BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

In March 2010, Barack Obama passed Health Care Reform Legislation. This legislation has generated substantial controversy. I argue that Health Care Reform should be repealed in its entirety. The Bill represents a massive expansion of government into a sector that has already been severely distorted by government policies. It includes hundreds of new regulations, massive tax increases, and a huge increase in debt. On top of all that, this bill will lead to rationing and wait times like they have in other Universal Health Care Systems abroad in countries like Canada and in American states like Massachusetts. The Canadian system has to deal with chronic waiting times and weak quality. In Massachusetts, where a form of Universal Health Care was implemented, people have to wait almost twice as long for care as they do in other states while prices have had massive increases. Massachusetts now has the most expensive Health Care System in the Country. The 2010 Health Care Legislation included a massive expansion of Medicaid, a program that is very unsuccessful. Numerous studies find that Medicaid has a negligible effect on its recipient's health. This is largely due to the fact that Medicaid patients have to wait long periods of time for care, because most doctors don't take Medicaid Patients due to low reimbursements and innefficiency. It also includes an employer mandate, which will simply worsen the problem our Health Care System already has: People don't pay for their own Health Care. We need to move towards a more consumer driven system for Health Care that will drive down costs and improve quality. This has happened with Lasik Surgery and Cosmetic Surgery where prices have fallen and quality has improved. Both of these services are not covered by insurance, meaning patients pay for their own Health Care. This gives consumers an incentive to shop for lower prices and more quality. This debate is not just about the 2010 Health Care Reform. This is also about Single Payer Health Care Systems, and whether or not they have succeeded (I argue that Single Payer is a failure). Advocates of Single Payer or Socialized Medicine are welcome to this debate as well, even if they oppose the 2010 Health Care Reform. This debate is about broader Health Care Policy. I personally advocate moving towards a more consumer driven system, that will be included in this debate as well.
There is no misogyny. There are difference and diverse manners of treating females.

Let's put your assertions to the test and see if you truly believe them. Consider the following argument:"Be it abusing your husband, honour-killing some male in the family, stoning males to death or raping/torturing some man for fun, there is no prejudice against men in any of these acts. The thing, and the only thing we witness from even those events is the fact that we have different, diverse manners of treating males, and we constantly apply those manners to males in accordance with his value. It matters not whether the act is 'legal' or 'illegal', as no human law ever can supersede the very conscience of a human actor that performs an act. There exists only the subjectively 'right or wrong' or 'better or worse' approach determined by the subjective value judgment and conscience depending on the actor. Let's pretend for a minute that you were a man and I was a woman. If we were to meet on the street, would it be right for me to murder you (via stoning or some other method) or detain and torture you? The view of these acts comes from the differences and diversity of the manners of treating males stemming from the differences and diversity of conscience and value judgments that form moral and ethical rulings between individuals. You may be against me torturing and murdering you, however, that does not give you any moral higher ground to judge those acts, and that surely does not give you any reason to criticize them. Your family may honour-kill you, but you must respect that. I may stone you, shoot you or torture you to death, and you must respect that too. You may argue that I have no right to kill or torture you, or that you have a right not to be killed or tortured. However, that would be false. There exists absolutely no reasoning to measure male acts and female acts to the same, equal measurements; rather, due to much natural, chemical, physical, biological and physiological differences between males and females that science has constantly discovered, it is much more rational and reasonable to apply different standards based on their sex. If it is a fact that two things are different, what logically follows is that two things should be treated differently, meaning subject to different rules.In conclusion, there are many different and diverse manners in treating males and solving male problems, and from that we have a rich diversity all over the world. Whether you are killed by your family, are poisoned by your wife, murdered in the street or held and tortured by some random woman, there is no injustice or prejudice against you in any of those acts. You must respect the differences in treating males and embrace the diversity."I just have two questions for you:1) Do you agree with the above argument?2) Why or why not?
There is no misogyny. There are difference and diverse manners of treating females.

Hello back, RapeKill. I'm looking forward to a good debate with you.I'll make a quick correction. I am not arguing that there is misogyny in honour-killing (though I do personally believe it is repugnant). I am positing that misogyny exists in your arugments defending honor-killing. You start by stating that it is a fact that women are responsible for the honour of their families (incidentally, without providing any proof), and that if they act in a manner deemed not "acceptable" by an outside authority (their families), they should be subjected to punishment. Specifically, you state: "If you fail to follow the rules, you will be punished". However you also argue that people who perform honour-killing should not be subject to the rule of law. Even though they act in a manner deemed not "acceptable" by an outside authroity (the law), they should not be subjected to punishment. For them, you are saying that if they fail to follow the rules, they should not be punished.In short, you are arguing that for women, right and wrong are objective, and binding with punishments. For honour-killers, right and wrong are subjective, and should be free from punishment. It is exactly this double-standard that constitutes the prejudice that is misogyny. Your arguments themselves are proof of misogyny.Further, you state that "There exists absolutely no reasoning to measure male acts and female acts to the same, equal measurements", However, it is actually the opposite. So far, you have provided no evidence that men and women should not be subject to the same rights and freedoms. As Pro, you have the burden of proof. Simply saying that men and women are different does not therefore mean that they have different rights or freedoms. A Macintosh apple is different from a Red Delicious apple, yet they both get weighed with the same scale.However, in round 1 you do argue that the beliefs of different cultures should be respected and diversity should be embraced. Cultures should be free to do as they choose in spite of their differences. Yet, cultures are just a collection of people. On one hand, you are arguing that people can be different and they should not be subject to judgement or restriction from acting the way they want. Yet, at the exact same time you are arguing that because people are different, they must be subject to judgement and restrictions from acting they way they want. Cultures should be free. Women should be constrained. Another double-standard that proves prejudice against women, and thus misogyny, exists.
There is no misogyny. There are difference and diverse manners of treating females.

Let's start with defining what we're debating here. Misogyny is: Dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women. (1) Pro's round 1 arguments give more than enough evidence for the existence of Misogyny.Pro argues that honor killings are justfiable: "A female puts disgrace and dishonour upon the name of her family. What should be done by her? Of course, there are diverse manners of treating such females for that type of act." In these sentences there are already ingrained prejudices against women. First, that a woman is beholden to uphold the honor of her family, and second, that she should be subject to consequences for a perceived breach of said honor. In defence of those who perform honor killing, Pro argues:"Who is to say what is right or wrong? Should the ruling of the winning side be enforced on the other side? And should the defeated side follow the ruling they disagree with? If we take the mantra that "everybody is equal", then there is absolutely no grounds for one side to force the other to succumb, and the other side has absolutely no reason to submit to the other side."By this argument, those who perform honor killings are not held to concepts of right or wrong, and should not be subject to consequences. Yet the exact same affordance is not provided to the women who are killed. If there were no Misogyny, then the woman's actions would also be measured by the same ruler: Who is to say if what she did was right or wrong? Should the ruling of the family be enforced on her? And should she have to follow the ruling she disagrees with? If we take the mantra that "everybody is equal", then there is absolutely no grounds for the family to force her to succumb, and she has absolutely no reason to submit to the family.However, the truth can be plainly seen in the Pro's arguments. The woman is not treated as an equal. She is not subject to the same freedoms as those who would kill her. There is an ingrained prejudice against the woman in Pro's arguments, and thus by defnition, Pro's arguments are misogynistic. Misogyny exists. The prejudice of Pro's arguments have proven this.1. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Racial stereotypes are true!

To disprove the resolution I must simply show that stereotypes can be false. [1] Hockey is a physical sport. Less than 3% of black people are in the NHL [http://wiki.answers.com...] [2] Nearly 10% of white people living in the US live in poverty. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [3] Pro is not clear which stereotype he is referring to. 1 & 2 negate the resolution.
Heaven would be filled with Atheists.

Pro is clearly too preoccupied commenting on men's penis's to consider my argument properly. Nonetheless: 1) "Heaven would be filled with atheists". 2) Presupposing "God exists" 3) Presupposing "Heaven exists" I suggested that a God would respect those that respected his creation and therefore heavenly selection would be based on such criteria. Pro made no such references in their opening argument and therefore quite clearly plagiarised by presenting this as argument in round 2. Obviously my "ridiculous wording" simply exceeded Pro's intellectual capabilities. I was in fact simply expressing the notion that a reasonable God would not be taken in by the falsehoods of conceptual thought, Whether that be theistic or atheistic or otherwise. In simple terms for Pro's benefit: God would not differentiate between theist and atheist. Because God is omniscient and would be aware of all falsehood. That is to say; disrespect for his creation. Pro's proposition was very specific. Therefore my argument cannot be regarded as neutral. In future if Pro wishes to concentrate on in depth discussions concerning male circumcision, Then perhaps it would be wise not to attempt to debate at the same time. As Pro clearly cannot multi-task.
Heaven would be filled with Atheists.

Well this is productive. My argument didn't change and I went first so who plagiarized who? You made no argument for the con side of the claim. At best you tried to make them neutral, Which didn't do anything at all. You used ridiculous wording and even if I took every word there to mean what it says, Your argument either amounts to worshipping god of some undefined judgement. Furthermore, I'm convinced you're trolling. Your floor.
Heaven would be filled with Atheists.

For the sake of argument. I will be accepting two presuppositions during this debate only. 1) God exists. 2) Heaven Exists. My first argument will be that No moral god would create hell as portrayed by the bible. My second argument is that god would not be happy with the bible or most religious texts. My third argument is that even if hell did exist. A moral God would not make it eternal and the punishments would come in the form of lessons to build their characters. These lessons would give them a chance to either make it to heaven or some lower form of heaven for runner ups. My fourth argument is that if this hell existed, The majority of people in that hell would be religious people. My fifth argument is that heaven would mostly be filled with former atheists because a moral god would know that we could never know him and would not even care. He would be happy that we didn't dogmatically follow what people said and will commend us for being open minded free thinkers. The kind of free thinkers that can imagine a hypothetically good god while also not believing in it. Your floor.
Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime.

"Efforts to legalize prostitution are based on the outdated assumption that prostitution is a victimless crime, a view that is effectively used by the pro-legalization lobby... For the majority of commercial sex workers, the sex industry is a continuum of harm that feeds on vulnerabilities and spits out damaged victims." [1] I'm going to just be presenting the reason prostitution is not a victimless crime. 1) Prostitutes are inevitably damaged by their profession. When a woman has sex, her brain releases a chemical called oxytocin. It's the same chencual that bonds a mother to her baby. It's why she would give her life to save a baby's life. So it's a strong chemical that bonds her to whoever she's having sex with. Inevitably, she will gain that feeling toward her client. In order for her to just move on and sleep with another man, it is necessary that she is able to ignore that feeling on a nightly basis. First of all, that requires defying your body's natural processes. It's also emotionally unhealthy. Second of all, it's an exploitation of the poor. 2) Prostituion exploits the poor. For a poor woman, knowing that they have the alternative of selling out their bodies is not something progresses society or helps the poor. It's something that gives them a harmful and often abusive job just because they feel like they don't have anywhere to go. It only hurts the poor. 3) Prostitution furthers sexism Legalizing the idea that a woman's body can be bought and used like property is the opposite of good for society. Some men sexually objectifying women hurts women as a whole. It may be that one woman consents, but all the other women aroud those men probably don't want to be seen that way. The inevitable result is furthering the overly hormonal and sex-driven male population. Not good things. Legalizing prostitution goes against the progressive goals of modern society. Thank you. Source: http://www.cnn.com...
Prostitution should made be legal in the United States, because it is a victimless crime.

Hundreds of thousands of children are captured, and put to work as sex slaves each year in the United States alone. Could actually legalizing prostitution be the best way to solve this continuing issue and many other ongoing problems relating this? It may seem contradictory, but could this be the winning solution? Legalization of prostitution would protect against child sex slaves and trafficking. Although most people most likely think it increases child and human, but when prostitution becomes legalized people can get sex work as needed, without having to illegally use children. People will be more apt to become a sex worker, because the fear of being caught would be gone. It would provide laws and restrictions against child trafficking, and limit the age of the workers. Listland.com said, "A lot of pro-decriminalization of prostitution believe that if people can legally buy sex from women 18 years or older, it will significantly reduce child exploitation.By legalizing prostitution and implementing more strict laws regarding it, we can abolish child sex slavery." When more women join prostitution, that are 18 and older, men can easily get what they want in a safe, consensual manner, rather than not being able to find anyone of the proper age, resorting to minors. Human rights and lesser child trafficking are great reasons for why prostitution should be legalized, but also that prostitution is a victimless crime, because it is consensual. Since it t is a victimless crime, "There is no difference between picking up a girl at a bar verses picking up a hooker or escort. [...] If it was 100% legal there would be less pimps and more jobs, it's your body"s your choice" (Debate.org). Both parties are acting in a voluntary manner. Many women choose to be a prostitute for many reasons. Therefore when a woman goes to a house for the business she does, and it is consensual. People cannot stop others for the act of consensual sex. Prostitution is a victimless crime, and therefore should be made legal in the United States. Prostitution legalization not only drastically lowers the child trafficking rate, but people have the right to their bodies and prostitution will never be fully contained. It is a victimless crime and consensual. Although many people already have very biased ideas about what prostitution is, and who participates, there are very many outstanding ways America could improve but simply legalizing prostitution
Laveyan Satanism is not that bad

Great! Argument 1: Laveyan Satanism is not the perceived Satanism seen through our media. It is the philosophy that We should be fully responsible for our actions. The eleven rules of Satanism includes: Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked. Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them. When in another"s lair, show him respect or else do not go there. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal. Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved. Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained. Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself. Do not harm little children. Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food. When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him. Those are the 11 rules of Satanism. Do not hurt little children? Does that sound bad to you? I personally don't think so. I would also like to say that Laveyan Satanism does not worship Satan, It is a form of atheism which only chose the name Satanism due to to represent its extraction from society's "one man is worth more than just an average human being" a tries to show the reality of the world. One man is worth one man. Nothing more, nothing less. And that man is truly a carnal beast. I wish you luck in the next round! Good luck! Link: http://www.churchofsatan.com... Link: http://www.churchofsatan.com...
Do you agree with Croatia joining the EU

Firstly I would just like to point out that NATO is a military organization and has nothing to do with the EU, although I do see your point about the Kuna exchanging for the Euro. But as we can see, the situation in Greece hasn't changed, at least not for the better. If another economically unstable country were to join the EU in what state do you think the euro would be in? Croatia should stay a trading partner, that way it's profitable for the EU and the country itself. Unless Croatia cleans its house before then, another hobbled economy will add its weight to the EU exacerbating the problems that already exist. There will be more debt, more burden on EU taxpayers, more risk of loan defaults and more downward pressure on U.S. markets inextricably linked to European markets. Since 2003-2004, Croatia and the EU have been preparing for that nation"s membership, delayed in part by Slovenian (I'm from slovenia btw) concerns over border issues, especially the arbitrary agreement in which Croatia received a large part of Slovenia's sea. Yet one rising star of Croatian politics points to deeper systemic malignancies beyond such familiar concerns over the fiscal problems of a modern welfare state (including a 20% unemployment rate in Croatia). Another problem Croatia suffers from is corruption... If the many reports are accurate, corruption in Croatia is ruthless and systemic in a way that altogether changes the dialogue from how Croatia should enter the EU, to if Croatia should enter the EU (which it already has). As things purportedly stand now, Croatian membership in the EU would be another liability that we cannot afford to add to our ongoing exposure in Greece. EU membership could prove a disaster for the Croatian people as well.
Do you agree with Croatia joining the EU

It is true that the euro is not doing particularly well. However, there are signs of improvement and stability in the next few years. The euro is still a valuable currency, if a bit unreliable. Greece, for example, is showing signs of improvement. In fact, many world economists are projecting economic growth by the end of 2014 for Greece. This is excellent news for the eurozone who have been giving massive financial grants to Greece to stimulate their economy. This means that this is actually a good time to welcome a new country into their union for prosperity sake. Croatia would be a fine addition to the EU to potentially improve their collective economy. They will just have to swap their current kuna for the euro. It is also reasonable to welcome Croatia into the EU seeing that they are already a major trading partner and that Croatia has also been a member of NATO since 2009. Croatia has a very high HDI of .805 and growing which means they have a high standard of living. They are also a high-income nation with a service-based economy which is generally a sign of a very developed economy like the United States. The majority of their economic stats are quite high showing a very developed economy. The only major issue in Croatia's economy, much like the rest of southern Europe, is a rather high unemployment rate ranging from 7-20% depending on where you are at regionally (there is no national count since 2007). Unemployment has been consistently decreasing by around 5% every year since 2007. The government of Croatia is a Unitary Parliamentary Constitutional Republic and has proven to be quite stable. Their judiciary is similar to the United States federal court system and was probably loosely based on it when they designed their government in 1990. Croatia is a relatively new nation, but that also means they are very modern and has proven to be a valuable country so far. Sources: - http://www.theguardian.com... - http://www.princeton.edu... - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Does the God of the Bible exist

I have shown that knowledge is possible with out the God of the bible, that science is possible with out the God of the bible, that objective Morality is impossible without the God of the bible, and that I don't absolutely believes in the God of the bible. I have meet my burden. My opponent has left many unanswered questions and has not meet there burden. When voting I ask you to vote on who made a better argument and not on your personal spiritual believes.