh, really, like which ones? " you ask. .. um, like, "Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Ukraine and the United Kingdom". [1] As a country, we're like the last guy on the block that wanted to get Electricity! I'm sure that my opponent will try to focus their argument on two platforms: 1) The costs; which I will show are negligible, at worst. (Wait until you see how much "Corporations" make off of you being sick! ) And, 2) The quality of care; The truth is that, CURRENTLY, doctors decide on your method of care based on whether or not they will get paid to do it by your insurance company. The topic of the debate is, obviously, TRUE. (PRO) Socialized Healthcare would be good for the United States. The only question that remains is. .. in what form? [1]. http://www.gadling.com...
Catholic Church vs Protestants

The Roman Catholic Church had a strangle hold on Europe during its days of power. Corruption, greed, extortion, murder, theft, and a dismantling of the powers of rulers, in nearly every state in Europe all produced the outcome of the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation was a reformed view of the biblical scriptures. It allowed every day men and women to read and interpret the scriptures, and removed the dependency on the hierarchy of bishops and priests.
Catholic Church vs Protestants

I'm not exactly sure what it is we will be debating about but I will explain the validity of the Protestant movement in Europe during the reformation. Seeing as I only have 9 minutes to post my first argument I will save the majority for round two. 1. " why protestants left the church of Christ that he founded himself" - The Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine the Great, absolutely not Christ himself. Not only was Christ not involved with the foundation of the church neither were any of the twelve disciples listed in the biblical scriptures.
should disabled have the right to suicide

Assisted suicide, also known as Euthanasia, is a delicate topic. While I concede that there are many moral arguments on the side of the pro side, there are often factors that are not taken into account when debating Euthanasia. My opponent has brought up the pain argument. Yes, I agree that many disabled and terminally ill patients experience extraordinary pain. However, modern medicine has the ability to control pain. A person who seeks to kill him or herself to avoid pain does not need legalized assisted suicide but a doctor better trained in alleviating pain.
Topic #29 - Plea Bargaining should be Banned.

Per PublicForumG-d's request, Johnicles permission, and my acceptance, this tournament debate will be redone, provided my opponents rebuttal is posted by the end of tomarrow (April 19, 2008). If that requirment is not met, then PublicForumG-d will have forfeited totally. I will post the new link of the redo in this round three. If that requirment is met, then this debate forum is closed. Here's alittle something to pass the time. http://www.youtube.com...
Timothy(Aka Mestari) beat Ajab in this debate

This is a simple debate I am taking pro timothy, con is taking pro ajab. Neither me nor my adversary shall provide arguments as to why either Timothy(Mestari) or Ajab won. However Voters will *All votes will contain an RFD as to why (pro - Timothy ) or (Con - ajab ) Won the debate. The debate will be determined by the judges who read and listen to the debate. If you feel timothy won vote for pro, if you feel ajab won vote for con. first round is just acceptance only as there is no arguments in this debate and it will be decided by the content within the youtube video and the judges http://www.youtube.com...
No Summer Vacation

Did you know that in elementary school, middle school, and high school combined, kids lose about 1 year of knowledge in the United States. The school year is only about 9 months, meaning that 1 year of knowledge is equivalent to 1-1/2 school years. The United States was also awarded a very low ranking by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, a low 487 in math, 500 hundred in reading, and 502 in science. The highest possible points awarded was 1,000. That shows how bad the United States is doing. Also, if people are concerned about going to school more, they don't have to worry. If school was year round, there would be the exact same number of days as a normal school year. There would just be a lot of shorter breaks instead of one big long one. Hooray for school year round! http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.time.com... http://www.guardian.co.uk...
No Summer Vacation

Thank you Con for your argument. As my opponent claims, "The educational ranking argument that my opponent offers is invalid. The OECD average is Science:500 Reading:492 Math:498" Really, it is my opponents mistake. My information was collected from the 2010 statistics, while my opponents was collected from 2009 data. Also, my opponent gathered information on the OECD Average, not the United States scores. In my opponents argument, he said, "Kids need to have a time of the year where they are not structured and told what to do week after week." I agree wholeheartedly with this. As I said in Round 2, kids would be in school the same amount of time. They wouldn't be laboring away the whole year. Breaks would be spaced throughout the whole year evenly. Even President Obama and Arne Duncan, Education Secretary agree with school year round. Lastly, my opponent said, "Having a job during the school year as a teenager is very difficult since high school is very demanding." If year round schooling was approved, students would have less homework and less stress because the curriculum would be extended throughout the whole year. http://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.time.com...
No Summer Vacation

Now to beginRankingThe educational ranking argument that my opponent offers is invalid. The OECD average is Science:500 Reading:492 Math:498 This would put the United States barely below the average, but my opponent does not show any statistics that prove that year round school will help students. Sure, the US does not have the best education system in the world, but how does a 9 month school year cause a problem? Pro does not offer any evidence or statistics that prove that year round schools will raise the level of education in America. My own argumentKids need to have a time of the year where they are not structured and told what to do week after week. When children are young, they need to have a time of the year where they can develop at their own speed. This helps the child grow in their own way at their own pace. It also sometimes allows kids to mingle with kids who are older or younger than themselves. This allows more diversity in the child's life. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics believes that children need a break from the structure and routine of school for a few months every year. The final point I will make is this. Having a job during the school year as a teenager is very difficult since high school is very demanding. The summer gives us a time where we can get a job, which will give us real world experience that we will need later on in life. . http://www.photius.com...http://www.geographic.org...http://www.suite101.com...
Rain is gods spit

Anyone with basic knowledge of both outer-space and probability can see that it is more likely then not that Gods spit planet exists the doesn't. Is CON saying that it must not exist because we haven't seen it with our own eyes? I too believe the saying "Seeing is believing", but you voters must understand that humans can already 'See' it using the science of probability. And this science tells us that the likely hood of it NOT existing is almost if not certainly zero. Con is incorrect in saying that "Based on our current knowledge, it is safe to say so far there is no alien civilization that calls rain "Gods spit". Based on our current knowledge, it is actually almost impossible that it doesn't exist. In the next section of the debate, the only way that CON could prove me wrong would involve having to prove that all of my sourced information is wrong as well.
Rain is gods spit

It is true that the universe is extremely large and the chances of there not being water are extremely slim. But again, it comes down to it being proven or not. We do not have solid proof of any extra terrestrial life. So saying that there might be another civilization calling it "gods spit" when we have yet to find any intelligent life is nonsense. Of coarse there are trillions of galaxies that withhold billions of stars each, but we have yet to find a civilization that calls rain "gods spit". Heck, we haven't even found intelligent alien life yet. Based on our current knowledge, its safe to say so far there is no alien civilization that calls rain "gods spit."
Rain is gods spit

Before I begin, allow me to call the planet separate from earth that has a separate name for rain "God's Spit Planet", just to make things easier on me."We have yet to find a planet that rains water and support life, let alone a civilization calling it "Gods Spit"."Although we have not discovered God's Spit Planet, it certainly exists considering that outer space is infinite, or at the very least large enough that it is virtually impossible for a planet as such not to occur.Can I prove that space is this large?Why yes. A recent study done at the University of Hawaii proved the existence of Laniakea, a massive super-cluster which contains the Milky-way, and billions of other galaxies. Considering that the milky-way alone contains BILLIONS of solar-systems, the amount of solar-systems contained in Laniakea must be unimaginably large. *Above is Laniakea. The red dot is an estimation of the milky-ways location within it. Each dot is a different galaxy. Scientists have discovered many different super-clusters, all holding billions of galaxies as well.*Now, consider that billions of super-clusters like Laniakea exist in our universe. According the multiverse theory, it is very likely that there are billions of universes as well. So yeah. Space is unimaginably large. (Even if the multiverse theory was proven wrong, space is still large enough that it is virtually impossible for God's spit planet not to exist.)To put it simply: -Planets exist in solar-systems, which hold many planets.-Solar-systems exist in galaxies, which hold billions of solar-systems.-Galaxies exist in super-clusters, which hold billions of galaxies.-Super-clusters exist in universes, which contain billions of super-clusters.-And finally, it is very likely that billions of universes exist.Now that I have informed you about the true size of space, I hope it can be easily seen that I am correct in thinking that Rain is Gods Spit, and that God's Spit Planet exists. In fact, the probability that God's Spit Planet DOESN'T EXIST is pretty much indistinguishable from zero, meaning it is more likley that it does exist then not.Sources: http://www.space.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.whillyard.com...P.S: It is likley that Laniekea is part of an even larger structure, although no solid proof of this has been found.
Rain is gods spit

Rain is any type of precipitation Precipitation: a deposit on the earth of hail, mist, rain, sleet, or snow; also : the quantity of water deposited (Merriam dictionary) Apologies for my lack of citation. This is my first time. So far, we have not discovered a planet where rain is called "gods spit". Based on the knowledge we have, we can conclude another civilization calling "gods spit" does not exist. Saying that it must be true because the universe is a large place (even though we have yet to find such a planet) is nonsense. Rain, is a type of Precipitation. According to the definition of of precipitation, it is a deposit on Earth. You can argue that it rains on a other planet, and another civilization calls it "gods spit". We have yet to find a planet that rains water and support life. Let alone a civilization calling it "gods spit".
Rain is gods spit

"Anyone with basic knowledge of both outer-space and probability can see that it is more likely then not that Gods spit planet exists the doesn't." Since the title says "Rain is gods spit", the title is referring that there most certainly is another planet that says that rain is gods spit. The title does not state probability of another planet calling rain "gods spit" With that said, we are discussing if there really is a planet that calls rain "gods spit." Not the probability of another planet calling rain "gods spit" Furthermore, I am correct that currently, there is no planet that calls rain "gods spit", because we have yet to find a alien civilization that does call rain "gods spit." So, based on what we already know, it is safe to conclude there is no planet that calls rain "gods spit." Because the title says "Rain IS gods spit." The title does not refer to the probability of another civilization calling rain "gods spit". "And this science tells us that the likely hood of it NOT existing is almost if not certainly zero". Again, we are discussing if there is really a planet calling rain "gods spit." Not the probability. You have no current evidence of another civilization calling rain "gods spit". Since your title says "Rain IS gods spit", you cannot use probability, because there is a chance of there being a civilization calling rain "gods spit." Thank you for a wonderful debate sir/madame, and good luck.
The United States is a Christian Nation

I concede the point that the great thinkers of the 1700s were not, as a rule, Christians. My opponent takes the position of the Tea Party, Libertarians, and strict constitutionalists. That is, that the will of the original founders is correct and should be adhered to. This is similar stating that we should revert to the gold standard, because it is in the constitution. Were we on the gold standard? Yes. Are we on the gold standard? The answer is an obvious no. The three Great Awakenings transformed America into what we see today: 76% identify themselves with the Christian faith. Note how this has impacted public policy. The idea of abortion is so repugnant to the religious that Legislated Law could not pass. It had to be the Case Law of Roe v. Wade that brought this important aspect to the forefront. The other issue of the day is Gay marriage. In some metro areas, 10% of the populace identify as gay. This minority is excluded from the right of marriage because of a religious majority that believes in a holy book that condemns homosexuality. The separation of Church and State is, in practice, a myth. The Church in question is the Christian Church.
The United States is a Christian Nation

Often you hear comments regarding this nation being a "Christian" nation. I would like to bring to debate and propose that this is not a Christian nation. Historical documents, letters and authenticated quotes and propositions will be my primary source for affirmation, and as such I would expect similar documentation. Rules: Stick to presenting documentation regarding the nation, its practices and legalities. Avoid the following types of arguments: Claiming that because there are a majority of Christians in this nation is not proof that it is a Christian nation. This would be like saying because the majority of citizens are Caucasian, therefore this is a Caucasian nation. Claiming that because many of the original settlers and founders of the nation were deists, or perhaps a Christian, is not proof that this is a Christian nation. This would be analogous to saying the founders of Apple was a Zen Buddhist therefore Apple is a Buddhist company.
The United States is a Christian Nation

I will first define what a religious nation would be. Such a religious nation would be defined as a nation that has a state religion, whose rules of law is derived from a form of holy scripture, makes practicing the religions tenets law that must be observed. Examples of a religious nation is the Islamic Republic of Iran, where they practice Sharia Law derived from the Qur'an. They worship as a nation Islam in particular, Shia Islam is the official religion. The government forces religious doctrine on its citizen in many forms, i.e. females over the age of nine must wear a hijab in public. A Christian Nation, would have to have a single Christian doctrine for which to call our official religion (which the Constitution prohibits). Like Islam, there are many Christian denominations including Methodists, Lutheran, Baptist, Protestant so on an so forth; to stay consistent in laws a single one would have to be chosen. Government powers would force citizens follow its laws which would have based on Christianity; this would mean major shifts in our way of life, shell-fish would be as outlawed as Gay marriage, women would never have gone through suffrage and got the right to vote, slavery would be legislated as per the holy book, The Bible etc... As per the rules of the debate, "Claiming that because there are a majority of Christians in this nation is not proof that it is a Christian nation." which seems to be what your argument is based off of with your statement "76% identify themselves with the Christian faith." The crux of your argument breaks the initial rules set forth at the beginning of the debate. My argument for why this is a fallacy is you cited statistics read very close to 78.1% of American are Caucasian," which does not mean we are a Caucasian nation of course we are not. We are a nation of mixed races and ethnicity as the poet Emma Lazarus' words stamped on the nations standing welcome the Statue of liberty implies, bring us everyone we will welcome and embrace.
Cats vs Dogs

HEY DER!!!! Sooo, we have one of my favorite topics to debate. So Cats simply are better than dogs. Contention 1: Cats are unplugged lap warmers. Cats provide tons and tons of body heat that just warm up your laps when they come and sits on it. This makes for a happier you and me, cause they get the warmth from our genetals and in turn warm up our tummies!!! (3 degrees warmer than the rest of the body). Contention 2: Cats don't lick your face annoyingly Cats when happy don't lick your face and slobber all over you, dogs do. This is annoying. It is, yes, sweet, but none the less annoying. Contention 3: Cats don't jump up and knock your over My dog Rosie is notorious for jumping on my mom and knocking her over, it is funny because my mom is so short, but not when it happens to me. She is a dangerous weapon against humanity!!!!! D: Contention 4: Cats purring is reassuring The feeling of a cat snuggled against your chest purring is one of the most reassuring things there is. Thats my first argument, keep em simple please I don't have the brain power to do that this weekend, finals and all!! :D
Cats vs Dogs

To respond to your argument that dogs are better because they go out and come right back, yes true, but they are not better, with a cat you don't have to worry about them chasing cars or running off and dragging back animals parts. Dogs are just as likely to tear up furniture, and do more damage when they end up tearing it quicker with more "shrapnel" left than by cats. Extend all my other arguments and Thanks for a good debate!
Standardized Tests

NO! I don't know where you went or go to school, but school's do not make the effort to appease ALL of their students. They only make the effort to appease their stupid students because they are the one's that will drop standardized test scores and make them look bad. In my elementary school, middle school, and even about half of my high school, upper level students never got any benefits other than a rare gifted class. Even then, that would just be one class per day. In all the other classes, I always had to deal with the stupid kids asking questions and the teachers being forced to answer them all the while holding me back. It is not, "No child left behind". It is "No child gets ahead". In conclusion, I support the abolition of standards because it forces people be held back who does not need to be.
Haiku Battle - Personal Insults

The topic of this debate is: "Haiku Battle - Personal Insults. " Essentially, my opponent and I will create traditional 5-7-5 haikus with the ultimate purpose of insulting each other. While my opponent and I may create some "offensive" material for the haikus, I would like the viewers and my adversary to understand that I do not mean for anything in this battle to be taken "personally. " Instead, look at this simply as a way to have some fun with poetry and to become a little more light-hearted. My opponent may not delete any profile summaries, photo albums, personal information, or the like once he or she accepts this debate. It is only fair. I will delete none of my information either; however, I must warn you that a lot of it is outdated. Some of my profile summaries are quite inaccurate, and I do in fact support drug legalization. If someone without much personal information (or none at all) accepts this debate, well, I have the ability to delete all of my information. Each person will be able to create five haikus per round. Note that five is the maximum, not the required amount. I think I have covered the important aspects of this debate. I would appreciate it if my opponent only accepts in his/her first round, and allows me to start the official battle. If my opponent wants to start, he/she may do so in the first round, but he/she must forfeit the last round of this debate. Failure to apply to the aforementioned standards results in a loss. Voters should not judge this battle too critically. I believe my opponent and I will respect each other, but will obviously try to "lovingly insult" one another. Thus, I find it appropriate not to cast a Conduct vote, unless either one of us acts quite rudely or refuses to follow directions. Additionally, there is no point in casting a Spelling / Grammar vote, unless either one of us types up battles that are difficult to read. I assume that neither of us will have trouble with this. There is no point in casting a Sources vote either. The only reason why someone should vote for Sources is if one of us posts a video, gives a certain article reference, etc. However, I will notify the voters that I do not plan on using any outside information. My opponent may do so if he/she wishes, but I don't think we need to involve any outside information. Therefore, the voters really should just cast a vote for the Convincing Arguments category. Simply vote for the person who gives an overall better performance.
Haiku Battle - Personal Insults

1. The mocking voice cries From a barren wilderness; My foe is alone. 2. Alone and witless, Hardly fit to write his verse; His haiku shows it. 3. Bland and pointless, dull, His lines lie lighter than dust On my careless soul. 4. His clumsy haiku Ruined his hope of winning; I pity his loss. 5. Quickly I'll forget His pointless insults and lies; His haiku sooner. SAC8, this has been fun. I thank you for this debate, and hope to match wits again soon! C.