BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who would have made the best president, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney

Ok, So the first thing that I would like to point out is that Romney wanted to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid. By doing this, several elderly people who cannot afford medical help will no longer have medical help, and people who originally got their jobs for the medical help will lose the help and be stuck paying the full bill. The reason why Romney would want to do this is to further split the lower class and the upper class. The lower class would now be paying a lot more money toward doctors and hospitals, who are far richer than the people themselves. Also, Romney used a lot of "his" money for the candidate and is trying to help more of "his" upper class society, when he never did a thing to deserve that money. His father was a hard working business man that gave his son most of his money, and so Romney used his dad's money to get his way to the top. Obama was born to not as prominent of a family. His parents split when he was a young boy, making a hard impact on his life, and causing him a lot of grief. He continued with his studies, and graduated from a wonderful college to continue his career. I believe that Obama putting in the Obama care would help a lot for those in need, and he knows what it is like being under the upper class, and how hard it is for everyone else. Obama worked hard to get into his spot while Romney paid his way in. Now is the time for your rebuttal.
All Drugs should be Legalized.

I accept the challenge and wish to debate with the following definitions:drug : a substance that is used as a medicine: an illegal and often harmful substance (such as heroin, cocaine, LSD, or marijuana) that people take for pleasure with emphasise on the second definition andlegalize 1. (Law) to make lawful or legal 2. (Law) to confirm or validate (something previously unlawful) I wish pro the best of luck and thank him for starting this debate.
Conservatives are smarter than Liberals.

lets take health care for instance. i would love every person in the United States to be able to afford healthcare, but the answer is not bigger government. LEARNING FROM EXPERIENCE, Nationalized Healthcare has been a failure. Look at Cuba, Canada, and England. All these countries healthcare systems are going are to go bankrupt in 20 years. England has 50 million people and their system is going to be completely bankrupt in 15-20 years. That=lower quality health care, more taxation. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want to NATIONALIZE healthcare for 300 million people? 6 times the population of England? We have the greatest healthcare system in the world. Why would we want the governemnt to take over healthcare? Government isnt the solution, it's the problem. Why cant we just look at the examples of socialized healthcare around the world. Its no hidden secret that these systems are costing extraordinary amount of taxes. People are paying proportionally more than for the lower quality healthcare they get. Entrepreneurialship and the free market have always been betters ways of finding solutions. Expanding government is exactly what the founders of the country warned against. They would be spinning in their tumes at the mere idea of this. Conservatives have learned from the past while the liberals have blatantly neglected it.
Conservatives are smarter than Liberals.

"things like the new deal were good at that time. it grew into something bad." I completely agree. The problem I have with liberals is that their answer to this is not to change direction, but to expand these programs and give more power to the government. I think Reagan hit it on the head when he said that government wasnt the solution, it was the problem. "also, you're making a false dichotomy by saying liberals are dumb and conservatives are smart, socialism v capitalism.... cause the US is not either, and theoretically, a system can be a mixture of both, and then it's not either. so, liberals and socialism isn't necessarily accurate." I'm not trying to create an argument about socialism vs. capitalism. I am making the point that a distinguishable distinction between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives understand the past and learn from experience, and thus I think the majority of conservatives have smarter intentions than those of liberals. "if you want to talk about extreme liberals, then sure. i think you'd be surprised there's not as many extreme ones as you'd think." I might have to disagree on this point. I know a lot of democrats and liberals that I can talk to with rationale and decency, but I feel like, over the last decade, the left has been high-jacked by the radical left, and I think its a shame to the old fashion democrats because their logic is being triumphed by extreme liberalism. Academia has become way left-wing, so has the media. I think its unfair to the mainstream democrats, but its almost as if they have no option but to associate with the extreme left wing in today's societies because the extreme left wing is where a lot of $$$ comes from. I agree that health care costs way too much in the United States, but is nationalizing it the answer? I dont think so. There are ways we can reduce costs of health care without socializing it. If Medicaid is going broke (which it is at a fast rate), how are we possibly going to be able to afford national healthcare for 300,000,000 people? England has a population of around 50,000,000 people and their nationalized health care system is going to go broke within 20 years. our population is 6 times that size and nationalizing health care would cost tons of money and put a heavy tax burden on the majority of americans. Cutting taxes across the board seems like the first viable solution. More money in the pockets, more money to afford health care, more money to spend, which will grow the economy. This paragraph was way off topic but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. My main point is that liberals are compounding the problem, not fixing it. We need to get rid of a lot of these social programs that our draining our economic system. Conservatives have learned from the past, and (from my opinion) liberals for some reason continue to neglect it.
Conservatives are smarter than Liberals.

I am arguing on the single fact that conservatives, unlike liberals, LEARN FROM PAST EXPERIENCE. Socialism has been an utter failure in the past and yet liberals continue to triumph the idea of socialism in the United States today. How have they not learned? I think the funniest thing is that the libs today blame the conservatives and GOP for all the problems in America, and yet the vast majority of the problems ARE FROM THE SOCIALIST PROGRAMS FDR INSTITUTED IN THE NEW DEAL AND LBJ CREATED IN THE GREAT SOCIETY. Libs blame conservatives for problems they brought upon themselves.
The I-phone Is The Best Cell Phone Available....Point Blank .

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Drum Rolls Please The I-phone 9.7/10, Need A link Here you go. .. /// 9.7 out of 10 is a fairly impressive score, but there's a little problem. In the link that my opponent posted there was a phone that outscored the iPhone, and that phone was the Blackberry Bold 9700 [1]. ~ ///The iPhone is having a stellar year. First, it blasts past RIM's Blackberry in sales. Then it ousts Motorola's RAZR as the top-selling handset of all time. And, now a report from mobile phone warranty firm SquareTrade says that Apple's iPhone is the most reliable smartphone on the market, surpassing both Blackberrys and Palm Treos. /// It may be true that the iPhone doesn't crash as much as its competitors, but if the voters would take a gander a bit lower in your cited article they would find some other information that doesn't paint the iPhone in such a good light: "The study focused on handset malfunctions and not accidental damage caused by the consumer, though. And accidental damage is where the iPhone trips up. Due to its sleek, slippery design, the iPhone fails due to accidental bang-ups [>>>]33 percent[<<<] of the time. Twelve percent of iPhone owners reported accidental damage in comparison to the other two companies, which reported 9 percent. [2]" ~ ///Apple recently released lists on iTunes of the Top 10 most downloaded paid and free iPhone apps of 2008/// That doesn't really mean anything, you can only get iTunes applications on Apple products. ~ Now for my counterargument: Contention 1 There are many things that you can't do on an iPhone because it is an Apple product, such as: * Use a phone carrier other than AT&T * Install unapproved 3rd party applications * Customize the iPhone's interface * Control what your iPhone does [3] ~ Contention 2 Apple is currently working on a software patten update for their products that will force its users to view un-skippable advertisements that require user interaction at the cost of locking up your product until you comply with the advertisement [4]. They also are able to, with the use of periodic software updates remotely disable your phone if you are not using it in a way that Apple wants you to [5]. ~ With that I conclude my rebuttals and arguments and await a response from my opponent. [1] . http://img195.imageshack.us... [2] . http://www.pcworld.com... [3] . http://www.simonblog.com... [4] . http://www.patentlyapple.com... [5] . http://www.theinternetpatrol.com...
The I-phone Is The Best Cell Phone Available....Point Blank .

Im like the engine that could!!!! I will not forfeit to you. I previous stated that the I-phone Was the best Phone on the market and i will back up my Argument.. Every phone was graded and put to the test Shape, Size, Memeory, Touch Screen, Entertainment, Web browsing, GPS, eMails, Talk Time, Durabilty, Price, Service, Camera/Video/Video Editing, Speed, Most Popular, Etc And The EXPERTS have it.......................Drum Rolls Please The I-phone 9.7/10, Need A link Here you go http://www.testfreaks.com... The iPhone is having a stellar year. First, it blasts past RIM's Blackberry in sales. Then it ousts Motorola's RAZR as the top-selling handset of all time. And, now a report from mobile phone warranty firm SquareTrade says that Apple's iPhone is the most reliable smartphone on the market, surpassing both Blackberrys and Palm Treos. Oh Need A link for that too???? Boooyaaaaa>>>>>>> http://www.pcworld.com... Oh We aint even get to top selling phone Apps which is the iphone oh Wait I forgot u like Links>>>> Apple recently released lists on iTunes of the Top 10 most downloaded paid and free iPhone apps of 2008 Read more: http://www.time.com... http://www.time.com... Need i say more, So i guess its your turn to tell me why the iphone isnt the best phone on the market....
School is a good place for education.

I think that school is a terrible platform for education. Now, I am NOT saying that education itself is bad, as it is necessary for our survival as a whole, or that school, as in a 'place of learning' is not a bad idea, but I'm talking about the current implementation of school. What I am arguing is that school makes you hate learning with topics constantly being shoved down kids' throats. Also, I'd like to ask for all sources to be listed, as I would like to debate with someone who actually researched.
let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

Your link is to a pharmaceutical company. I didn't say drug manufacturers were banned, it is the private practice of medicine that is banned. A doctor charging a patient for their services. In the last provincial election Deb Matthews MPP an influential member of the McGuinty government set up a snitch line where consumers could call in and snitch on doctors who were charging for their services and the government would ensure they gave a full refund to the consumer. The private practice of medicine is illegal in Ontario. http://news.nationalpost.com... here's an excerpt : "Ontario has taken the unprecedented step of setting up a toll-free snitch line for people to report cases of illegal private health care " and says it has triggered 35 investigations in barely a month."
let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

1. Having a market in health care doesn't mean that the poor wouldn't get care. We have a market in housing and a market in food, yet the poor don't starve or go homeless. Of course there are SOME people who are homeless but this isn't due to the market but due to government intervention in the market. Low cost housing is forbidden due to regulations ensuring all housing must be of a certain quality.In a market, the government will try to ensure all health care is a certain quality as well, making it more expensive. However, universal health care still has the same quality, but will be cheaper as the taxes pay for it and subsidize for it. 2. "Doctors will seek cheaper charges, the government won't."Your opinion is not the government's opinion. Your opinion is ot the doctor's opinion. You cannot know what they would do unless you have a psychic power or it is obvious, which isn't true in this case.3.Further what you have with socialized medicine is a government monospony. All health care services - with a few exceptions - are bought by the government. This means that no doctor needs to compete with lower costs. The end user isn't going to decide where to go based on how much it costs the government and so there is absolutely no incentive for the doctors to charge less than the absolute maximum. But eventually all of this needs to be paid for by taxpayers.Again, you do not know what they will do, you are not them. 4. You know what politicians in Canada do when they get sick? They hop on the first plane to the states because their wealth, stolen from the Canadian public, enables them to get the first class medical treatment they have made it illegal to provide here. Illegal. Yes, Canada is one of the only countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that has made it a criminal for a doctor to sell their services to the consumer. That's right - we live in a country where a prostitute can legally sell his / her body, but a doctor is criminally liable if they sell their medical services. It's a messed up world we live in. Privatize everything!Private market health care is allowed in Canada. In fact, they have private health care companies that have their own web pages![1] Again, you are basing your arguments on false assumptions.Here is an argument based on the same fallacies as the ones you made:"You know what those private health care people do? They rip you off with high prices and then if you not buy their products they shoot you in your head and then they would send a biological weapon into the city so that people get sick and they get money. If you don't buy their health care they will force you to buy it so that they get money! Public health care is not allowed in Minecraftia and they have those big companies charging too much emeralds everywhere! Make health care public!"See how your argument fails because you do not put sources to confdirm their validity? [1]http://novartis.ca...
let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

Having a market in health care doesn't mean that the poor wouldn't get care. We have a market in housing and a market in food, yet the poor don't starve or go homeless. Of course there are SOME people who are homeless but this isn't due to the market but due to government intervention in the market. Low cost housing is forbidden due to regulations ensuring all housing must be of a certain quality. The sort of housing a homeless person could afford is expressly illegal. And there are interventions in the labour market making it illegal to hire these people (the minimum wage). But I digree. Having a market in health care doesn't mean the poor would go without health care. Doctors are compassionate people. No doctor is going to see a sick person come to their hospital and say "nah, you're not rich enough, go die on the street". That's not how the world works. On the market, people would pay what they could afford, and if they couldn't afford it the doctor / hospital would donate their time and equipment. Government is the illusion that we can all live at the expense of someone else. Unfortunately there comes a time in every persons life that they realize they are the somebody else. That the pocket they are picking is their own. There's nothing free in this world. Everyone charges the government the max - as they should. But this greatly inflates the costs involved with health care. If doctors had to charge patients directly for most stuff, then they would charge the minimum and seek to find ways to reduce waste and lower costs. Government is always tremendously inefficient because no one spends someone else's money as carefully as they spend their own. Further what you have with socialized medicine is a government monospony. All health care services - with a few exceptions - are bought by the government. This means that no doctor needs to compete with lower costs. The end user isn't going to decide where to go based on how much it costs the government and so there is absolutely no incentive for the doctors to charge less than the absolute maximum. But eventually all of this needs to be paid for by taxpayers. You know what politicians in Canada do when they get sick? They hop on the first plane to the states because their wealth, stolen from the Canadian public, enables them to get the first class medical treatment they have made it illegal to provide here. Illegal. Yes, Canada is one of the only countries, along with Cuba and North Korea, that has made it a criminal for a doctor to sell their services to the consumer. That's right - we live in a country where a prostitute can legally sell his / her body, but a doctor is criminally liable if they sell their medical services. It's a messed up world we live in. Privatize everything!
let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits.The government does not pay for universal health care. The citizens of the nation pays taxes, which pays for the health care. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. However, universal health care actually would keep costs down. The taxes pay for them, and because everyone pays taxes but not everyone gets sick, your health care costs will be partly paid by someone else. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient.It is not waste. You pay for them using taxes. There will be some tax money spare because not everyone gets sick. The spare tax money can go to elsewhere, like eduation. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available). In Canada, we CAN find family doctors. My family doctor is just blocks away from me. Just because there is universal health care does not mean that alternatives are banned. My arguments are:The universal health care is more affordable. People pay for it with taxes. Due to how taxes work, the rich pays more. With the extra money that the riches pay, we can subsidize those who cannot afford health care. Universal health care also reduces waste, because it us tax money in the right place.Health care on the market is a bad idea, because the poor will not be able to afford it, compared to how the riches subsidize them using taxes in universal health care. Everyone has the right to life. [1] If patients with life threatening diseases were unable to pay and there is no universal heath care, it is effectively violating their right to life by preventing them from accessing the cure. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
let it be resolved that universal health care is a bad idea

Universal health care is a bad idea. The best results will be achieved through a market. Instead of having the government pay for everyone's health care people should buy their own insurance for catastrophic care and pay straight up for routine visits. A market in health care would keep costs down because doctors would compete with each other for who can treat effectively for a lower price. Instead of having gigantic and waste there would be incentives in place for competing health care organizations to stream line and be more efficient. Because they are bill patients and not the government doctors will be less likely to price gouge. Doctors who were trained in other countries would be able to practice because we would eliminate licensure and take away the special privileges of the doctor's cartels. After abolishing licensure pharmacists could also compete with doctors. Instead of rationing health care - as all nations which practice socialized medicine do - we would not ration health care. Instead of it being impossible to find a family doctor - as it is in Canada - everyone who wants one will have one (basic supply and demand, there are no shortages on the free market if demand is high and supply is low price goes up but the service is always available).
Banning romance novels at school

Ok. So the 50-step calculus problem comment, that could be any book. And I also think that you are applying some of your emotions. You are making it sound like because some people don't like romance novels, they should all be banned. But there are lots of other people that do enjoy them. "And what on Earth do you mean by 'Last mistakes of others?' What does that even mean?" First of all, most rules in the world today are made because someone made that mistake. Let's use the example of the dress code saying you are not allowed to wear tank tops at school. That rule was made because of someone mistake that was made. Whether it's the problem of the shirt showing too much skin or the straps kept falling off a students shoulder. It was a mistake to wear it. No romance novels are not necessary for survival. I never said that. And if high schoolers (which are old enough to live on their own and take care of themselves) are "youngsters" then why are they doing stuff like going to parties or staying up until 2am on school night and everything normal High School students do at any given point in the day? There are more grades levels and ages that are in school. A) if the parent reads through the book first, it shouldn't be a problem unless the parent things it is inappropriate. And B) if the parents don't know that their son or daughter is reading a book they named inappropriate and said the kid was not allowed to read the parents should be notified by staff or other students so that it does not cause a issue.