BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Universal Health Care

In the past 4 years the unemployment rate has increased more than 4%*, that means more than 25 million people lost their jobs, it wasn't their fault, that current government made decisions that were "supposed" to improve economy,but it result in the opposite: the economy fall. Now even some people who have stable jobs cant afford a medical treatment, cholesterol prescribed drugs average is about 80** dollars a month, the government has to respond for all those people. It shouldn't be guaranteed for people with high incomes, but its a necessity for the all the unemployed people. The doctors is an essential issue in the free health care. The Hippocratic oath*** is an oath they take,swearing to practice medicine ethically; in that concept ethically means with no distinction of class,sex or race. That doesn't mean they have to it freely or obligated. Theirs jobs are not going to be paid less, a economic principle is that the higher demand of the service, the higher it should be payed.
Universal Health Care

With your reference to free health care being in the amendments only guarentees that they cannot deny a person but we arent denying anyone of health care its just more expensive to get care without insurance. and with your assumption that we will lose workers is a fallacy because if someone cant pay health care then they most likley dont have a stable job and like i said we arent denying anyone of care but taxpayers face high taxes and so should everyone else. doctors would be higher in demand which leads to being paid less. free health care is not guarenteed and should not be. nothing is guarenteed in life except our freedom we work for all else.
Universal Health Care

The Free health is enforced by the amendments, and it is not free. Theres no such thing as free health care:because we all pay it, the million of dollars that the usa get by their taxes is all our money ready to be expended. The last years it had been used for soldiers and wars, reaching in its highest point nearly a third of the tax incomes. Using that same amount all america is cover. And it is enforced by the laws: the 14th amendment, the state cant deny anyone the liberty, property and the life. The people who cant afford a health care shouldn't be exclude from having one, they are still USA citizens, and if they are unhealthy it is worse; the state is loosing one potential employee. About the quality of doctors, isn't likely is going to decrease, only sick people goes to the doctor,if the health care covers more of course the will have to treat more. But a cold o a rash are easy to handle. Less than 5% of the workers would have something could risk their life.
Universal Health Care

1. Even in the constitution key words give away that the idea is for Americans to earn their right to happiness by effort. 2.If health care becomes free, that does not make the medicine and treatment for the sick free or cheap for that matter. Expenses will still be the same regardless if health care is free or not. We want to better the economy right? What would be the point of people in the health field to lose their jobs to provide free health care to citizens. 3. Quality of our doctors would decrease leading to likely mistakes throughout medical procedures. There are only so many doctors, and if more people seek care due to free services, doctors would become overwhelmed and quality of work would downgrade. 4. Every individual is responsible for themselves. It is our responsibility to pursue health care to keep healthy and happy, not the governments. The government has a lot more issues to deal with. We are responsible to find jobs, we pay our taxes, so we should be responsible for paying for health care. Health care isn't a right, its not guaranteed and it never has been, so why now?
"In My Pants" Joke Smackdown: Song names

We meet again for another "IN MY PANTS" debate. This one will be about song titles that sound funny with "In my pants". The rules are the same as before: One joke per round. I will now display my joke (I am saving at least two for the last rounds ;) Ready yourself). Smells Like Teen Spirit... IN MY PANTS NOTE: NO SONG TITLES THAT ARE ABOUT SEX, PORN, OR MASTURBATION
I will not lose this game of tic-tac-toe.

"I agree with all his moves but he in fact has lost" Oh, really? "cease to have -Wordnet.princeton.edu and he has cease to have won" I never actually did win the game at all, so I never could "cease" to have won. Cease - to cause to come to an end especially gradually (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I never ended my act of winning this game of tic-tac-toe, because I never had an act of winning this game of tic-tac-toe. Nice try at semantics, though.
I will not lose this game of tic-tac-toe.

. . . My opponent seems to be confused. I put my O in the center square, as shown: "X** *O* ***" He shows my O in the top square: "X0* *** x**" In any case, after my opponent's move, the board should be: X** *O* X** My move: X** OO* X** It is obvious how the rest of the game will play out: daboss: X** OOX X** mongeese: XO* OOX X** daboss: XO* OOX XX* mongeese: XO* OOX XXO daboss: XOO OOX XXO Cat's game. I don't lose, which affirms the resolution. Unless, of course, my opponent would like to disagree with any of the moves that I have predicted he will make?
Resolved: Voting should NOT be based on age

While I do take pity on you for not posting your argument, I have not yet posted mine. In consequence, I will take this time to present some of my ideas on the matter. They will be concise arguments, but I would like you to answer them in the next round of debate. 1. Are we really proposing to change our whole voting system? If there isn't a problem with something, there is no reason to propose a solution. In this debate, because you are pro, you hold the burden of proof and must prove that there is a problem with the current system that needs to be fixed. How do you plan to change the voting system? What will it be based on? You cannot simply say that you don't want it based on age, because then people could register their 5 years old children, or even their newborn children to vote! What alternatives are there to age? It is the best way to universally categorize "voters" and "non-voters." 2. In this debate, you must prove that this will cause less discrimination than the current system. As many of us know, voter ID laws are one of the things that politicians have used to keep the minorities of our country out of the voting booths. How will you propose a different way to decide who can vote without incidentally causing misrepresentation of a community? 3. Is this really how we should be spending our valuable time? As you may or may not know, this past year's (2013's) congress was one of the least productive ever. We are at a time in this nation where there is not nearly enough cooperation to get the work done that REALLY needs to get done. You will need to prove to me that the current voting system is such a problem that it needs to be addressed in a time in the US when we struggle to get anything done, much less change the very foundation on which our government lies. Keep these questions in mind. I await your arguments.
Resolved: Voting should NOT be based on age

I accept your challenge and will debate that voting should be based on age. Please clarify if your argument is as "themohawkninja " said in the comment section below. Right now I am under the impression that I will be debating against the use of literacy tests and political knowledge to decide who is allowed to vote. Pro will have to prove that there is a problem with the current system and that changing it as such will fix said problem. I look forward to this debate.
Abortion

Abortions are cruel. Just because that baby does not look human, does not mean its worthless. It is a human developing, and it cant help its mom was raped. Think about it, if your mom had been raped, and got an abortion, you may have never existed. I would not be debating this with you right now because you would have been killed as a fetus. The fetus that would be you has genes and DNA just like you and me. It would grow up to be a human like you and me. It would grow up to be you. But it is killed before birth. It is killed because its mom was raped, and did not think she should have been forced to have a baby. But the baby is forced to die. But society doesn't care. They say it is OK because it just looks like a blob of flesh and it doesn't have a fully developed brain yet.
Abortion

My opponent forfeited that round, so I will use my turn this round to debate one of the comments left on this page. The comment was by letters4liz. 1. "Abortions are 'sinful' to Christians. Like drinking is sinful to a lot of other religions. Should we make drinking illegal?" I never said abortions should be illegal because Christians thought it was sinful. Killing people is illegal, so abortions should be. I used religion as only a small part of my argument. 2. "There have been a reported 112 million incidents of drinking and driving in the US for one year.... So with this logic, alcohol should be illegal,...." The alcohol is not killing all of those people, the drunk driver is, and drunk driving IS illegal. That would be like me arguing that we should make injections illegal because they are used to give abortions. But that is not what I am arguing, so your argument is invalid. 3. "Plus, getting an abortion rids a woman of an undeveloped fetus. A blob, basically. At least they look like one." It does not matter that the baby may just be a blob at the time. It has the potential of being a human being, it will grow up to be a human. Its DNA is there. That baby would grow up, it would meet people, It might have friends, go to school, get a job. But people like you do not care just because it looks like a blob, and hasn't had a chance to develop its mind yet. And it is only just a blob in early abortions. You have to realize people have late abortions, when the baby has been further developed. 4. "Its also been proven that countries where abortion has been legalized, crime rates decrease." That does not mean it is OK to do it. Legalizing the killing of people with mental problems would decrease crime rates, so does that make it OK? No of course not. 5. "Plus there will be less kids in orphanages who have to go everyday of their lives not knowing what its like to have a family and to be loved." And so instead they will never know what it is like to be alive. We take their lives from them, and then say its fine because their life probably would have been sad anyway. Some of them would get adopted. And some would rather be without a family than not exist. It is not our right to destroy the life ahead of them.
Abortion

Your Pro-choice? How come that baby doesn't get a choice? How come it doesn't get a choice to have life? How come it doesn't get to choose if it would rather live without a family or not live at all? That baby couldn't help that it's mom was raped, just as much as it's mom couldn't help being a victim of rape. I know it is terrible that women are raped and have to have a child against their will, but in the end, that is better than killing a potential human being. Childbirth will be a "sharp reminder" that she was raped? Really? Should we kill everything else that reminds her of that terrible experience? I will briefly look at it from a religious standpoint (Christian). However I will keep it brief because my opponent has clearly stated he does not want this as a huge part of this debate. Abortion of any kind is sinful for many reasons. First, it is murder of a fetus, which is a developing human baby. Just because it can not feel pain does not mean it is not murder. Secondly, we are then essentially "playing God". We are choosing who will be born and who wont. We are keeping humans from entering this world at our own will. Okay, so my final argument for this round is this: if I killed a baby I would be a murderer and would pay legal consequences. What is the difference?
Abortion

I'm not "Pro-abortion" or "Pro-murder" as some of you call it. I am simply Pro-choice. I do not feel it is fair to have an abortion due to someones carelessness and ignorance. However, there are understandable and excusable reasons for a woman to have an abortion. It is never a happy choice for a woman to have to make but I believe it should be legal for the women who feel it is absolutely necessary. There are many unfair circumstances in which a woman could get pregnant. Rape, for instance. 89,000 is the average number of rape cases reported in the U.S. annually. So many women experience rape and it would be such a hard thing to go through if a woman had a child as a result of rape. Pro-lifers argue that the woman can give the baby up for adoption if she had gotten pregnant as a result of rape. So you're saying that if a woman were raped, she is forced to carry an unwanted child for 9 months and is forced to go through childbirth as a sharp reminder of the violence that was acted upon her? And once that baby is born, if she gives it up for adoption, that baby will grow up knowing its father was a rapist, not to mention that there are so many unwanted children up for adoption that no one will adopt. Those kids spend time in orphanages waiting for parents. Would it be fair to bring another depressed child into the world that may never have a family? Besides rape, what if the woman found out she could die due to giving birth? Should she have a baby she wouldn't be able to parent, nor meet in the first place? Each year in the U.S., about 700 women die of pregnancy- related complications and 52,000 experience emergencies such as acute renal failure, shock, respiratory distress, aneurysms and heart surgery. What if the baby will have a life affecting disorder that would cause the human to grow up with physical and emotional pain its whole life? It could be humane to have an abortion in those cases. Do you believe abortion is murder? According to Mark Rosen, an obstetrical anesthesiologist at the University of California, fetuses cannot feel pain until at least the 28th week of gestation because they haven't developed the necessary nerve pathways. Abortions are done before this point. Abortion isn't murder because until there is a mature nervous system, there's no conscious person, just a potential consciousness (a clump of cells). If you believe that a "soul" enters the embryo, then I understand why you would think it is murder, but I wouldn't base my argument off of religion if I were you. To rap this up, abortion should be available to women. There are so many factors such as birth complications and unfair circumstances that would make it extremely unfair, and a violation to her rights, to have that unwanted child.
Should we be taught about Shakespear

Shakespear should not be banned in schools as it teaches us about ENglish History, Our english culture and Shakespear even if it was a disguse made words up that today are in the english dictionary. English language was first coined by William Shakespeare which should be a good enough reason in itself. I think it's really important, we should be learning about anything that is so well known in the world, especially Shakespeare. I have found that all the analysing texts in English at my school are incredibly easy and the symbolism etc. is extremely obvious. Shakespeare is so much deeper, and to understand it you really have to get into the characters and think about every little thing, which is fantastic. And in Drama, Shakespeare in drama, I it is really fun, you know the character's motivations but it discovering your character doesn't just stop there, there is so much more and so many thoughts and desires and feelings that are shown. It would be so interesting to play. Apart from the educational things I think Shakespeare teaches us life lessons and helps us all learn the history, culture and everything about Shakespeare and our English past.
Straight marriage should be legal.

I'm sorry you were confused. I did not appreciate, though, that you said " Do Not put words into my mouth", and then went ahead and put words into MY mouth. I apologize I put words into your mouth. I'm not mad at you but you seem to be mad at me for some reason. Yes, once again, I do know that a man and women are supposed to be together. I just wanted to debate some one and have then say that it shouldn't be legal. I don't care if they REALLY believe that. But for some reason you seem very upset. I don't know why.
Straight marriage should be legal.

Con obviously didn't read the title to this debate. Con went off on another subject about homosexuals. Con believes that it think this is actually going on. It's not. I just wanted someone to debate to try to prove why straight marriage should not be legal. Con should have read the comment section where I clearly state "this is not a current event". And lastly con should not have accepted this debate simply to tell me that it's ok to be homosexual and to tell me that straight marriage is legal. (Of which I did know.) I now have no information to rebuttal. Thanks a lot apple7.
Straight marriage should be legal.

" (1) it is natural for a man and woman to be together. From the beginning of civilization they have been wanting to be mutually connected or, in today's terms, married. 2. Deducting from genitalia and genitalia functions, one can see how a man and woman should be together as well. One would one be eliminating the obvious normal connection otherwise. And if it was illegal and looked down upon by society in the future, where would children come from? A man and woman would feel shamed for having intercourse and possibly a baby. So, in conclusion, I believe straight marriage should be legal." -I do agree with you that "it is natural for a man and woman to be together," but let's face it, as the society progress, the naturalness of a man and a women to be together started to fade. Man wanted to be with another man. Woman wanted to be with another woman and no one can judge or discriminate that individual in any way. That is his or her rights to make the decision. And the children (where would they come from) issue? If a man and a woman wanted to be together, then fine, go ahead but don't take away the right of others from making their decision, which is to be with their same-sex (male with male and woman with woman). "So, in conclusion, I believe straight marriage should be legal." -Wait, what???? Who said that straight marriages were illegal? Did the "San Francisco Bans Straight Marriage" incident on Sep 11, 2014 made you believe that people hated heterosexual marriage and declare it "illegal"? Oh come man, I see where you're going with this. Let's get this straight, heterosexual couples need to leave homosexual couples alone. I mean, alone. "The City of San Francisco banned straight marriage today on the grounds that heterosexual behavior is unnatural and a threat to same-sex relationships." - (San Francisco Bans Straight Marriage) -If heterosexual couples (the majority) didn't threaten the homosexual couples (the minority) then nothing would happen. Paradoxically, why would you even debate about this topic because you are in the majority groups, which is the heterosexual? If you debate against homosexual couples then I would like to know why?
Straight marriage should be legal.

Definition of straight marriage in this sense: the legal unity between a man and a woman. Excuse spelling please as I just broke my dominant arm, and am typing rather slowly. On to the debate. (Religion is not included in the debate) I believe straight marriage should be legal because (1) it is natural for a man and woman to be together. From the beginning of civilization they have been wanting to be mutually connected or, in today's terms, married. 2. Deducting from genitalia and genitalia functions, one can see how a man and woman should be together as well. One would one be eliminating the obvious normal connection otherwise. And if it was illegal and looked down upon by society in the future, where would children come from? A man and woman would feel shamed for having intercourse and possibly a baby. So, in conclusion, I believe straight marriage should be legal.
Justin Bieber should be in jail for all the crimes he has committed.

I already gave reasons. 1. Tax-payer money would be spent to house yet another prisoner2. His fans would dislike that their idol is in jail3. He would get violated in jail by older and bigger menPeople are put in jail to be locked from society and given a chance to reabilitate themselves. He has already been told that what he is doing is wrong, by his supervisors, and doesn't need to be put in jail for that. Also, in case you didn't realize, most celebrities are above the law, so he won't be going anywhere for his 'crimes' anyway. Why waste some more time and money housing a prisoner who is just a confused and lost young man. Also, most teenagers caught with drugs are just sent home, not jailed, so his drug offence is not a serious enough one.
Justin Bieber should be in jail for all the crimes he has committed.

Please excuse me con for going off topic but the link that you have provided to support your argument gave me a 404 error when I tried to access it so I'm considering your last fact to be incorrect.maybe because of the 750 character limit. Now let's get back on topic. Most if not some teenagers have been jailed for doing the actions that Justin Bieber has done. He has been taught in school and by his managers to not be exposed to illegal activities like drag racing and possessing illegal drugs. As for con saying that his crimes are minor, possessing drugs is a criminal offence which isn't considered as minor as it is violating state and federal law. Also I do not see why Justin Bieber doesn't deserve to be punished because of his mistakes.
Justin Bieber should be in jail for all the crimes he has committed.

No doubt, Justin Bieber has done some illegal actions. However, many teenagers have. The reason people care is because he is a well known person.Not every teenage-lawbreaker goes to jail.People are going to break the law, but we can't go about jailing everybody for it. Of course, he has done some crimes, but these are minor crimes. If anything, he would be put in a state level or federal prison for them. This is yet another inmate to pay for, and inmates are not cheap to keep in jail. [1] He would cost upwards of 15,000 dollars per annum, money that taxpayers would have to pay! In addition, he would be "violated" in prison. He does not deserve punishment like that, and money wasted on him. [1] http://www.bop.gov...;
Justin Bieber should be in jail for all the crimes he has committed.

Alright let's begin. As everyone knows Justin Bieber has done terrible things in the past for example drag racing illegally, possessing illegal drugs, etc. If he were a regular person then he would be put into jail for 10 years and more just for possessing illegal drugs. He also was drag racing under the influence of drugs and was driving while his license expired. He should also be accused of sexual assault due to groping one of his fan's breasts.
In-N- Out vs. Five Guys

What does the competition have to offer? A basket of salty, dry peanuts to fill your mouth with the grimy dirt of an Arizona desert? No way Jose. At In-N-Out, there is noting but the quality of shakes to delight your endless hunger. Check out it's motivating surroundings and happy environment. Cars and old novelties decorate the walls stimulating your boredom while your food is cooking.
In-N- Out vs. Five Guys

The establishment of Five Guys has been providing bombastic flavor to many mouths for quite a while now, and they are experts at it. When you order a burger from these joints, you can expect a juicy beast of meat to be consumed in front of you. The cheese melts elegantly, the buns are soft and buttery, and the flavor packs a serious punch. Even their fries are heavenly. Cajun or not, the flaky warmth of crispy potatoes soothing your mouth is nothing to scoff at.