BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Uninsured free-riders are no big problem; mandates unnecessary

Glen Whitman. "Hazards of the Individual Health Care Mandate." CATO. September/October 2007: "how big is the free-rider problem, really? First, we should note that not all free riders are uninsured. In fact, people with insurance consume almost a third of uncompensated care. Second, not all care received by the uninsured is paid for by others. Analysts at the Urban Institute found that the uninsured pay more than 25 percent of their health expenditures out of pocket. [...] So how much uncompensated care is received by the uninsured? The same study puts the number at about $35 billion a year in 2001, or only 2.8 percent of total health care expenditures for that year. In other words, even if the individual mandate works exactly as planned, it will affect at best a mere 3 percent of health care expenditures."
Less government, not more, is answer for uninsured

Paul Hsieh. "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America". The Objective Standard. Fall 2008: "Liberals are wrong when they blame the failure of the Massachusetts plan on the free market. The failure in Massachusetts is not the result of too much individual freedom or too little government force; it is the result of the exact opposite: government interference in the marketplace. It makes no more sense to blame the free market for failures caused by government interference than it would to blame a starving cow for failing to produce milk."
Punishing uninsured further harms struggling

Grace-Marie Turner. "Should the United States Mandate Health Insurance...or Not?". MedScape. April 4, 2008: "An individual mandate would inject much more government control into our health sector and would require onerous enforcement provisions, like garnishing people's wages.[4,5] Americans are struggling to afford decent housing, child care, and other necessities. Requiring them to buy health insurance before we address its high costs would further burden the workers and families we're trying to help."
Mandates counteract insurers denying coverage to the unhealthy

Linda J. Blumberg, Ph.D., and John Holahan, Ph.D. "insurers create [... exclusion periods for coverage of preexisting conditions, benefit riders that permanently exclude particular types of care, higher premium rates or cost-sharing requirements for people with health problems, and outright denials of coverage. [...] If we required that every person obtain at least a minimum package of health insurance benefits — that is, issued a so-called individual mandate — we would eliminate adverse selection, and these barriers would become unnecessary and, in fact, indefensible."
Mandatory health insurance has failed in Massachusetts

Paul Hsieh. "Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America". Christian Science Monitor. September 30, 2009: "Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite – skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care."
Only markets, not mandates, reduce cost of insurance

Grace-Marie Turner. "Should Health Insurance Be Mandatory?" New York Times. June 4, 2009: "But the kind of centralized, government-dominated proposals he endorses elsewhere in his letter have a poor track record of producing the savings he needs for this plan to work. And there is no evidence that Congress will significantly cut the growth of spending in Medicare or Medicaid nor will more spending on information technologies, disease management and prevention produce the needed savings."
Space exploration is inspiring and pushes humans to advance

"Space exploration is not a waste of money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th, 2007 - "The curiosity of humans leads us to do many things. It is probably the reason for outer space research. The evidence that has been gathered supporting interesting information has just fuelled this curiosity. Curiosity is the root to all sciences. Archaeology, biology, chemistry, physics and many other braches of science were only done because of curiosity. Without curiosity, the human race might still be in the Stone Age. Isaac Newton was curious about the falling apple and why it fell. Big curiosity has made us do big things. Space exploration might lead to a good thing too!"
Funding should only go to cost-effective robotic space exploration

"Mars Rising?". The Economist. January 22, 2009.: "Luckily, technology means that man can explore both the moon and Mars more fully without going there himself. Robots are better and cheaper than they have ever been. They can work tirelessly for years, beaming back data and images, and returning samples to Earth. They can also be made sterile, which germ-infested humans, who risk spreading disease around the solar system, cannot."
Space exploration is more valuable than some other human expenditures

Virgiliu Pop. "Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?". Space Daily. January 19th, 2005 - "many of the critics of the space programme on social grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life style and for their own scale of priorities.
There is sufficient room for exploration on earth; space is excessive

. Rather than probing Mars for life, we should be looking to the 95% of the world’s oceans that have yet to be explored and where we are constantly finding new forms of life and new scientific discoveries. For example, bacteria have been found which survive not by using sunlight as an energy source, but volcanic vents on the ocean floor – a discovery which made scientists looking for life on Mars totally change their approach. And with individuals constantly in the news for attempts to traverse the globe in rowing boats, hot air balloons and tied to gliders, there are clearly enough ‘boundaries’ on this planet to keep even our keenest explorers happy.
Multinational space programs are good for international diplomacy.

Since the “historic handshake in space” when a US Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules docked in 1975, the two countries have grown increasingly close. This relationship involves sharing technology (which is almost all ‘dual use’ i.e. it could be used for military purposes as well as civilian, thus requiring a high degree of trust), scientific knowledge and working side-by-side to build and support the ISS. With the involvement of the 11 member states of the European Space Agency as well as Canada, Japan and Brazil in the project, space is one of the few spheres where governments have been able to put aside their differences in pursuit of something more fundamentally important to humanity – surely something that we should continue.
Flag-staking is occurring in space and spread nationalistic sentiments.

Sending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China’s manned programme is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime’s huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush’s pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars programme was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space (as several Chinese hawks have called on the leadership to do), thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield.
Private markets are better suited to invest in space exploration

What better way to colonise space than to leave it to the private market to develop the space tourism market to include space hotels and moon bases? The success of the $10m X Prize at attracting interest and private investment in private space programmes has shown that there is no need for the state to be involved in space travel on the non-science side. Given suitable international safety standards (as were agreed on air travel in the inter-war period) it would transfer the investment and risk away from the taxpayer as well as producing the sort of space travel that would really inspire the human race – the sort that tens of thousands of people would actually get a chance to take part in.
Robots are inefficient at collecting data.

The most flexible robots yet to leave Earth, the Mars Rovers, could only travel a few metres and test some nearby rocks. Humans on the Moon were able to travel significant distances, selectively choose rock types from a variety of locations and prioritise experiments based on the results they received as they were on the Moon’s surface. Ideally scientists would like to understand other planets and bodies as well as they do on Earth. This would require huge numbers of experiments and surveys which would be much better done by long manned missions or permanent scientific missions (as have been posted to Antarctica for decades) rather than a series of unmanned missions over a decade. This also applies to experiments carried out in zero gravity onboard the ISS or Space Shuttle, such as attempts to grow protein crystals or look at the impact of zero-gravity on the behaviour of organisms.
Significant private capital can be raised for space exploration.

Even if NASA is unwilling to fund a particular project does not mean it cannot take place – the Beagle 2 project to search for life on Mars was organised by British scientist Professor Colin Pillinger and raised a significant amount of its ?50m cost from private sources and sponsorship. The Beagle 2 never responded from the surface of the Red Planet but the principle of scientific communities being able to raise sufficient capital for small unmanned missions has been proven.
Humans should not rely solely on Earth for their long-term future

The potential damage done by an asteroid or comet that collides with the Earth could range from the impact of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to the complete destruction of all life on the planet. A manned mission might be necessary to destroy or divert such an object before it reaches our planet. There is also the potential for other terrible damage to be done to the Earth (whether through climate change, warfare or overcrowding), which could mean that as a race we would have no choice but to leave the planet. In that situation, high levels of knowledge about human space travel and the ability to colonise Mars or other planets would be essential.
Manned missions force space-craft to have greater weight-bearing capacities for rocks.

A second reason why manned experiments and exploration would be more effective is that any manned mission will necessarily be heavier. This is because it has to carry the weight of humans and their life support equipment. For this reason the cost of returning samples or carrying extra scientific equipment will be more possible because of the negligible weight they add to the payload. This means that even if the mission is primarily about political grandstanding, science will still benefit. Compare the USSR’s ability to bring back 321g of lunar rock using robots with the 382kg brought back by the US Apollo missions. The latter proved the ‘giant impact’ theory, told us a lot about the evolution and geological change of the Moon and our own Earth, and are still being studied today.
Public funding is necessary to achieve real results in space.

While the private market may be able to cater for the rich few who want to see sub-orbital space (and some 11,000 have signed up to fly there with Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactica from 2007), ultimately the boundaries of science involve keeping humans in space for long periods (the current record is 439 days), travelling further, discovering what the rest of our solar system holds and, eventually, trying to live on the moon or Mars. It is only through state subsidies that such exploration is financially possible.
Some spin-off technology will come from unmanned space travel as easily as from manned space travel

(e.g. rocket technology, robotics, computing power etc.), and one should bear in mind that most manned space programmes are centred on under-funded programmes using old technology due to budgetary constraints (Russia), low technological development (China) or focused on repetitive operations (USA) which do not involve significant funding into new technologies. As a result of space programmes often being closely linked to the military (in China it is a division of the military), the spin-offs that are sought are usually for military rather than consumer products, and more likely to be kept secret for exactly that reason. However, the problem with the spin-off argument in principle is that investing in developing a non-stick frying pan would surely be cheaper than investing in a manned space programme which produces Teflon as a side-effect. Where there are truly significant problems and areas in need of technological advances either the state should fund research (as it does in many ways through research grants, support for universities etc.) or the free market will step in and exploit a market for a new technological solution to a problem.
An early withdrawal would end Sunni fears of working with Shiite "collaborators"

Coalition forces are considered "occupiers" in Iraq. As a result, when the coalition works predominantly with Shiites on security and in the Iraqi government, Shiites are subsequently viewed by Sunnis as "collaborators". This makes it more difficult for Sunnis to work with Shiites out of fear of being branded as working with the "collaborators"; in effect, being labeled "collaborators" themselves. A US withdrawal would eliminate these fears of cooperation, and help avoid civil war.
The US has obligations to its own citizens that must be considered along side obligations to Iraqis.

The United States has obligations to its own citizens as well as to Iraqis. It is clear that keeping US troops in Iraq undermines the United States' ability to uphold many of its domestic interests and obligations, particularly due to the massive financial strain of the war. The economic difficulties of the United States toward the end of the Bush administration are a testament to how the Iraq War has damaged US domestic interests. This needs to be weighed against considerations of an obligation to Iraqis.
The Iraq War has damaged US international security leverage in the world

Some argue that withdrawing from Iraq would cause the United States to be seen as feckless. It is the reverse. The US is seen as feckless because it is hamstrung in Iraq. In fact, the US is actually feckless because it is tied down and exhausting itself in Iraq. The reality of fecklessness that results from the US being in Iraq is more damaging to US leverage than the impression of fecklessness, which may or may not result from withdrawing from Iraq. Withdrawing from Iraq would fix the bigger problem - the reality of fecklessness - and cut the losses of US leverage internationally.
Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites have a history of tolerance not violence

While Sunnis and Shiites may have a history of animosity in the Middle East generally, Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites have a history of tolerance as well as national unity and pride. In fact, Iraq has been know for a high level of shiite-sunni integration in its urban areas, particularly in Baghdad. While some Shiites and Sunnis are mortally pitted against each other in Iraq, the general feeling is not one of hatred, making it unlikely that a civil war would emerge.
The US has a duty to Iraqis to stay and minimize the damage it has caused

"Why they should stay". Economist.com. Sep 13th 2007 - "For all General Petraeus's spin, Iraq is still a violent mess. That is why America should not leave yet[...]If the case for staying depended on extrapolating from the modest gains the general claims for his surge, it would be a weak one. The strong case is that if America leaves, things will get even worse. This can only be a guess, but it is more plausible than the alternative guess that America's going will nudge Iraq in the right direction. In the past two years, violence has tended to decline where American troops are present and to rise in the places they leave. There is no doubt that some Shia militias want to rid Baghdad of its Sunnis and that American troops are for now the only thing stopping them.
Withdrawing from Iraq would restore US credibility not undermine it

George McGovern and Jim McGovern. "Withdraw From Iraq". Boston Globe. June 6, 2005 - "Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course.
American soldiers would rather leave Iraq than stay

"About Face: Soldiers Call for Iraq Withdrawal". The Nation. December 16, 2006 - "For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear Thursday in the print and online editions of The Nation.)"
Regional powers have an interest in preventing civil war

Barry Posen. "The risks of staying vs. leaving Iraq". Boston Globe. April 19th, 2007 - "If the civil war intensifies, regional powers will rush in. This too is already under way, but escalation into a giant civil war is not in anyone's interest. Syria, Iran, and Turkey have Kurdish minorities which may become restive during such a war. The Saudis would likely prefer that their Sunni Arab friends make a deal, rather than wage a fight that they might lose. Even Iran, whose Shia co-religionists stand to win such a war, faces risks. The Arab Shia are not one big happy family; they kill each other in Iraq today. Most Iraqi Shia think of themselves as Arabs; heavy-handed Iranian intervention may energize their nationalist opposition."
The world wants the US to withdraw from Iraq and would support its decision to do so.

The vast majority of the world publics and leaders desire that the United States leave Iraq. If the United States made the choice to leave, the world and its leaders would mostly support its decision (it's what they are calling for!). The US could be seen as working within the wishes of the global community, and this could do nothing but increase the image of the United States in the world, as opposed to undermining US credibility and image.
Coalition forces harm the popular legitimacy of Iraqi leaders that work with them

The vast majority of Iraqis are opposed to the American occupation. They are, by extension, largely opposed to Iraq leaders whom support and are supported by the United States. This creates an inherent dilemma for the United States' continued presence in Iraq. First, whichever Iraqi leaders the United States provides resources, security, and political support to will be rejected by the majority of Iraqis. Lt. Gen. William E. Odom wrote in 2006, "No Iraqi leader with enough power and legitimacy to control the country will be pro-American."[6] This means both that the United States will taint any Iraqi leader that it touches and that it has little future in Iraq as a political arbiter and diplomatic partner. This means that the United States' troop presence in Iraq is both bad for the present political leadership in Iraq and that the United States has little long-term political future in Iraq. This adds credence to the notion that it should leave.
Torturous and brutal tactics in Iraq have only worsened US moral credibility.

Outrage at foreign occupation has been multiplied by brutal American tactics, from the use of degrading torture at Abu Ghraib to the recent discovery that phosphorus weapons were used against civilians in Fallujah. Instances American soldiers at roadblocks shooting men, women and children has also undermined the image of the United States. Indeed, counter-insurgency occupations are ugly and gruesome incidence, which will inevitably undermine the image of the US, cannot be avoided.
Sunni insurgents are too weak to seize Baghdad following a US withdrawal

Shiites and Kurds, in addition to loyal Iraq soldiers, are more powerful in number and in arms than Sunni insurgents. This has much to do with the fact that the USA has been arming Shiite and Kurd militias to combat Sunni insurgents. This Shiite and Kurd militias and troops would oppose and prevent Sunni insurgents from seizing control of Baghdad.
Few Iraqi sectarian leaders want a civil war to disrupt their oil revenues

There is a strong interest among Iraqi leaders to benefit from Iraq's massive oil reserves (the second to third largest in the world). Often times, sectarian leaders benefit through corruption. But, this can all act to constrain the break-out of a civil war, as a civil war would substantially reduce oil revenues. Therefore, in the absence of coalition troops it is, nevertheless, likely that sectarian leaders will attempt to avoid a civil war so that they continue to benefit from Iraq's oil revenues.
Honoring the fallen requires that US troops remain to see victory through in Iraq

If the United States prematurely withdraws from Iraq, what will the dead have died for? Nothing. The mission that they dedicated their lives to would be considered a failure, and they will have died in vein. US troops presently stationed in Iraq strongly uphold the importance of seeing the mission through as a means to honoring their fallen brothers in arms. These soldiers should not be deprived the opportunity to make worth out of the sacrifices that they have seen their comrades make.
The Iraq War has decreased oil production in Iraq rather than secured it

Invading Iraq was - at least with nods and winks - secure US and coalition oil interests in a country with the second to third largest oil reserves in the world. It, however, has not done so, and has resulted in the greatest oil-price hikes in decades. For sure this justification for invading was faulty. It may also be true that withdrawing would help re-stabilizing global oil prices. This is based, in large part, on combination of cases that withdrawing from Iraq will not cause greater chaos and that it may actually improve the situation (below).
After a coalition withdrawal, Iraqis won't want to fail their country by waging a civil war.

After the coalition withdraws, Iraqis will be faced with a choice. Iraqis don't want to commit their country to a suicidal fate in a civil war. Indeed, after a coalition withdrawal, Iraqis alone could be blamed for engaging in a civil war. They will want to avoid being held responsible for committing their country to a civil war and a slow death as a country.
A US troop presence in Iraq provides terrorists with a justification for their presence among Iraqis.

Most Iraqis oppose the US occupation of Iraq, some to the extent that they are willing to support the cause of the insurgency. And, as long as Al Qaeda frames its mission in Iraq as part of this anti-occupation effort, they are largely welcome. But, if foreign troops leave, Al Qaeda will not longer have a cause to justify its presence, and they will lose the support they enjoy from Iraqis.