BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

Let me first start by thanking you for the opportunity to debate this critical issue. As far as the debate goes, all I know at this point is that you support mandatory health insurance for every man, woman, and child. I have to assume that you support an unfunded mandate for health insurance, because not once did you explain the source of funding for this mandate. You compared health insurance to the car insurance industry, however I clearly delineated the vast differences among the two and explained why your comparison is flawed. I never really got an explanation greater than, "We have a problem and mandatory health insurance is the solution." Throughout the debate I posed questions that challenged the premise of your proposal and round by round you made no effort at all to address my concerns. The sad thing is you and I are about one wavelength off from one another on this issue. We both agree there is a problem and we also agree that socialized medicine is clearly not the solution. Similarly, we agree on a market based solution. However, the libertarian in me can not go along with forcing citizens into health insurance. The reason health care is such a mess has nothing to do with the lack of government intervention. On the contrary, there is too much government intervention. It should be no mystery why health insurance companies jack up their prices. They do this to pay for the unnecessary burden caused by bureaucratically designed regulations that in the long run only hurt the consumers. Personally, I do not feel the federal government has any business setting a nationwide mandatory proposal. This issue is handled better by the states and best by the individual. Accordingly, I feel we need to support policies (outlined in Round 2) that will make health insurance available and more affordable for more people without causing an undue economic burden on taxpayers. Thank you.
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

I understand my "plan" would require a lot of cooperation from the insurance companies in order to bring the uninsured on board. The Conservatives always preach self reliance. Having your own health insurance is a great example of self reliance. Unfortunately, you'll never get enough people enrolled simply by saying it's a good idea. I think that HMOs would play a big role in covering low income families. I've been covered by an HMO on a couple different occasions, and have never had any complaints on the service received. I don't want to see more nanny laws on the books any more than you do. But part of the reason that heathcare is so expensive to begin with, is the number of uninsured people that go to the ER for the common cold. Maybe mine is not the ultimate solution, but something needs to change, and I sure don't want Canadian style socialized medicine.
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

In your opening argument you eluded to young adults (18-24) making up the largest percentage of those without health insurance. I would argue that many within that age bracket CHOOSE not to have health insurance because many people ages 18-24 have no health problems that need immediate coverage and do not consider health insurance to be a priority. You also raised an argument stating that like car insurance if health insurance were mandated for all citizens the price of health insurance would drop. I do not disagree entirely, however I believe the biggest reason car insurance became more affordable was because there was more competition. If there are only a few dominant insurance companies available they will be able to set the price wherever they please due to the lack of competition. It may also be possible that once car insurance was mandated, those who could not afford it gave up their vehicle or just ignored the law entirely. The health insurance industry is much more complex than car insurance which is why smaller firms lose the desire to get in the health insurance racket. With all the lawsuits and liability that comes with health insurance, many small business entrepreneurs lack the funds necessary to provide themselves with adequate insurance. The health industry is also heavily regulated by the government which also serves to discourage small businesses from provide health insurance. Once again you failed to explain how to make health insurance affordable for all citizens. The viability of your proposal is reliant upon affordable health insurance, but you have failed to state how you plan for families of lower income to afford your government mandated health insurance. Also you overlooked my question regarding the cost of what is not covered by health insurance. Who is responsible to shoulder that cost? Here is my proposal to make health insurance more affordable for all citizens. First, I would support Health Savings Accounts be made available for all citizens. It may also help if all of ones medical expenses were made tax deductible. Then I would attempt to slash much of the regulations that discourage smaller business from providing health insurance. Also, I would allow health insurance carriers to sell their insurance across state boundaries to provide people with more options. More options will yield lower insurance costs. Finally, I would re-evaluate the licensure requirements and allow more basic and common procedures to be done by nurses and pharmacists so there can be more access to serious illnesses.
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

Obviously, the insurance industry would love to have the same captive audience that it enjoys with mandatory auto insurance. Truth be told, I don't care for these nanny laws. Yes this is just speculation, but what I would envision is the government negotiating with the insurance industry to bring prices down as well as ensuring access to all. In return, the government would deliver every man, woman and child to the industry. If you were the insurance industry, wouldn't you cooperate a little to get 47 million new customers?
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

While I do agree the cost of health care in the US is too high and we must act to reduce the cost, I vehemently disagree with mandatory health insurance participation. I find the notion of forcing citizens into health insurance to be almost as un-American as the Universal Healthcare proposals of liberal Democrats. I agree the best approach is a market based approach to make health insurance more affordable for all citizens regardless of income. Its all well and good to support all Americans having health insurance, but your argument is absent of ideas and proposals to make health insurance more affordable. Just simply saying health insurance should be affordable for all does not necessarily make it so. I am curious to hear your ideas on how to make health insurance more affordable. I suppose the biggest reason I oppose mandatory health insurance is because there are many unanswered questions and assumptions with this proposal. Are you going to use the power of the federal government to force private companies to provide more affordable insurance? If not, what incentives will you use to get private companies on your side in making the insurance more affordable? Also just because someone has health insurance does not mean they will use it when they need it. If many families are scraping by just to pay for insurance, will they be able to afford whats left over that the insurance does not cover? If not, who will be liable to pay the difference? Clearly you have identified a problem, however I do not see any arguments or empirical data to support your proposition. At this point I will yield and wait for your responses to the questions I posed. Thanks, and good luck.
Mandatory health insurance participation (through private insurance companies) for all Americans.

In my opinion, the best way to make health insurance accessible and affordable for all Americans, is to require that all Americans purchase health insurance. According to the The National Coalition on Health Care... Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005. Nearly 82 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2002 or 2003 without health coverage. In 2005, 27.4 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips. Young adults (18-to-24 years old) remained the least likely of any age group to have health insurance in 2005 – 30.6 percent of this group did not have health insurance. About 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. 3 percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room. The impacts of going uninsured are clear and severe. Many uninsured individuals postpone needed medical care which results in increased mortality and billions of dollars lost in productivity and increased expenses to the health care system. There also exists a significant sense of vulnerability to the potential loss of health insurance which is shared by tens of millions of other Americans who have managed to retain coverage. Every American should have health care coverage, participation should be mandatory, and everyone should have basic benefits. In simple terms, about 25 years ago, before most states began requiring minimum liability coverage on automobiles, the price for such coverage was around $31 billion. If you adjust for inflation, that cost would be nearly $65 billion in today's dollars. Today, that same coverage runs around $46 billion. Why? because more people are participating. As with car insurance, those at higher risk (fat guys like me) should pay more for insurance. The key is to make it available for everyone.
Resolved: In the United States, capital punishment should be outlawed.

I accept JohnnyDoe's challenge and will argue as the Con of this debate.To clarify, I will be arguing against the Pro's resolution,that In the United States, capital punishment should not be outlawed, but rather, continued.For more clarification, the definition of Capital Punishment-- the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. I, too, look forward to a fair, civil, and overall good debate.
Resolved: In the United States, capital punishment should be outlawed.

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments Time to Argue: 24 hours Argument Max: 10,000 characters Voting Period: 3 days In this debate, I as the PRO debater will be defending the resolution Resolved: In the United States, capital punishment should be outlawed. I will do so using both moral and empirical/statistical arguments. I look forward to a fair and civil debate.
The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

"This still doesn't change the fact that it is illegal because Saddam and Iraq have never attacked. Saddam and Al Qaeda never got along…" Illegal by whose account? America doesn't need permission by the UN or some world court to react militarily to anything. "my opponent does nothing with the video I linked which has one of the incidents in which Bush openly admits Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In this case, we attacked Iraq for NO reason. The UN inspection found no weapons of mass destruction…" I'm not concerned with what president Bush says in this regard. The reason no WMDs were found is because they were removed prior to the invasion by Russian commandos and taken to Syria. Even if there were no WMDs, which was not the case, Iraq violated several other conditions, one being possession of tactical offensive missiles capable of reaching a distance greater than 300 miles (i.e. Israel). We know that because Iraq used one against us during the war. Saddam admitted to interrogators that he intended to develop WMDs after all this was over. Saddam admitted he did not believe the US would invade his country. "-- I want to see proof…I urge the voter to note that my opponent does not refute that the war was illegal…" Are you debating me or your audience? The UN and the US congress all authorized the use of force against Iraq. Even if they didn't, our constitution gives the president, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the authority to use military force, any time, anywhere, for any reason to protect the security interests of the United State. "…he just insults me." No, first I explained why, then I insulted you for your lack of intelligence. Some people can't objectively judge their own arguments. They need others to point out their flaws. That's what I have been doing. "I hope that my opponent's speech will be much better." My speech has been more than adequate to counter your lame-brained talking points.
The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

Oh, this'll be easy, if you want to do it this way. "Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness?" -- This still doesn't change the fact that it is illegal because Saddam and Iraq have never attacked. Saddam and Al Qaeda never got along, in fact they had a meeting in the past decade and it ended without anything being done because they couldn't help but yell at each other. I would also like to point out that my opponent does nothing with the video I linked which has one of the incidents in which Bush openly admits Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In this case, we attacked Iraq for NO reason. The UN inspection found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com...) during the time of Invasion. The lie was fed to us to drum us to war, and thus, this war is unjustified. "The entire Middle east is a war zone. Pre-war Iraq harbored and funded terrorist camps. Saddam admitted during interrogation that he had planned to renew his development of WMDs, including nuclear weapons." -- I want to see proof. Give me a source where you got this information, until my opponent can do that, this is trivial at best, and has no bearing. I urge the voter to note that my opponent does not refute that the war was illegal, and says nothing about the admittance of the president that Iraq had nothing to do with the war. In fact, aside from his one piece of evidence, which has no evidence and is thus moot, my opponent doesn't even argue the resolution, he just insults me. I hope that my opponent's speech will be much better.
The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

"According to the Geneva Convention, the War in Iraq was illegal because it was a war of aggression." Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness? "Also, the war in Iraq is step one in the so called ‘War on Terror‘." The entire Middle east is a war zone. Pre-war Iraq harbored and funded terrorist camps. Saddam admitted during interrogation that he had planned to renew his development of WMDs, including nuclear weapons.
The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

According to the Geneva Convention, the War in Iraq was illegal because it was a war of aggression. Also, the war in Iraq is step one in the so called "War on Terror". The War on Terror is aimed at terrorist groups and such, and it was supposedly even proven that Osama is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But we attacked Iraq anyway, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and even was supported by the US before the first gulf war, even during the time Saddam was in power. For proof that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, here's a word from our president: http://www.youtube.com... watch to about 1:18 where he gets asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and the president promptly, even practically yells, nothing. And I quote "NOTHING". The UN also found no WMD's in Iraq, and the US superseded their authority and invaded anyway.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

C1: The right to life“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men”As quoted above, The general consensus in the U.S. is that the primary function of government is to secure people’s rights. Some of which are unalienable. In the United States, life is considered an unalienable right. This is evident by the quote above taken from the Declaration of Independence.How is it that the State can function as a securer of the individual right to life while simultaneously taking a person’s life? Simply put, it cannot. The State does have the right to remove those who violate other’s rights from society. However, the State has no legitimate cause to take away one’s unalienable right to life. This is true even for the worst individuals imaginable. For the State to take one’s life via capital punishment is for the State to function contrary to its primary purpose. Life as a right should remain unalienable.C2: Innocents At least 18 people have been wrongly executed. 18 people have had their unalienable right to life taken from them unjustly. (1) What cost is my opponent willing to pay for so called justice that she is willing to endorse the unjust action of the state taking people’s lives.C3: CostTrying a death penalty case and the process of carrying it out cost significantly more than life in prison. (2)“the enhanced cost of trying a death penalty case is at least $1.25 million more than trying a comparable murder case resulting in a sentence of life in prison without parole.” (3)C4: A reasonable alternative“In every state that retains the death penalty, jurors have the option of sentencing convicted capital murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole.The sentence is cheaper to tax-payers and keeps violent offenders off the streets for good. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of Life Without Parole also allows mistakes to be corrected.” (4)Overview:The Death Penalty is more expensive than the alternative. Innocent people have been and likely will be executed. The States involvement in the death penalty is contrary to the purpose of government and infringes on unalienable rights. Life in prison without parole is a reasonable, cost effective alternative to the death penalty that gives the desired result without the potential harm the Death Penalty does. Due to the inherent harm of the death penalty and reasonable alternatives, the Death penalty should be abolished. Sources(1) http://deathpenalty.org...;(2) https://www.forbes.com...(3) http://deathpenalty.org...(4)http://deathpenalty.org...
The Death Penalty should be abolished

"I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives." George Walker Bush. The death penalty should be preserved because it prevents future crimes, eliminating the death penalty would be counterproductive, and the death penalty benefits the economy. Now, to my first point, it deters would-be criminals to commit felonies. "The Washington Post" states, "Recent studies have confirmed what we learned decades ago: Capital punishment does, in fact, save lives." As well as, "Green Garage" states, "According to a study conducted" fewer crimes were committed with the increase in number of inmates on death row." Michael Summers, PhD, states, "Our recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year" In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders." The death penalty scares future criminals, reducing crime. Therefore, leading to society being a safer place to live, for not only adults but children as well. My second and final point, the death penalty benefits taxpayers and the economy. If the death penalty was eliminated, the next punishment would be life in prison. According to statistics provided by the office of California's Legislative Analyst, the current annual cost for maintaining an inmate in a state prison is greater than 47,000 dollars. With the death penalty, it would majorly benefit the taxpayers of American, in which wouldn"t have to pay the 47,000 dollars per year. "California's Legislative Analyst" continues with, a 34-year cost of housing, feeding, and keeping a prisoner secure would amount to over 1 million dollars. The death penalty is a better alternative to taxpayers than life in prison. Many people are trying to give these murderers a second chance, however what about the second chance of the victims? The people who were murdered did not get a second chance. So, it is for these reasons why I stand in negation. Thank you.
The Death Penalty should be abolished

Con's CaseCon made two contentions. The first was detterence. She says I dropped the arguement, though I did not. I pointed out that it was unsupported by evidence leaving it as an unsupported claim rather than an arguement. Further, I pointed out that con has not shown detterence to be different when applied to life in prison as the death penalty. Thus this contention is soundly negated. In her final round she claims that the death penalty keeps citizens from being "murdered, raped, etc." Again, no support for this claim is given and thus it has no weight. Second, con argued that the death penalty would save money. I have soundly reffuted this. Con does offer new arguements in the final round which is bad form but easily handled. She claims that the death penalty would help overcrowded prisons. While Prisons may be over crowded, con does nothing to show that the death penalty would impact this at all. This is important as most federal prisoners commit crimes that even qualify for a death penalty. Thus the change would be virtually nill. Further, it can easily be shown that overcrowding is the result of mandatory minimums for drug crimes etc. Surely, if my opponent were serious about this contention then there would be a debate about how to adress prison system issues. The Death penalty has no impact on this contention. Con claims again that life in prison leads to escapes but does not provide any reason for us to believe that. Again, a unsupported assertion rather than an arguement. My CaseAll four of my contentions stand. Life in prison is a reasonable alternative to the death penalty. It offers the same detterence at a cheaper price and avoids killing inoccent people as has been a impact of the death penalty. Finally, my primary contention was the right to life which underpins this whole debate. As con did not object to this right this contention by itself wins me this debate. OverviewAll four of my contentions stand. My opponents two contentions are mitigated or unsubstantiated. Thus, it is only reasonable to vote pro. Thanks for debating.