BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Obama and his followers were consistent they would resemble communists.

Despite the fact that nowhere in our founding documents is health care declared a "right," Obama (and his supporters) declare it a right because it is a human necessity. But there is a huge problem with using this type of logic to justify government's role in providing services. If the degree of necessity is the criteria for converting a private service into a public entitlement, then universal food, clothing, water, shelter, transportation, etc. should also be on the agenda. Most of these items are considered even more important to our immediate survival than health care. It is simply inconsistent to have the government universally provide one service over another that is equally or more vital. If Obama and the Democrats were consistent, they would be attempting to lull voters with promises of providing not just one, but ALL of life's necessities. It is my belief that since Obama followers are thrilled to sell their votes in exchange for free health care, they would quickly opt for receiving the rest of life's necessities at no charge. Although these services would need to be introduced incrementally over a long period of time (as not to appear like communism), each would eventually be perceived as no worse an idea than universal health care. So in the case of Obama and his followers, consistency with regard to government services would eventually lead to a situation resembling communism.
If Obama and his followers were consistent they would resemble communists.

I believe you are splitting hairs when you try to distinguish Obama's plan from other forms of universal health care. Obama has made it clear he is for universal health care, and will stop at nothing to make sure everyone in the country receives health care coverage one way or another. Whether said services are provided directly by the government or just paid for by the government makes little difference for the purposes of this debate. Furthermore, Obama's plan is just that-- a plan. Unfortunately it is a plan that relies heavily on low-income Americans doing the right thing. We all know who will be left holding the bag if his naivetï¿½ becomes law. According to his plan, the millions of voluntarily uninsured (those who manage to afford cell phones, Direct TV, car payments, booze, etc.) will suddenly find the discipline to budget for health insurance payments, while the small percentage of involuntary uninsured (those who truly cannot afford it) will be subsidized completely by tax dollars. If his plan works the way he is guessing it will, the tax payers still pick up the lions share of the tab. If it does not work as planned, do you honestly believe Obama and a democratic congress will toss their hands up and walk away? Not a chance. They will reach for the wallet of one to pay for the health care of another. If you are dead set on debating whether Obama is for socialized health care, we can do so in a separate debate. For now, and to avoid derailing the spirit of the original resolution, you will need to concede that Obama and his party is for universal health care. If not, I can modify original resolution in another debate to "If those who are for universal health care were consistent, they would resemble communists." Let me know. But let me handle a few of your other points: "Either way, Barack Obama's followers would not resemble communists because they are not giving away free health care." When the government requires one tax payers or employers to entirely pay for, or partially subsidize, the health care services of another, it is certainly is "giving away free health care" to the recipient. "Even if Barack Obama WERE giving away free health care... the difference between health care and the rest of life's necessities is that health care is too expensive." This is not true. Food and housing are more expensive than health insurance. Often so are car payments. I insure my family of 5 for $390 per month, with no help from an employer or the government. It's probably my 4th largest fixed expense. If Obama and the democrats were to be consistent in having the government pay for vital services simply because they are expensive, then food, housing, and transportation should be provided before (or at least along with) health care.
Schools Need to Serve Healthier Lunches

One of the leading problems in society is obesity. Childhood obesity is becoming more popular, and one of the leading factors for this is school lunches. Many kids buy lunch at school. The lunches at school are not healthy at all. Most of the food is packaged an pre-made, and the food that is made at the school isn't healthy. For example, the pizza at school is full of grease and not made well. If obesity is such a huge problem, why are schools feeding kids such unhealthy food?
Medical Marijuana

Full resolution: Medical Marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. I will be affirming that medical marijuana should be legalized in the United States of America. This debate only pertains to medical marijuana, not marijuana in general.STRUCTURE:Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-Cases/CON rebuttalRound 3-RebuttalRound 4-Conclusion/Summary Definitions:medical-curative; medicinal; therapeutic [1]marijuana-the most commonly used illicit drug; considered a soft drug, it consists of the dried leaves of the hemp plant; smoked or chewed for euphoric effect [2]I would like to thank 16kadams for agreeing to debate this topic. This should be a very fun and informative debate!Sources:1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
christianity

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited this round....So I cannot be sure of which side I am meant to be arguing for. I will have to assume I am for Christianity, so here I go. For religion, for Christianity.Christianity is a very worthwhile religion because it is very moral. It bases its teachings on the ten commandments, from the Jewish scriptures, and the stories (we prefer to call them parables or readings) tell morals of who to be like and how to act in society. Without these, a lot of people would become quite morally lost. In that the majority of people are Christian, and thus base how they act on the teachings they teach. I am a Christian and always maintain good morals, so I do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery and follow all the other commandments and teachings Jesus preached.So to summarise this argument: Christianity gives you morals! Morals make you a better person!
The bible has contradictions.

1. Creation When I said, "The order of creation isn't important,"I was explaining why verse 18 isn’t specific about when the animals werecreated. “No matter if it is a contradiction that has arisen from translationit is still an example of a contradiction in the Bible.” It would beunreasonable for me to have to defend every translation of the Bible. On whatbasis would we decide what translations are allowed? You could just invent yourown translation that has contradictions in it and I would automatically lose. Iam not defending translations of the bible. I am defending the bible as it isin the languages it was originally written in. 2. Joseph’s father It is not a contradiction for Joseph to have a biologicalfather and a father-in-law. That happens all the time. 3. God’s Law While this is something that could be debated, it is not acontradiction. A contradiction would require one part of the Bible tocontradict another. You only gave one verse and didn’t give any indication ofwhat it contradicts.
The bible has contradictions.

PRO wins if they can prove something in the Bible to be a contradiction. 1. "the order of creation isn't important" You never said anything about it being an important contradiction and no matter if it is a contradiction that has arisen from translation it is still an example of a contradiction in the Bible. 2. In that case you have proven that example to not be contradictory. Doesn't matter as you haven't managed that for either of the others. 3. "could have been" That does not prove that what is written down in the Bible is not contradictory. It is still written down that Heli is his father as well as Jacob. These facts contradict each other so there is a contradiction within the Bible. I will add just one more contradiction to this round due to a lack of time. 1. God's laws In th book of Ezra God says that he intentionally gave out bad laws. So the laws that the bible would have us follow and uphold are now questionable. (EZ 20:25)
The bible has contradictions.

1. CreationIn verse 18 the order of creation isn't important. It isn't specific about when the animals were created. It has just been translated that way. The NIV translates it, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name." (Gen 1:18)2. The face of God.God says that nobody can see his face in response to Moses asking to see God's glory. "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory.'" (Ex 33:18) God is using "seeing my face" to mean seeing God's glory. When Joshua says that he has seen God face to face he means that he saw a physical representation of God. He did not see God's glory. the verses are using the phrase God's face to mean different things.3. Joseph's fatherHeli could have been Joseph's father-in-law and therefore Mary's father. It would been unusual in that time to trace someone's genealogy through their mother so Luke went through Joseph to get to Heli instead of Mary.
The bible has contradictions.

I will bring up three contradictions found in the bible in this round. 1. Contradicting stories of Creation In the book of Genesis we find very contradictory statements on how we were created and in what order. The main contradiction I will use in this round is the order in which animals and humans were created. In one version we find animals being created first and in another we find animals being created to keep Adam company. "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image. .. . So God created man in his own image. " (GEN 1:25-27) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. " (GEN 1:18-19) 2. Seeing the Face of God In the book of Genesis Joshua is wrestling with God and sees his face. In the book of Exodus, though, we get a completely contradictory statement. "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. " (GEN 32:30) "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live. " (EXO 33:20) 3. The Father of Joseph We get two different possible names of the Father of Joseph as well which is another contradiction "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. " (MAT 1:16) "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. " (LUK 3:23)
The bible has contradictions.

The burden of proof in this debate falls on PRO. PRO wins if they can prove something in the Bible to be a contradiction.CON wins if PRO is unable to do so.By the Bible I mean: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalm, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and RevelationPRO is to start presenting contradictions in the first round. No new contradictions in the 5th round.
The Ontological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Hi! The Ontological argument is one of the oldest arguments for the existence of God, originally formulated by Anslem of Canterbury. It has never been a particularly powerful argument and has faced much criticism over history. But there has been advancements with the argument in recent times, and I will present a more modern version. The argument goes as follows: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5) Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world 6) Therefore a maximally great being exists 7) Therefore God exists I think this is a fairly solid argument, and I will eagerly await my opponent's response on these matters.
The government should make extra payments to unemployed sex maniacs

According to a bloke I met in the pub recently, unemployed people who inform the benefits agency that they wet the bed are given extra payments to cover the cost of buying a new washing machine every two years. The guy told me that this is because the wear and tear caused by washing bedding every day means that the machines need to be replaced more frequently than normal. Although I couldn't find any evidence of this gentleman's assertions when I checked the Internet and, admittedly, he had been drinking heavily, this isn't the sort of story someone would make up so I would ask you to join me in taking his word for it. With this being the case, it occurred to me that this amounts to gross discrimination against unemployed sex maniacs (1). I agree that bed-wetters shouldn't be expected to sleep on stinking, urine-soaked sheets every night and they deserve the extra cash, but neither should unemployed sex maniacs be expected to sleep on sheets encrusted in desiccated harry monk (2) and congealed fanny batter (3). That's why, in the interests of hygiene, the government should dole out extra cash to unemployed sex maniacs. Thank you. (1) http://www.macmillandictionary.com... (2) http://www.urbandictionary.com... (3) http://www.urbandictionary.com...
The government should make extra payments to unemployed sex maniacs

I thank my opponent for his good case and I agree, the government may look at this and think "wow, these two incredibly smart and intellectual debaters are on to something when they say we should pay sex maniacs for ejaculating into their beds". Yep, I can picture Santorum approving that. :)C1) So, my opponent says that we should not just pay men to cream away at their beds, but allow lady to shower their graces as well. So, how is the government going to make sure that people get paid the proper amount for the amount of koolaid they release on their bed? And Im sure they will pay women less for their floodage than than men, further causing sexism and controversy in this world. How will the Government know if we've dealt our daily doses? And how much? It is simply too large of a feat to complete and keep a hold of, therefore this is not a good idea. C2)If a claimant was earning money by spilling his kids into a cup and then mailing the contents to a fertility clinic, he would be breaching his welfare conditions and if the benefit agency discovered his scam he may have money deducted from his benefits. WHICH WOULD PUT SPERM DONARS OUT OF BUSINESS! They wouldn't want to have a deduction of their bedsperm checks. Therefore, my opponent is agreeing with me that it will put sperm donars out of business. And, my opponent later in the C2 rebuttle says that inspectors will come to his house to inspect his sheets for crusty resedew. How would the inspector know how old it is? Men can cause the great flood several times a day, so how would the inspector know how old it is? Everyone in the world would have to wear a machine that showed how many times men and women spill the beans everyday just to get a small amount of cash. I bet the machines are incredibly uncomfortable, so no one would want it attached to their bowchickawowows. C3)Then the goverment should just give everyone a washingmachine and avoid paying everyone cash everyday to inspect thier wangatangs and hey-nonny-nonnies. In conclusion, It seems stupid to pay everyone cash for excreting onto their beds. People get $ as a reward for something they do to benefit someone or something. I see in no way how flash flooding your bed will benifit anyone, seeing as it will take more money to wash the sheets daily, and the Government will pay you to do it instead of GETTING US OUT OF DEBT FROM CHINA. Plus, all of the greases will cause people to be able to literally break their crusty sheets in half. No one wants this.
The government should make extra payments to unemployed sex maniacs

I have a feeling this subject may be a pivotal issue in forthcoming election campaigns and I have a presentiment that this debate may well help leading politicians to influence floating voters who might be concerned about this matter. So, with this in mind, I would like to respond to my opponent's contentions as follows: C1. This debate is not gender-specific and payments would be made to both male and female unemployed sex maniacs. Furthermore, it is likely that the sex maniacs, given their cravings for sexual intercourse, would not be alone in bed, rather we are talking about a man and a woman engaging in amorous activities resulting in a combination of both gentleman's sauce and lady gravy being deposited on the sheets, and because a bed is the most usual place for couples to have sex, the unemployment benefit claimant could not be accused of abusing the welfare system in order to get extra cash. C2. If a claimant was earning money by spilling his kids into a cup and then mailing the contents to a fertility clinic, he would be breaching his welfare conditions and if the benefit agency discovered his scam he may have money deducted from his benefits. Worse still, if a benefit inspector was to call unannounced at the unemployed sex maniac's house and found no sign of spoff-stained sheets or labia lathered-linen the claimant could face prosecution for fraud. You see, knocking one off the wrist to produce spunk for sale just isn't worth the risk for a sex-mad benefit claimant. C3. My opponent is right, sleeping on sheets covered in either gentlemen's lust custard or ladies' tango butter, or both, is indeed "uncomfortable", especially when it's still wet, and forcing sex maniacs to do so by depriving them of extra money for washing machines is a violation of their human rights. Probably. Thank you.
The government should make extra payments to unemployed sex maniacs

I gladly accept this topic.C1)Ok, so my opponent is stating that since people that wet their bed get extra mula, people that jizz in their bed should get extra money as well. If this were to happen, wouldn't every male just release their juices onto thier bed, instead of anywhere else? Wouldn't everyone do that just to get a little extra cash? C2) Sperm donars would go out of business. Sperm donars wouldn't give up their precious love potion to doctors, they could just do it on thier bed and get paid to do that. Instead of just skeeting in a cup and having to go to a hospital and back and only do it once a week or so, they could do it daily, in the comfort of their own home, on their bed, and get paid. C3) The government is not going to pay people to jizz on thier beds. In fact, shouldn't they be paying them NOT to excrete onto their bed in the intersest of heygene? Why would they pay them to flood their beds and make everyone around them more unconfortable? That makes no sense.Im done. And thank god, I was almost out of different words for sperm.
animal testing

Considering my opponent has left me with nothing to debate against, here is my final point. I have already explained that animal testing causes medical advances and breakthroughs, and I managed to find an example of quite a few of these breakthroughs and here are just some of them; . Monkey's and various other animals were used to help eradicate polio / create a vaccine against it - the vaccine was made available in 1955 after years of testing on animals, and by 1965 it had almost removed polio from the US. In fact the same vaccination 'formula' is still in use today. . Anaesthetic is definitely a 'comfort blanket' when having an operation...you wouldn't want to be awake and see your stomach being cut open would you? Well the testing carried out on rodents, rabbits , cats , dogs and monkey's helped aid the creation of harmless anaesthetics which we still use today! . In the 20th century, testing on animals has helped many medical advances, such as; Penicillin , Organ Transplants and the Whooping Cough vaccine. Source = http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, in regards to some people saying 'Unnecessary Cruelty'. Really? Why don't you buy make up e.g. lipstick before it has been tested on animals, put it on your lips and see what happens. Would you really take the risk.. even if it meant your lip swelling x 3 normal size. 95% of you wouldn't - this is why animals are also important in cosmetic testing. For safety precautions on humans. I really hope when you vote for this debate, you don't consider personal opinion alone. I am against animal testing if someone asked me 'for or against'. But I can still argue for both sides, like I have done in this debate. Good luck to my opponent. * In response to the list of products not tested on animals...do you really believe every company tells the truth? *
animal testing

Insulting, such a lame method of debating. "well I use non-animal tested products and my face has never once been burned off so so there are other ways of testing in fact lets try people testing and start with your family!" First of all, yes there probably are some other methods of testing cosmetics - but these methods won't provide a FULLY visual view of the effects - e.g. You can test medicine on cells, but when it comes to cosmetics - you can't put eyeliner on a cell and decide "Oh yes, it has no swollen lips". Can you? The other methods probably aren't as reliable as animal testing as well. Second, it is only CHANCE , that your face won't be burnt off - I expect there are many cosmetic products, which have caused damaging effects on people because they weren't tested with effective and accurate methods. Thirdly, Insulting my family is a poor attempt of offending my feelings, and I suggest you post an informative response in the final round. Good luck.
animal testing

What on earth do you expect me to reply with? You've simply listed products which have been tested on animals - when I have already stated an argument for cosmetic testing? I'm sure thousands of people wear those products - and they should be glad they were tested on animals, because what if they used it with no previous testing..they could have their eyes burnt on lips swollen, or something else dangerous happen. I've basically just repeated a small minority of what I've already said. So if you're going to debate over animal testing, I suggest you post a convincing argument. That's all.