BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US

Thank you for that point. 1. Private Healthcare is not Economically ViableIn England, the cost of private healthcare insurance is about £700 to £1650 a year[1][2]. Private healthcare is apparently more expensive in the U.S, but for the sake of proving my point I will use these figures. This translates to $1170 - $2760 a year. This doesn't exclude actual payments for things. Considering the average person has about 124 accidents a year[3], this could be anything from money spent on plasters to the £600 spent on an MRI scan, the extra price spent with private healthcare could easily add another $1000. So we now have about $3400 a year on healthcare. Considering almost 40 million Americans are in poverty[4], I don't think almost 1/3 off the minimum poverty threshold is something that those can pay. In the UK, if we take £25,500 as a wage, then £1094 is spent on the NHS[5], which is about 4.29%, so at that figure someone earning the minimum threshold of $11,344, would rather than pay almost a 1/3 of this, would pay $486.66. Which is cheaper, easier for them and if it is enough for 60 million people to have free healthcare lasting since 1945, then 300,000,000 people will certainly be able to provide sufficient healthcare. A government backed system means we can have lower prices and healthcare simply from tax which is much cheaper, and will be sufficient for those who cannot pay private healthcare easily, in this case almost 40,000,000 people. And this system can still only act as the lowest form. You can still have private health firms for those who want to pay more, and in turn the richer and the poorer benefit. Health is something that everyone needs and the role of a government to everyone but the anarchist is at least to look after the welfare of their citizens. To have a completely free market is to not care about those who are at a large disadvantage, which is why I have my stance.Sources:[1] http://www.thisismoney.co.uk... [2] http://www.theguardian.com...[3] http://www.theatlantic.com...[4] http://www.npc.umich.edu...[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Free market vs. government sponsered healthcare in the US

In this debate we must draw a distinction between who delivers the care and who pays for it. When you control the money that flows into an industry, you control the industry. There should be no other person that decides what is best for the patient other than the patient and their doctor. Government insurance brings on government regulations which increase the cost of delivering services to patients which increases the cost of doing business. Having insurance doesn't mean you have care. It just means you have a means of paying for it that is acceptable to some physicians. Doctors do pay attention to how good of health insurance you have and they do practice medicine in a way so they get paid. The only determinant that should be present in deciding the level of care the patient receives is the patient and the doctor. No one else.
Not Hitting a Girl is Sexist

"You've argued against my evidence, but not my overall claim." I'm arguing against your overall claim using the evidence. "Put me in front of a woman, and I'm going to say that, unless she's one of those Asian Tai fighters, a Bohemian olympic weight lifter or Trinity (Matrix reference), I have a pretty decent chance that I'd would have the upper hand in a fight." "Also, pain tolerance has little to do with anything. I'm a college wrestler, and I don't care what your pain tolerance is, if I dislocate your shoulder: game over." If you dislocated anyone's shoulder you've won, but if you're just throwing a punch that isn't causing any serious damage, then a woman will not necessarily be more affected than a man. As far as pain tolerance goes, you must know that endurance is as much a part of physical combat as strength. A woman with a high pain tolerance will be able to last out the fight and keep going, which evens the playing field. "Along with that, I'm sure any girl can throw a punch or kick if the situation calls for it, I simply question the effectiveness." The effectiveness is individual. If someone has more upper body strength, they'll throw a better punch. If someone is a body builder they'll have an advantage over someone who's not. My point here is that effectiveness isn't gender stratified. "(Jessica Alba vs. Richard Simmons???)" That'd be funny Not hitting a girl ONLY because she's a girl is sexist. There are girls who can take most guys and there are guys who could be taken by most girls, so the idea only serves the image of men being strong and women being weak.
Not Hitting a Girl is Sexist

You've argued against my evidence, but not my overall claim. I'm concerned with a physical confrontation being fair. Put me in front of a woman, and I'm going to say that, unless she's one of those Asian Tai fighters, a Bohemian olympic weight lifter or Trinity (Matrix reference), I have a pretty decent chance that I'd would have the upper hand in a fight. Also, pain tolerance has little to do with anything. I'm a college wrestler, and I don't care what your pain tolerance is, if I dislocate your shoulder: game over. Along with that, I'm sure any girl can throw a punch or kick if the situation calls for it, I simply question the effectiveness. Say what you want about generalizations, but unless you want to have specific match ups (Jessica Alba vs. Richard Simmons???) they're just going to have to do. Given that, I stand behind my original statement that a fight between an average man and an average woman is not fair, and that's why not striking a woman is not sexist, but simply fair.
Not Hitting a Girl is Sexist

"the average woman is physically weaker than the average man." But the average woman also has an equal and often greater pain tolerance- how do you think we give birth? And most women aren't so drastically weaker as to have far worse injuries then if a man was hit. And even if their muscles aren't as strong; the ability to heal from a wound does not discriminate based on gender. A woman will not necessarily feel as much pain or sustain longer or more potent injuries then a man. "there is a reasonably high probability that a man will have greater understanding of unarmed combat." I think what you're saying is that women will have a tough time hitting back? Ignoring the women who do play sports with physical contact and are used to it, there is a degree of common sense that goes into unarmed combat. And women know their bodies; for example I know that I have a bad punch but a good kick even though I'm not in sports and have never gotten into a fight. And if a weapon was called for, most women would know it. Also, an increasing number of women are building strength and playing sports, as a decreasing number of men are. These generalizations are becoming less general, and there is a greater chance that a man and a woman would be matched relatively evenly in a fight.
Not Hitting a Girl is Sexist

I posit that there is nothing sexist about restraining from striking a woman based soley on the fact that she is a female. First, it is no secret that the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. Even government has acknowledged this is policy. (See CA fire code certification tests) Second, as many sports that men play (and women typically do not) involve is certain level of physical violence (i.e. wrestling, football, etc.), there is a reasonably high probability that a man will have greater understanding of unarmed combat. So, given these reasons, I propose that not hitting a woman is not a matter of being sexist, but a matter of being fair.
Not Hitting a Girl is Sexist

I know a lot of men and boys who would not hit a women in the same situation where would hit a man. You may call it chivalrous, but I find it sexist because the connotation is that women are weaker and therefore it would be immoral for a man to hit a woman. -This is not arguing the morality of hitting someone in the first place- If a person were to hit a man and not a woman when all other aspects of the situation were the same, then it would be sexist. I will expand my argument in the second round.
Yes or No

Yes, perhaps "aye" and "yes" may have had roots going way back, from Iceland to the Slavs, and maybe it was the beginning for the ancient stone age people where all they stated was "ooga booga" but to that I must retort with a dash of salt with these wise words "no u." As you have stated, "yes" has its power in the past, and this, unfortunately is a downside. You see, Little Pumpertini a.k.a. former Harvard graduate with an PhD and lyrical talent has devolved this very word to "yuh." He is well respected in his field of lean sciences, making truly groundbreaking studies in intelligence, and almost 💯 percent supports the word "no" wholeheartedly. Indeed, what may seem like pointless jargon at first actually has an extremely #deep and #woke meaning. In any reasonable human's eyes, he had chopped up this insignificant and tiny word to a few less nanoseconds for the belittlement of it. But you don't see him changing the word "no." Why? Because "no" is NOw. The word has NOt once become obsolete. "Yes" is so overused in common conversation that now only low class peasants use it. Degeneracy is an extreme trend for any and all who use that vile word. I could prove it with a Twitter poll, the most accurate source of data collection and surveying known to man, but I really don't feel the need. In all honesty, let's be real. "No" is the one word one can rely upon. "Yes" is for betas. When you form a relationship with your SO, do you want to be the little incel who gets trodded on like a doormat because you said it multiple times, over and over, and get caught for your weakness? I assure you, your SO will go flocking to all the alpha Chads with their spectacular intellect and usage of "no," because they are not people who say "yes" no matter what. The Chads can assert their dominance over all else. Simply put, I stay firm on my ground. "No" reigns supreme.
Yes or No

The sheer power of the word "no" is so powerful. It's derived from the Old English word "non" and then got cut down to "no" for Middle English. People use it for movements, for example "no means no." Only lowly maggots use the word "yes." What's the point? I don't NO. In memeology, the word is considered a divine verse. The phrase "no u" brings even the mightiest of warlords, kings, and gods to their knees. Of course, there's the Meghan Trainor song which completely ruins the integrity of the word, but that must be excused. Cool guy and professional dead man Stephen Hawking once said "no." You literally canNOt get better than that. Frankly, "yes" is a bad word and I think that I should clean my "y" "e" and "s" keys for even placing them together to form such a hideous word.
Not everybody has a purpose in life.

Well this topic is pretty vague. If you are debating the prexistence of a purpose, I think that would then be treading into religious territory and consequently a lot more subjective topics. For the sake of brevity and things more tangible I'd like to affirm that everyone is born with the potential for a purpose and thus by extension are born with a purpose. Also, you made no qualifier, though it is implied, that the purpose had to be grand. So no, not everyone can be Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King or George Washington whose life is equated to a large movement or societal changing sequence of events, but in the more literal term of "purpose" being the reason for which something is done or created, then purpose is given the moment someone is born, each person is the reasonable and rational result of sexual intercourse. After that, a life lived automatically has consequences, the very nature of which is made manifest and exemplified in the Butterfly Effect. Our reality is constructed around individual moments that are of themselves results of an infinite amount of preceding moments, and the moment a person comes into existence they have changed something somewhere to some degree, even if it is only taking up space and adding to carbon emissions. In summary, from a secular perspective, purpose and meaning can always be given and thus everyone has or can be given a purpose, it is only the validity of that purpose whose existence can be argued.
South Korea would win a war against North Korea without any intervention from any country

Ok here goes (I'll keep this brief and to the point).... Firstly, North Korea has a standing active military of 1,170,000 and a reserve force of 4,700,000 while South Korea's military is only 687,000 with 4,500,000 reserves. That is a significant difference in their military size. Although North Korea have less manpower than South Korea these people would take considerable time to equip and train in the event of a conflict; leaving South Korea in danger. North Korea also have a paramilitary force (irregular military) of almost 190,000 as well to bolster this up so it is a definite win for North Korea in size. There reservist units also have the advantage of incredibly reliable and very easy to learn and use Russian made firearms like the AK-47; a gun renowned for its use by ill trained units with devastating effects (eg; Vietnam and the Middle East) Secondly, North Korea Air dominance and AA weapons that dwarf that of the South Koreans. North Korea has 11,000 AA weapons compared to the Souths 1,692. This poses a significant threat to the small South Korean Air force. North Korean Air force numbers about 2,300 aircraft while the south numbers just over 1000. This air force boasts powerful aircraft such as those made by Russian military aircraft giants Mikoyan-Gurevich (MiG) and Sukhoi (Su). All this suggests that the North a very capable of obtaining air superiority over the south which is absolutely vital in war. Thirdly and possibly most important of all is the large cache of long range missiles the North maintain; including nuclear ICBM's. Missiles such as these have the capability to decimate entire nations and could theoretically destroy the Souths force before they are even able to get with in range of conventional weapons. They can launch a ballistic missile anywhere on the peninsula at almost anytime with little to no warning. The South also have no direct equivalent to this. Another part of their long range weapon systems that would provide the North with first strike capabilities in the event of a conflict is their huge array of artillery and guided missile batteries . And there you have, just a handful of reasons why the North would win if there was no foreign intervention. sources http://www.examiner.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... www.globalfirepower.com
South Korea would win a war against North Korea without any intervention from any country

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com...South Korean weapon:. http://cdn.timesofisrael.com...(I don't know how to post pictures, if someone could teach me I would appreciate it). South Korea is using very advanced wapons as North Korea is more likely using weapons from WW2. The South korean infantry is using the S&T Daewoo K11 (Shown above) K11: Caliber 5.56x45mm NATO (KE)[1] 20x30mm grenade (HE)[1] Action Gas operated, rotating bolt (rifle section)[2] Bolt action (launcher section)[1] Rate of fire 700 RPM (KE) Muzzle velocity 960 m/s (3,100 ft/s) (KE) 200 m/s (660 ft/s) (HE) Effective firing range 300 m (KE) 500 m (HE)[3] Feed system STANAG Magazines (KE)[1] 5-round box (HE)[1] Sights Ballistics computer, day (Optical)/night (Thermal vision) vision sight[1] 2) ManpowerNorth korea manpower avaiable:12,933,972[4]South Korea manpower avaiable:25,609,290[4]Total population of South Korea:49,779,000[4]Total population of North Korea:24,451,285[4]---------------------------------Sources:[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://world.guns.ru...[3] . http://www.thenational.ae...[4] . http://www.globalfirepower.com...I did not wrote a lot today because I am tired and woke with the left foot. I await for your response, Con, good luck. :)
The Allies could have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union

Hello my friend! It's a pleasure to debate you again. My first argument would be the horrible results of the Allies at the beginning of the war. Poland fell within weeks, the French hit back in the Saar Offensive which was an apt failure. And the British Expeditionary Force was soundly defeated at the Battles of Boulogne and Calais in 1940. Then came the ultimate retreat of Dunkirk.Ironically, one reason for these failures was the greed of the Soviet Union who believed had a treaty with Hitler. The Soviets invaded Scandinavia and other eastern countries keeping them from countering Germany's advances. But then Hitler reneged in '41 and invaded the Soviet Union reaching almost to Moscow. But Operation Barbarossa stalled thanks to the Soviets, and Germany had to fight on two fronts for the remainder of the war. Then came the Soviet victory at Stalingrad which every historian will tell you, "broke the back of the German war machine." Without the Soviet Union- which was no doubt an 'Evil Empire'- I believe Nazi Germany may still be around today. Having brokered a negotiated peace with the beleaguered Allies.
The Allies could have won World War 2 without the Soviet Union

1. The Soviet Union doesn't join the Axis nor makes war with the Allies, they stay neutral throughout the entire war. In this debate, the Soviets are as neutral as Switzerland was in the Cold War. 2. The Allies consist of all the nations that was on the Allies side minus the Soviet Union, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments. 3. Axis nations consist of the nations that was apart of the Axis pact. This is, Germany, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Slovakia, with all powers and capabilities unless we've agreed to restrict certain powers and capabilities in the comments. 4. Burden of proof will be shared. I, as pro, will need to make the argument that the Allies would defeat the Axis. You, as con, will need to make the argument that the Axis would defeat the Allies. 5. When I say win/defeat I mean one side will win by unconditional surrender like how it really ended. If you are OK with these conditions accept. If there are any questions or concerns about this then bring them up in the comments before joining. Don't join unless everything is resolved.
I will not contradict myself

Thank you, jm_notguilty, for your answers. We now move on to the contradictions.C1: Death Penalty1. Do all members of the species Homo sapeins have a right to life? Yes.14. Should the death penalty be illegal? No.23. Does a government have an obligation to protect the rights of those in its jurisdiction? Yes.24. Does a murderer on death row have a right to life? Yes.If the murderer has a right to life, then the government has an obligation to protect that murderer's life. However, if the death penalty is allowed, then the government actually violates the murderer's right instead. Contradiction.C2: Protecting Life 1. Do all members of the species Homo sapeins have a right to life? Yes.21. Should it be illegal for a contract killer to kill another person at his employer's discretion? No.23. Does a government have an obligation to protect the rights of those in its jurisdiction? Yes.If the government does not make killing someone illegal, then it does not protect that someone's right to life, even though it has an obligation to protect that someone's right to life. Contradiction.C3: Government and Rights5. Do people have the right to smoke tobacco in their own homes? ... There are certain jurisdictions that give people the right to smoke tobacco in homes ... and some jurisdictions prohibit such practice.13. Are rights granted by government? No.25. Does a government have the power to revoke the rights of one in its jurisdiction? Yes.26. If a government prohibits an action, does a person no longer have a right to perform that action? No.Government does not grant rights, and yet "certain jurisdictions ... give people the right to smoke..." That is a contradiction. The answer to Q5 also relies on the reasoning that because a jurisdiction prohibited an action, people no longer have the right to perform that action, which contradicts his answer to Q26. Finally, it is contradictory for government to not have the power to grant rights, but have the power to revoke rights; if rights do not come from the government, they cannot be taken by government, either.
I will not contradict myself

21. Should it be illegal for a contract killer to kill another person at his employer's discretion?- No. 22. Should the sale of children to be used as slaves be illegal?- No. 23. Does a government have an obligation to protect the rights of those in its jurisdiction?- Yes. 24. Does a murderer on death row have a right to life? - Yes. 25. Does a government have the power to revoke the rights of one in its jurisdiction? - Yes.26. If a government prohibits an action, does a person no longer have a right to perform that action? - No. 27. Are all actions that do not violate anyone's rights legitimate? - No. 28. Were the concentration camps set up by the Nazi-run government to exterminate Jews legitimate? - Yes. 29. Would it be appropriate for anyone to escape from a concentration camp to which they have been ordered and must stay at according to the law? - No. 30. Are rights granted by God?- No.
I will not contradict myself

21. Should it be illegal for a contract killer to kill another person at his employer's discretion? 22. Should the sale of children to be used as slaves be illegal? 23. Does a government have an obligation to protect the rights of those in its jurisdiction? 24. Does a murderer on death row have a right to life? 25. Does a government have the power to revoke the rights of one in its jurisdiction? 26. If a government prohibits an action, does a person no longer have a right to perform that action? 27. Are all actions that do not violate anyone's rights legitimate? 28. Were the concentration camps set up by the Nazi-run government to exterminate Jews legitimate? 29. Would it be appropriate for anyone to escape from a concentration camp to which they have been ordered and must stay at according to the law? 30. Are rights granted by God?
I will not contradict myself

11. Should abortion be illegal? - Depends, if it’s the type of abortion that results in a miscarriage then yes, but induced abortion no. 12. Should there be a government-mandated minimum wage? - No. 13. Are rights granted by governments? - No. 14. Should the death penalty be illegal? - No. 15. Should it be illegal to hire a contract killer to kill another person? - No. 16. Are all male humans men? - Biologically, yes. 17. Are all female humans women? - Biologically, yes 18. Does one's rights change depending on their geographic location? - Yes. 19. Should it be illegal for one man to hire another man to kill a dog? - No. 20. Is torture ever justified? - Yes.
I will not contradict myself

11. Should abortion be illegal? 12. Should there be a government-mandated minimum wage? 13. Are rights granted by governments? 14. Should the death penalty be illegal? 15. Should it be illegal to hire a contract killer to kill another person? 16. Are all male humans men? 17. Are all female humans women? 18. Does one's rights change depending on their geographic location? 19. Should it be illegal for one man to hire another man to kill a dog? 20. Is torture ever justified?